GOLD Report I - UCLG

283evolution of decentralization. The principleof local autonomy has often comeinto collision with that of regional autonomyand nowhere more than in theRussian Federation from the early1990s onwards. It is possible to distinguishthree groups of countries. In thefirst – Armenia, Azerbaijan and Russia –local governments could be seen asindependent institutions. Whereasin the second group – Georgia, KyrgyzRepublic, Moldova and Ukraine – theprocess of the formation of local selfgovernmentis still not concluded.Reforms can hardly be implemented, orsimply could not be achieved until now.The third group is composed of the statesof Central Asia (Kazakhstan, Tajikistan,Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan) wherelocal issues in this region are vested inlocal state organs subordinate to centralgovernment.• In Latin America, the three biggestnations (Argentina, Brazil, Mexico) allfederal systems, focused mainly onstrengthening the intermediate levels ofgovernment, although Brazil shifted moreweight to the municipal level. In RepúblicaBolivariana de Venezuela, also a federalcountry, contradictory reforms areactually taking place that could affect thenature of local institutions. In the Andeancountries, decentralization has taken placethrough far-reaching constitutional andlegislative reforms, in relatively brief processes.Colombia and Bolivia producedcomprehensive visions of reforms in theearly 1990s. But economic and politicalcrisis altered their coherence and slowedthe pace of their implementation. In Peru,the process of decentralization restartedafter 2000 following a reversal of directionin the 1990s. The unitary states of theSouthern Cone – Chile, Uruguay andParaguay – have also carried out reformsshaped by their respective characteristics.Central American countries have enactedlaws on decentralization, and their mainchallenge is to achieve their implementation.• In the Middle East and Western Asia, inspite of the ceaseless political, military,and religious tensions, some advancesdeserve recognition: the first local electionsin Saudi Arabia, the holding ofdemocratic local elections in Palestine,the restoration of the mayoral electionsby universal suffrage in Jordan, and the2002 constitutional reforms in Bahrain.In Turkey, three new laws favourable todecentralization were adopted in 2004-2005. Decentralization is one of the criteriafor membership of the EuropeanUnion.• In Asia Pacific, decentralization hasbecome a major theme of governancereform over the past decade and decentralizationhas for the most part beenaccompanied by enhanced local democracy.But the forms and patterns oflocal governance have varied widely, ashave the outcomes, reflecting the diversityof country contexts. While there areclearly a great many weaknesses in thecurrent arrangements for decentralizedgovernance, and while further reformswill undoubtedly be required, it is hardto imagine that any wholesale return toa centralized system of governancewould be either appropriate or politicallyacceptable.Framework of IssuesIn short, decentralization has been pursuedby different countries with differentobjectives – some political, others moreeconomic, still others give more weight tobetter services or democracy. Furthermore,states have placed emphasis on differentcombinations of the half dozenstrategic areas which must be engaged todecentralize successfully. These includenational policy, state organization, responsibilitiesof local governments, intergovernmentalfinance, mechanisms ofparticipation, and capacity strengthening.Taken together, the objectives and strategicareas constitute a framework for un-