Transcript lorc.ryukoku.ac.jp

Possibilities for Social
Transformation: As seen from the
Activities of LORC Group 4
Fumihiko Saito
Leader of Group 4, LORC
Background and Aims of Group 4‘s Activities:
Participation

The 1980s saw a significant shift from the topdown economic growth to the bottom-up human
development
- Emphasis on participation.

Participatory development became a kind of
“fashion” (and was often abused).

But the importance of participation and social
transformation came to be firmly recognized.

However, it is not easy to sustain participation
- “participation fatigue” to set in.
2
Background and Aims of Group 4‘s Activities:
Decentralization

Since the 1990s, after the end of Cold War, a
world-wide trend toward democratization.

Administration reforms to facilitate participation.

Since the 1980s, through Structural Adjustment
Lending, aid policy by international donor
agencies has emphasized “small state”.

Decentralization policy was initially considered
“good in itself” and pursued uncritically by
donors.

Decentralization has been reconsidered and
reevaluated empirically in recent years.
3
Research by Group 4

Asia: Indonesia, Kerala (India), Sri Lanka

Africa: Uganda, Ghana, South Africa

Comparative study with the actor perspective: To
focus on actors and examine the dynamic
relationships between different stakeholders.
4
Foundations for Local Governance: Decentralization in
Comparative Perspective（Springer, 2008）
5
Successful Example: Kerala, India

Social movements were led by civic leaders
before the establishment of legal framework.
One movement led to another.


The background of high standard of education.
Public Administration also sought
cooperation with the leaders of social
movements.

Establishment of partnerships became the
must before the Constitution amended in 1993.
6
Uganda

In 1986, the current regime took power.

There was a institutional vacuum.

A new broom theory.

The system of local council is firmly established. People recognize
the role of village council.

However, the possibilities of transformation in localities may be
declining due to the political change at the national level.


Long-term dictatorship of the government.

Reduction of foreign aid, due to the decline of confidence by the
international community.
Decentralization came to be a tool of the government, and not
intended for the good of society.
7
Conclusions of Foundations for Local Governance:
Decentralization in Comparative Perspective

Decentralization is a redefinition of center and local relations,
and a reconsidering of the roles of state, government, and
administration in the process of “social transformation”.

It does not mean that the smaller state is the better state.

Decentralization is in principle a political issue, and the
success of one country cannot be simply
transplanted/imported into another country.

Where does the motivation for decentralization come from?


“Reforms” led by donors (outsider) is not successful.
What is decentralization for?

Is it for the central interests? Or for localities?
8
Three Sectors Discourse
Government
Public Sector
Reform
NPM
Market
Civil Society
Privatization,
Expansion of
Market
Empowerment of the Poor
9
Necessity of Overall Coordination for Local
Transformation

So far, reform and aid have been practiced separately
in the following three sectors, without coordination.

Decentralization for the public administration.

Privatization and opening of markets.

Grass-roots empowerment for citizens.

Locality is now expected to coordinate these three.

Decentralization is not an end in itself. The ultimate
objective is to build a sustainable society in a society
at large.
10
Limits of Three Sector Approach


Developmental Dictatorship in Asia

The government is dominant, and private sector
(markets) is dependent. Civil society is deactivated.

The appropriate relationship between the three sectors
cannot be maintained, and society as a whole is difficult
to be sustained.

This form of government played a certain role in history
but cannot be legitimate in the contemporary world.
Neo-Patrimonial State in Africa

Exploitation by the leader for his/her personal profit, and
ruler-subordinate relation connected primarily by “rent”.

The three sector approach itself is “modern” and does
not fit for Africa.
11
Developmental Dictatorship in Asia

The government is dominating. The markets are dependent, and
the civil society is curtailed by the govt.
Govm’t
The state
determines the
scope of civil
society
Crony Capitalism?
Markets
Civil Society
There are unresolved issues such as the
relations between decentralization and local
economic development
12
Simplified Situation in Africa
Government
Market
The “private” and
the “civic” not
differentiated.
No “private” entrepreneurs even if
privatized, and market is dominated
by multi-national corporations based
in Europe.
The state
defines the
scope of civil
society.
Paradox of Civil
Society
Shift of the Forms: From the oligopoly by
African government to the oligopoly by
foreign multi-national corporations.
Paradox：The government is “significantly authoritarian” and this is
another side of its being “malfunctioning”. The government yet is “the
most modern organization”.
Civil Society
Modern aspects: More
dependence on the aid by
overseas NGO etc. Traditional
aspects: clan etc are active.
13
Implication from Asia and Africa

Developmental Dictatorship in Asia: Similar to
the old paradigm in Japan, which needs to be
changed.

The current situation in Africa depicts
difficulties of cross-sectoral partnerships.

The patron-client relations through rent is a
perverted social capital.

Both Asia and Africa display the need for
change.
14
Implication of the Conclusion

Vision for local transformation must be
figured out.

A structure within which this vision is shared
by stakeholders must be constructed.

Motivation for transformation must be
sustained.

Those involved in transformation processes
must not become those who has “vested
interests” in the transformation itself.

Bebbington and McCourt 2007
15
Overall Conclusion

It is essential to see government, markets and
civil society not individually but in crosscutting ways.

For partnerships/collaborations to work

Both visions and supporting frameworks are
needed

A need to redefine “public interests” from a
much broader cross-cutting perspective.

Japan, like other countries, is now facing a
historic turning point in creating new form(s)
of governance.

Usefulness of comparative discussions.
16