Decentralization,participation,devolution and infrastructure development in rural areas: A case study of district Bhakkar,Pakistan

Abstract

This article highlights the role of decentralization and participation in democratic countries. Decentralization is a significant political process that enhances society’s enjoyment of the fruits of democracy and helps in developing basic infrastructure, and many regions accept these concepts. Statistical techniques were employed through SPSS on data collected yearly between 2001 and 2005 to draw the outcomes. The findings showed a significant and positive impact of decentralization and participation on rural and urban communities and infrastructure development. This study has great importance for the policy making of district, provincial and central governments.

Keywords

decentralization development infrastructure participation

Introduction

Local government is the lowest tier of administration within a state. The institutions of local government perform their functions within the powers assigned to them through the higher level of government through legislation. Improving governance and institutions at the grassroots level is essential for true democracy, which is also vital for development at the grassroots level. The needs of the masses can only be met through local government institutions by their local elected members (Acharya, 2018). Theoretically, development through local institutions and local representatives at the grassroots level is a more responsive system for betterment of the rural population (Santiso, 2000).

Local governments were believed to be more effective in encouraging local participation and empowerment, democracy and efficacy. Decentralization of authorities at the lowest level institutions seems to be one exemplary of development in developing states (Manyi, 2007). De Tocqueville says that the original strength of a free nation is founded in the local assemblies of the public – a system of free government – but the original spirit of independence cannot be founded without establishing municipal institutions (Saddique, 2001).

Pakistan, situated in South Asia, covers an area of 796,095 km² and its population is more than 210 million (Kharl et al., 2018). It is a federal state where power is distributed among federal and provincial governments. It has a parliamentary form of government, where the Prime Minister is the head of government and the President is the head of state. A rudimentary local government system did exist in the rural areas of the country before the advent of British rule in the subcontinent. This system was called village panchayats. These represented the upper classes and castes of the village, and performed judicial, administrative and at times developmental roles (Metcalfe, 1919). The British introduced local governments at the grassroots level after the seizure of Sindh in 1843 and of Punjab in 1849 (Venkatarangaiya and Pattabhiram, 1969). After 1857, District Committees were designed by the District Magistrate from among their ‘mulaqatis’ and other respectable people. The official impact was virtually over-powering (Tinker, 1968). An exciting feature of the grassroots-level political arrangements shaped by the British was their dependence on co-opting and establishing the local elite at the grassroots level (Van den Dungen, 1972).

District Bhakkar, a south-western district of Punjab, Pakistan, like other rural areas of the country, is suffering from poverty menaces whereby the majority of rural communities have minimal basic facilities and a less developed infrastructure. This dismal condition led to the local government institutions, which are considered as social institutions, running a comprehensive program to improve the lives of rural people.

The local government with its unique features of decentralization, participation and devolution is a model for providing basic facilities and developing infrastructure at the local level. It promoted the idea that local government institutions are active agents and play a vital role in rural development, especially after 2001 when once again a Devolution Plan was introduced in Pakistan. The first devolution reforms were introduced by the military general who ruled the country throughout the late 1950s and 1960s, and his plan was termed the Basic Democracies (BD) system. This was followed by the Local Government reforms introduced by another military dictator, Gen. Zia ul Haq (1979–1985). This study aims to understand the significant impact of decentralization, participation and devolution on the development of infrastructure in the rural parts of the country, with the emphasis on District Bhakkar.

Literature review

In the current global scenario, most of the governments of developing countries have devolved power to grassroots-level institutions, to enhance development at the grassroots level. In reality, in many cases, such devolution has been insufficient to achieve this goal. It is necessary that people in developing countries are empowered to control the country’s resources and are provided the opportunity to participate in decision-making processes at the local level. Without the participation and empowerment of the rural people in the developmental process, development efforts will not prove positive or fruitful (Manyi, 2007).

