There is considerable disagreement about whether and how decentralisation should be pursued in fragile or post-conflict environments. Many argue that strengthening sub-national governance in fragile situations is vital, particularly for delivering basic services where the state is weak or absent, for addressing ethnic/regional inequalities, and for conflict management. The importance of center-periphery relations in terms of statebuilding, particularly in restoring state legitimacy, is also noted.
Yet many are skeptical as to whether there is any evidence that decentralisation can produce pro-poor outcomes in fragile settings. A 2004 World Bank report found that the potential for poverty reduction through decentralisation was lowest in the most fragile countries. Another study notes that comprehensive decentralisation reform has rarely been pursued in fragile settings; and argues that deconcentration should, in fact, be the starting point.
Furthermore, there is significant concern that decentralisation in certain contexts can be potentially damaging; case studies highlight the risk that decentralisation can be subverted by politics, therefore reinforcing non-democratic and non-participatory political systems, and increasing the potential of a return to conflict or fragility. Overall, there is growing recognition that without adequate understanding of local and national political context and political economy – particularily traditional authority and informal political systems – decentralisation reforms can be undermined.
