Decentralisation – A Portmanteau Concept that Promises Much but Fails to Deliver? Comment on “Decentralisation of Health Services in Fiji: A Decision Space Analysis

Decentralisation has been described as an empty concept that lacks clarity. Yet there is an enduring interest in the process of decentralisation within health systems and public services more generally. Many claims about the benefits of decentralisation are not supported by evidence. It may be useful as an organising framework for analysis of health systems but in this context it lacks conceptual clarity and particularly often ignores level context issues given the focus on a principal-agent/vertical centre/local axis or other aspects of limits on autonomy such as standards for professional practice. Both these aspects are relevant in discussing the establishment of “decentralised” health centres in Fiji. In the end decentralisation may be nothing more than a useful descriptive label that can be used in an increasingly wide range of ways but actually have little meaning in practice as an analytical concept

Measuring local autonomy: A decision-making approach

In studies on central-local relations it is common to assess local autonomy in a deductive way. The extent of local autonomy is determined by measuring the central legal and financial competence, after which the remaining room for local decision-making is determined. The outcome of this indirect method is that the autonomy of local government tends to be systematically underestimated. As an alternative this paper introduces a decision-making approach in which local decisions are systematically weighed on three dimensions: Agenda setting, freedom in choices, and dependency. Using Dutch data, the authors come to the conclusion that a locally oriented perspective leads to a more accurate and positive judgement of the autonomy of local government. © 2006 Taylor & Francis