In democratic countries, local institutions are strong and are given more freedom to participate in the progressive affairs of local development according to the will and needs of the local people. This enhances trust and enables the people to take an interest in government matters and in the development of the nation. Thus quality decision making makes the local government popular in the eyes of the people (Muttlib and Khan, 1983).

After attainment of independence from their colonizers, most states have planned and implemented multi-sectorial policies aimed at improving conditions relevant to their multiethnic societies. Usually these policies were based on Five-Year Development Plans to achieve targets in different sectors of the economy. Most often these Development Plans are planned and implemented for providing basic services in rural communities, such as schools, health centers, a good water supply and better road networks, in order to create a balance in development between urban and rural areas (Potter et al., 2004).

Decentralization

Decentralization has different meanings to different people depending on the context in which the term is being used. The meaning also varies by specific type of decentralization (Work, 2002). In decentralization, the central government devolves some powers to the institutions of lower levels in the political administrative and national hierarchy (Mawhood, 1983).

The idea of local government, primarily, is to make a system for solving administrative problems at the local level. Historically, the central governments took decisions, designed policies and implemented them without consulting local people (those affected by the implementation of these policies; a top-down approach). These policies usually failed, mainly due to the absence of basic freedom of choice for local people. Governments and international donors both seek alternative institutions for providing human services and encouraging development in rural areas (Potter et al., 2004).

Participation

Participation is a basic element of local government; it concerns the basic requirements of every participant and develops the relationship between the state and citizens. The phrase ‘local government’ indicates an institutional structure in which authority is exercised and governmental functions are performed at the local level by enhancing local participation (Texier, 2006).

The local government level is smaller than the national government level; it has limited jurisdiction and a smaller geographical area, and performs functions at the local level. Some people call it a decentralized governmental management that is administered by local people in a democratic manner. These local government institutions are constructed by elected members who shape the administration and manage the local-level affairs of a specific locality (CIDA, 2007). These elected members/representatives make and adopt strategies and plans for providing services to the people of their locality and to meet their locality’s requirements. These local representatives also supervise developmental projects based on local interests (Chandler, 2007; Davitkovski and Daneva, 2009).

Devolution

Decentralization is an umbrella term in which devolution is the submission of powers from central government to local authorities or to institutions which are based on local political representation. In other words, it can also be called political decentralization, meaning that the institutions to which this power is devolved are governed by locally elected people (Eriksen et al., 1999; Harriss, Stokke, Törnquist, 2004; Mukete, 2004).

The role of local governments in multi-sector (socio-economic) development

Burkey (1993) argued that development should be considered as occurring at certain levels, including human, political, social and economic. The economic and political dimensions are also seen as the supporting pillars of social development (Burkey, 1993). Local Government Institutions (LGIs) – both urban and rural– contribute to the prosperity of a country. Using the example of northern African countries during the 1980s, Olowu (1986) notes that their contributions are reckoned in the providing of basic social and economic infrastructures that facilitate for other developmental activities. These councils are filled through multiparty polls, and are responsible for a wide range of services both of economic and social types, like housing, health, education, social welfare, water supply, sewage, waste collection and sometimes electricity.

Panganiban (1996) is also of the view that local governments have the right to get involved in local economic development, as key factors of development in a community can be controlled by virtue of the local government’s broadly defined policy making, administrative and regulatory process over a large spectrum of activities.

Friday (1999) has mentioned that in Central America and the Caribbean countries, the LGIs were seen as an innovator in national reconstruction, future disaster alleviation and economic and social development by ensuring greater participation of all sections of society. This is based on the affirmation that local governments have specific potential comparative advantages in planning for and recovering from adversities based on these reasons:

Local representatives are liable to better understand local situations, and local governments, especially mayors/nazims, if provided with sufficient resources and authority can provide critical leadership regarding decisions on resource distribution. Their day to day understanding of local resources, local needs and other public factors provide them with more vision and capacity for making comprehensive and timely judgments than central governments. Citizens look to their elected representatives for instant responses to their problems. In many fields, local governments implement certain development programs better than national governments because of their physical closeness to the community (Bidus, 1995).

