Poverty and Human Development Report 2009 - UNDP in Tanzania

CHAPTER 1 - CLUSTER III - GOAL 2
Budget and establishment control 75 has likewise remained entirely centralised; local governments
are consulted during restructuring exercises, but all decisions on staff budgets and numbers
of approved staff are ultimately made by PO-PSM. LGAs have limited autonomy in this area.
Pay policy also remains centralised, except that LGAs are allowed to establish local incentive
schemes. However, such initiatives are unaffordable to most LGAs, except for select staff
categories in more wealthy LGAs. Career management has been partially devolved, but career
progress for senior staff continues to depend on central ministries.
This system of allocating staff has significant flow-on effects. It has perpetuated historical
disparities in human resources and, in turn, service provision and educational and health
outcomes, as indicated by the analysis of progress in Cluster II. Central deployment generally
has failed to address geographical inequalities of staffing in local governments. Attracting and
retaining staff in districts considered “remote” or marginalised is a persistent problem (PMO-
RALG, 2005). Urban LGAs tend to be better staffed, even for agricultural extension staff. 76
That urban LGAs have relatively more agricultural extension staff than rural authorities clearly
demonstrates inefficiencies in the current staff allocation system.
Budget transparency is also undermined. Staff salaries are almost entirely paid from central
government transfers. Funds are allocated according to filled posts and approved establishments,
which are based on existing infrastructure, rather than the formula-based grants for recurrent
expenditure according to need. The reform policy does not explicitly address this issue and
the apparent progress on introduction of formula-based grants within the LGRP was evidently
made without policy agreement with the Ministry of Finance and PO-PSM on the extent to which
formulas should apply to personal emoluments.
In practice, human resource management in LGAs is a mix of decentralised staff management
and centralised transfers and postings. LGA staff consequently have dual allegiances; they have
to satisfy both local authorities and central ministries. Furthermore senior staff are aware that
their career prospects depend largely on satisfaction of the latter. Several LGAs have invested in
capacity building and subsequently seen staff transferred to other LGAs or central government.
This frustrates local capacity-building efforts, which are otherwise encouraged by the new system
of providing LGAs with capacity building grants. Transfers are also undertaken without adequate
consultation with LGAs and very late replacements of staff are made. Field visits during the
LGRP evaluation in 2007 indicate that this is perceived by LGAs as the most frustrating aspect
of current practices.
Available data do not allow for strict comparison of the effectiveness of centrally deployed versus
locally recruited staff. However, during field visits for the evaluation of the LGRP in 2007, both regional
and district officials argued that, for instance, teachers who were locally recruited by LGAs were far
more likely to continue working within their post than teachers who were centrally deployed.
75 MDAs and LGAs must apply to PO-PSM for approval of their organisational charts. The approved staffing
structure is referred to as the establishment. Subsequently, the MDAs and LGAs must request authorisation
to recruit against their establishment.
76 See, for example, statistics in Tidemand, Olsen & Sola, 2007.
119