Is decentralisation an effective conflict management tool for both unitary and federal states? This article from the Norwegian Institute for Urban and Regional Research (NIBR) reviews the existing academic literature on decentralisation. It offers recommendations for filling current gaps in the research and identifies mechanisms through which decentralisation can both mitigate and exacerbate conflict. No consistent evidence has shown the benefits of decentralisation in the context of conflict. Experience varies widely between unitary and federal states. Donors and governments need to conduct a variety of new studies in order to examine specific models of decentralisation.
This review draws on the academic literature on: a) decentralisation from a development perspective; b) federal solutions to conflict in multi-ethnic states; and c) decentralisation in unitary states. Decentralisation is conceived as the establishment of provincial, regional, or local autonomous arrangements. Unitary states differ from federal states in that they rely on legislation for policies of decentralisation, while federal states usually include decentralisation as a constitutional guarantee.
Decentralisation can have a range of impacts, both positive and negative, in contexts of conflict:
- Popular participation in politics, especially of minority groups, tends to enhance the legitimacy of the state.
- The inclusion of sub-national groups in a bargaining process with the government helps to mitigate conflict.
- The state will often pro-actively establish a policy of outreach and control in remote regions.
- Groups participating in local governance build up mutual trust.
- The redistribution of resources between regions may increase conflicts if resource-rich areas see decentralisation as an opportunity for separation.
- Decentralised units and the resources allotted to them may become a basis for mobilisation in conflicts between local and state holders of power.
- Local disputes over land, resources etc. may become worse in the wake of decentralisation, especially in an undemocratic context.
This mixed list of findings demonstrates that policies of decentralisation should be undertaken with great care. Comparative studies, large N-studies, historically oriented case studies, and studies focussed on the developing world are all needed. Future research should address the following questions:
- How might decentralisation measures be most successfully sequenced? Should they focus on devolution or de-concentration?
- What mechanisms govern the relationship between local and central institutions of governance?
- Which successful models of decentralisation in post-conflict situations can be identified and what can be learned from them?
- How does decentralisation affect equity and distributive fairness, especially at the local level where it may imply control of natural and government resources by a new local elite?
- What role can the international community play in aiding decentralisation? How might relevant diaspora communities mediate between donors and the country in question?