Local governments have the capacity to deliver services more competently and economically than central governments. Mentioning the example of El Salvador, Jager (1997) pointed out the fact that many community works were executed by municipal governments at costs from ‘one-third to two-thirds lower than when the same types of works were performed by central government agencies. The reasons for this are; greater control over work staffs, nearer supervision, shorter travel spaces to work sites, and greater accountability and inspection by elected and appointed local officials’ (Jager [1997], p.14).

The state power is expressed in the form of a strong local government system, which is a prerequisite for viable local development and for upholding good governance in meaningful decentralization. For establishing good governance and for recognizing the objectives of viable development, a new paradigm of participatory local governance is imperative, as aimed at in the Caribbean Conference on Local Government in 2002. Finer (1950) explains that local authorities supervise and control the local community; they also provide primary services of health, education, welfare, roads, peace and security of environment for all citizens. The scope and detail of their work are remarkable as, they are nourished by civic energies.

Having financial autonomy, the local government prepares budgets and raises finances through taxes from its area to meet the necessary requirements of government, complete local development plans and deliver local services. It satisfies local tax payers by providing them with better social services and contributes to national development (Nigam, 1982).

Promoting economic progress is a universal concern – manifested in political dialogues, policy measures, media coverage and everyday discussions. It will therefore come as little surprise that economic development is a priority for all levels of government (Pugalis and Tan, 2017) in every country, including Pakistan. Pugalis and Tan (2017) claimed that since the 1970s and 1980s there has been an ongoing change from more traditional top-down development policies to a more bottom-up approach as a result of new and evolving business practices, technological developments and cultural shifts connected with intensified patterns of globalization. They further opined that these changes are creating new openings for local councils to engage more tactically in economic development. Even so, the significance of broad trends towards more bottom-up, collaborative forms of local and regional economic development should not be exaggerated (Pugalis and Tan, 2017).

The major argument in this study is that decentralization, participation and devolution play a fundamental role in rural socio-economic development. Empowering rural people offers them the opportunity of self-realization in society, and at the same time institutionalizes their cultures which have much importance in development efforts.

Methods and materials

Logical positivism was employed by the researcher. Behavioralism was utilized to help understand this social phenomenon. Independent variables Decentralization; Devolution and Participation were derived from the literature review to test their relationship with the infrastructure development of the rural areas of Pakistan, especially the far-flung areas of the Punjab, such as Bhakkar District. The variables were operationalized through a 5-point Likert scale starting from strongly disagree to strongly agree. The data was collected through a structured questionnaire.

Population and sample

Nichols (2000) claims that in any research that seeks in-depth understanding of a particular problem, a sample size in the range of 30 to 50 is normally enough for a small-scale study and 50 to 100 for a large-scale study. However, for this study 120 questionnaires were administered and the population of the study are all rural villages of District Bhakkar, including representatives from local institutions and local people. A wide range of sources of data increases the credibility and validity of the research findings (Pratt and Loizos, 1992).

District Bhakkar consists of 42 union councils, out of which seven union councils are urban and 35 are rural (see Table 1). There were one municipal committee and three town committees in District Bhakkar before the implementation of local government in 2001 (see Table 2). Out of 35 rural union councils, 10 union councils were selected through random sampling. From each union council two villages were selected, and from each village three respondents from the general public were selected. The number of selected villages was 20 (out of a total of 580), and the number of respondents was 60. Four respondents from local representatives (ex-union nazim/naibnazim/councillors) from each union council and 20 officers/officials from all over the district were also added to the sample. Thus the sample size is 120; these all are the stakeholders in local government institutions. The stratified random sampling technique was used to select respondents that were representative of the selected population.

Data analysis tools

A computer-based software SPSS (statistical package of social sciences) was used for data analysis; t-Test and ANOVA (F-Test) were used for analyzing the data. Percentage and mean are also used as data analysis tools.

