Decentralization in Sierra Leone - Research for Development

Decentralization in Sierra Leonerepresentatives of the Western Area’s Tribal Headmen in the towns. Unlike chiefs in thedistricts, headmen do not currently have ex-officio seats on local councils in the WesternArea. The post-war influx of population into the Freetown area has spilled over into WARDand generated considerable demand for land, both for housing and market gardening. Fishingis also a major village industry. However, the 2004 census shows that, government, services,trading and construction accounted for 70 per cent of all workers living in rural localities inthe Western Area. Economic opportunity and geographical mobility in WARD translates intoa high density of CSOs and CBOs. However, many of these groups tend to seek out resourcesand information at the centre, whether directly or through patrons, rather than engaging withthe local council. Respondents in WARD tended to return low scores for local councils onmeasures of trust and satisfaction, but these results may reflect the vibrancy of self-organizedassociational life in WARD rather than the actual performance of the local council.A general conclusion here is that while decentralization in Sierra Leone is a nationalprogramme, there is also a case for targeting specific types of support to different districts,e.g. direct project funding in Bo, support to councillors’ mobility and planning capacity inBombali, support to a multi-agency approach to development in Kono and improving theinterface and interaction between CSOs and local councils in WARD.6.2 Responses to the Research QuestionsA. Have local councils had a material impact on development outcomes in terms of thedelivery of basic services?This question was previously addressed in the World Bank’s study of the first (2004-2008)phase of decentralization (Zhou, 2009). The study analysed the results of the 2007 NationalPublic Services Survey and found that there was substantial improvement between 2005 and2007 in all sectors in which local councils managed decentralized functions, especially inhealth care generally and primary health care in particular. De-concentration was relativelyadvanced in the health sector when the decentralization programme began and these data areindicative of a positive impact of decentralization. The study also found that reported accessto benefits from local council projects was 11-12 percentage points higher in wards in whicha local councillor was resident as compared to wards represented by a local councillordomiciled in Freetown or another district. This evidence points, weakly, to an enhanced localvoice in decision-making and resource allocation in locales where councillors are most likelyto be active. However, it must also be noted that the “rapid results” discretionary grantscheme, designed to kick-start decentralization in 2004-05, was particularly amenable toalignment with patronage politics. 8The results of the 2011 National Public Services Survey have yet to be finalized and it wasnot possible, at the time of writing, to use the national survey to cross-check the results of thepresent study’s much smaller survey. It is noteworthy, however, that education, not health,scores highest in this study’s survey. This finding may reflect the devolution of educationfunctions to local councils since 2007 and the recent spate council-funded school buildingwork highlighted in the FGDs. Yet in the final analysis, the conclusion reached by the WorldBank study still applies: decentralization has been consistent with substantial improvementsin local services, but it almost impossible to isolate its material impact in a country stillundergoing extensive, donor-supported post-war reconstruction.8 A question for another occasion is whether the “rapid results” approach gave a false impression oflocal councillors’ capacity to deliver resources to their supporters and whether councillors’ publicreputation is still suffering as a result.Fanthorpe Consultancy Ltd Page 41