Decentralisation and Popular Participation in Bolivia : The link between local governance and local development

Decentralisation the transfer of functions, responsibilities and financial resources to lower levels of government - has become a quite common element of public policy in developing countries. Decentralisation is expected to have a positive effect on the development process by reducing the inefficiency associated with centralism, making local government more responsive, increasing intra-regional equity and promoting greater local participation. It has also been presented as a crucial element in achieving good local governance, which refers to the process through which public decision-making is defined, incorporating both local government, civil society and the private sector. In order to be good, governance should comply with four conditions: it should be participatory, transparent, accountable and contribute to equity. This study discusses the impact of decentralisation policy on local governance and local development, and the factors that condition this impact, in six rural municipalities in the department of Chuquisaca, Bolivia. The Bolivian decentralisation policy, which was launched in 1994, was embraced particularly at the international level as a model that complied with all the conditions to achieve both good local governance and local development. Main component of the policy is the Law on Popular Participation, which aims primarily at the transfer of responsibilities and funds from the central to the local level. The three main elements of this law are (1) the creation of 311 urban-rural municipalities that are assigned a number of responsibilities and that receive funds from the central government, (2) the introduction of participatory planning and (3) the establishment of a Vigilance Committee of representatives of the population that should secure the fair implementation of the Law on Popular Participation. Decentralisation in Bolivia contributed positively to local governance. This conclusion applies in particular to participation, certainly compared to the situation prior to 1994, when the rural population was not involved in local decision-making. With respect to accountable and transparent local governance, the impact of decentralisation policy is somewhat disappointing however, since the Vigilance Committees are not able to control local affairs, due to a lack of cooperation of local government. Also, decentralisation appears to have differentiated impact with respect to equity, with urban populations and well accessible peasant communities being much more informed and able to participate. With respect to local development, decentralisation has resulted in an increase of the development opportunities, by increasing the investment capacity of local governments, compared to the situation prior to 1994. The local development actions concern particularly the improvement of the economic and social infrastructure, with an emphasis on the social sector. There appears to be no equal access to development opportunities, particularly between well and less accessible communities. This differentiated impact is explained by the institutional context, particularly the presence of non-governmental organisations