Findings of the study and discussion

Here we first present the official records and findings, and then describe the analyses on the basis of responses.

Testing of hypotheses

Correlation among variables

The correlation between variables is given in Table 3. This shows that the predictors are highly associated with the criterion variables.

Table 1.

Total number of union councils in Bhakkar District after 2001.

Sr. no.	Name of Tehsil	Number of union councils
1.	Bhakkar	17
2.	KallurKot	7
3.	Mankera	10
4.	Darya Khan	8
5.	Total	42

Source: Office of the Assistant Director Local Government, Bhakkar.

Table 2.

Total Local Government Institutions prior to 2001.

Sr. no.	Name of Local Government Institution/s	Number of Institution/s
1.	Municipal Committee	1
2.	Town Committee	5
3.	Zila Council	1
4.	Union Council	34
5.	Total	41

Source: Office of the Assistant Director Local Government, Bhakkar.

Table 3.

Correlations between variables.

		Decentralization	Participation	Devolution
Decentralization	R	1
	Sig. (2-tailed) P
	N	120
Participation	R	0.596**	1
	Sig. (2-tailed) P	0.000
	N	120	120
Devolution	R	0.553**	0.593**	1
	Sig. (2-tailed) P	0.000	0.000
	N	120	120	120
Infrastructure	R	0.563**	0.530**	0.786**
	Sig. (2-tailed) P	0.000	0.000	0.000
	N	120	120	120

**Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

*Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).

Table 4.

Model summary of regression.

Model summary
Model	R	R Square	Adjusted R Square	Std. Error of the estimate
1	0.563^a	0.316	0.311	0.48636
2	0.613^b	0.375	0.365	0.46690
3	0.801^c	0.641	0.632	0.35543

^a Predictors: (Constant), Decentralization.

^b Decentralization, Participation.

^c Decentralization, Participation, Devolution.

Table 5.

Coefficients of regression.

Coefficients^a
Model		Unstandardized coefficients		Standardized coefficients	T	Sig.
Model		B	Std. Error	Beta	T	Sig.
1	(Constant)	0.891	0.150		5.959	0.000
1	Decentralization	0.603	0.082	0.563	7.391	0.000
2	(Constant)	0.497	0.186		2.667	0.009
	Decentralization	0.410	0.098	0.383	4.206	0.000
	Participation	0.390	0.117	0.302	3.322	0.001
3	(Constant)	0.280	0.144		1.947	0.054
	Decentralization	0.187	0.078	0.174	2.389	0.019
	Participation	0.035	0.097	0.027	0.365	0.716
	Devolution	0.581	0.063	0.673	9.268	0.000

^a Dependent variable: Infrastructure.

Table 6.

Development schemes of the education department during the study period.

Sr. no.	Year	No. of schemes	Budget (in million PKR)
1.	2001–2002	139	31.719
2.	2002–2003	25	10.360
3.	2003–2004	56	26.57
4.	2004–2005	59	19.320
5.	2005–2006	54	52.533

Source: Calculated and computed from the District Development Planning Office record.

Table 7.

Total schools and colleges upgraded/approved from 2001 to 2005.

Sr. no.	Gender	M/M/primary	Middle	High	H/S/S	College
1.	Female	4	2	–	–	3
2.	Male	20	–	–	–	2
3.	Total	24	2			5

Source: EDO (Education), Bhakkar office record.

Regression on infrastructure

Regression analysis is about the cause and effect relationship between the criterion and the predictors.

Table 8.

Development schemes of the health department during the study period.

Sr. no.	Year	No. of schemes	Budget (in million PKR)
1.	2003–2004	12	13.801
2.	2004–2005	02	1.937
3.	2005–2006	03	2.06

Source: Calculated and computed from the District Development Planning Officer, Bhakkar office record.

Table 9.

Development schemes of Tehsil Municipal Administration (Bhakkar) during the study period.

Year	Budgetused (in million PKR)	Sewerage	Drains/soling	Roads	Water schemes	Street lights	Others	General	Total
2001–2002	27,100	1	36	1	0	2	20	0	107
2002–2003	19,498	8	67	4	0	1	0	0	80
2003–2004	45,853	5	125	9	0	1	0	0	140
2004–2005	14,925	1	78	5	0	2	0	1	87
2005–2006	38,639	17	103	0	2	5	26	12	168

Source: Calculated and computed from the Tehsil Municipal Administration office record.

The findings of the research

The findings of the research are of two types – qualitative and quantitative. The findings from the qualitative analysis included the list of variables (independent and dependent) and the relationship between the variables. The quantitative findings start from hypotheses from the theoretical model developed from the literature review, and research developed number of hypotheses that were then tested with the help of primary/field data. Correlation analysis was piloted to calculate the association (relationship) between the predictors and the criterions. The statistical results of correlation are as follows:

The correlation between the Decentralization (independent) and Infrastructure (dependent) variables is: r = 0.56 with p value = 0.000.

The correlation between the Decentralization (independent) and Social Sector (dependent) variables is: r = 0.58 with p value = 0.000.

The correlation between the Decentralization (independent) and Agriculture (dependent) variables is: r = 0.47 with p value = 0.000.

Similarly, the sub variables of Decentralization also give high levels of correlation with the dependent variables.

The second hypothesis was about regression analysis, i.e. the cause and effect relationship between the predictors and the criterions. The results show that:

In Table 4, there is an R² of 0.316 in model 1, meaning that 31% of development in infrastructure (dependent variable) is due to decentralization (independent variable). There is an R² of 0.375 in model 2, meaning that 37% of development in infrastructure is due to decentralization and participation. There is an R² of 0.641 in model 3, meaning that 64% of development in infrastructure is due to decentralization, participation and devolution. Coefficients of regression in Table 5 also illustrates that association among the variables is significant and positive.

Conclusion and recommendations

Decentralization or devolution is a significant political process that promises to increase any society’s enjoyment of democracy and development. The world is feeling the need for political stability through the transmission of formal state power, authority and resources to elected local officials/representatives. An effective local government is one that can deliver more approachable, quick and desired municipal services to localities and can prove itself more responsible for actions performed for localities than the national-level government.

From the findings, and from the perceptions of the various factors involved, it can be said that the LGIs have recorded some achievements within the period under study. This reveals that the practice of decentralization is actually in place because the local people participate in the identification of developmental plans, indicating that they take part in decision making even if in a limited way. The projects that have been carried out so far are in response to the needs of the people, such as the construction of roads, culverts, water courses, sewerage, sanitation, soling, street lights, the renovation of health centers, and so on (see Table 6, Table 7, Table 8 and Table 9). The LGIs worked well in completion of these needs, but the needs were not responded to in a satisfactory way so, in spite of the participation of the local people, many people’s opinion is that the state still keeps its dominant position in decision making through its supervisory agents, indicating the supremacy of the state over the LGIs. The claim that power has been devolved to the grassroots is questionable; theoretically it has, but the practical implementation is different.

Footnotes

Declaration of conflicting interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iDs

Mumtaz Hussain

Muhammad Ismail

References

Acharya

(2018) Local governance restructuring in Nepal: From government to governmentality. Dhaulagiri Journal of Sociology and Anthropology 12: 37–49.

Bidus

(1995) A review of decentralization and municipal development initiatives and their effect on democratization in Central America. USAID/CAP/RHUDO, International City/County Management Association, Washington, DC.

Burkey

(1993) People First: A Guide to Self-reliant Participatory Rural Development. London: Zed Books.

Chandler

(2007) Explaining Local Governments: Local Government since 1832. Manchester: Manchester University Press.

CIDA (2007) Village level awareness campaign on devolution and local government system. Kasur and Lodhran. Canadian International Development Agency. Development Support Project (June 2006 – January 2007).

Davitkovski

Daneva

(2009) Organizational concepts of public services in the Republic of Macedonia. Lex Localis Journal of Local Self-Government 7(2): 129–140.

Eriksen

Jon

Arild

(1999) Decentralization from Above: A Study of Local Government in Botswana, Ghana, Tanzania and Zimbabwe. Oslo: Nordberg A.S.

Finer

(1950) English Local Governments. London: Oxford University Press.

Friday BE (1999) Rebuilding shelter after natural disasters: Three decades of USAID experience in Latin America and the Caribbean. PADCO. Prepared for the United States Agency for International Development.

10.

Harris

Stokke

Törnquist

Olle

. (eds) (2004) Politicizing Democracy: Local Politics and Democratization in Developing Countries. London: Palgrave Macmillan.

11.

Jager

(1997) Decentralization Status in Central America: Policy suggestions. A Report to USAID/RUD/CA, Guatemala.

12.

Kharl

Abbass

Oghai

(2018)Governance decentralization in Pakistan: An analysis of district council and its power. International Journal of Latest Research in Humanities and Social Science (IJLRHSS) 1(5): 56–60.

13.

Manyi

(2007) Local governments and rural development: A case study of Buea in Cameroon. Centre for Development and the Environment University of Oslo Blindern, Norway.

14.

Mawhood

(ed.) (1983) Local Government in Third World: The Experience of Decentralization in Tropical Africa. 2nd edn. Johannesburg: African Institute of South Africa.

15.

Metcalfe

(1962) The British and the Money-lender in Nineteenth Century India. The Journal of Modern History 34(4): 390–397.

16.

Mukete

(2004) Decentralization and good local governance. The Good Governance Observer: A Publication of the Global Network for Good Governance (GNGG). Registration no. 152/L/E/32/084/2000 January–February 2004, no. 003.

17.

Muttlib

Khan

(1983) Theory of Local Government. New Delhi: Sterling Publishers Private Limited.

18.

Nichols

(2000) Social Survey Methods: A Guide for Development Workers. Oxford: Oxfam.

19.

Nigam

(1982) Local Governments (England, France, USA, USSR & India). New Delhi: S. Chand & Company Ltd.

20.

Olowu

(1986) A decade of local government reform in Nigeria, 1976–86. International Review of Administrative Sciences 52–53: 287–299.

21.

Panganiban

(1996) Regional Development and Habitat II. NY: United Nations Centre for Regional Development.

22.

Potter

Binns

Elliott

Smith

(2004) Geographies of Development. London: Harlow, Longman.

23.

Pratt

Loizos

(1992) Choosing Research Methods: Data Collection for Development Workers. Oxford: Oxfam.

24.

Pugalis

Tan

(2017) The Role of Local Government in Local and Regional Economic Development. Sydney: University of Technology Sydney.

25.

Saddique

(2001) Local Self Government. Lahore: Ever New Book Palace.

26.

Santiso

(2000) Good governance and aid effectiveness: The World Bank and conditionality. The George Town Public Policy Review 7(1): 1–22.

27.

Texier

(2006) Gender, social capital and political participation in the barrio. Available at: http://www.sens-public.org/IMG/pdf/SensPublic_ELeTexier_political_participation_in_the_barrio.pdf (accessed 5 February 2010).

28.

Tinker

(1968) The Foundations of Local Self-Government in India, Pakistan and Burma. New York: Praeger.

29.

Van den Dungen

(1972) The Punjab Tradition: Influence and Authority in Nineteenth Century India. Dunfermline, UK: Unwin. ISBN 10: 0049540165.

30.

Venkatarangaiya

Pattabhiram

(eds) (1969) Local Government in India, Select Readings. Bombay: Allied Publishers.

31.

Work

(2002) Overview of decentralization worldwide: A stepping stone to improve governance and human development. Paper for the 2nd International Conference on Decentralization and Federalism, 25–27 July, Manila, the Philippines.