TABLE OF CONTENTS
Content Page
Title
page i
Certification ii
Dedication iii
Acknowledgements iv
Abstract vi
Table
of Contents ix
List
of Tables x
List
of Figures
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION
- Background to the Study 1
- Statement of the Problem 3
- Objectives of the Study 4
- Research Questions 4
- Justification of the Study 5
- Scope of the Study 5
- Operational Definitions of Key Terms 6
- Plan of Work 7
CHAPTER TWO: REVIEW OF LITERATURE
2.0 Introduction 8 2.1 The Concept of Decentralization 8
2.1.1 Kinds of Decentralization 9
2.1.2 African Perspectives of Decentralization 12
2.1.3 Growing Trend Toward Decentralization 12
2.2 Liberia and the Centralized Problem 13 2.3 Discussion of the Liberia Decentralization Policy 14
2.4 Necessity for Decentralization in Modern Governance 17
2.4.1 Arguments for and against Decentralization 18 2.4.2 Potential Benefits of Decentralization 19
2.5 Local Government 20
2.5.1 Imperatives of Local Government 21 2.5.2 The Establishment of Liberia and Local Government 22
2.5.3 Legal Framework for Local Government in Liberia 23
2.5.4 Local Governance 24
2.6 Local Government Autonomy 24
2.6.1 Local Government Autonomy and Decentralization 25
2.7 The Concept of Development 25 2.7.1 Grassroots/Rural Development 26
2.7.2 Grassroots Development and Decentralization 27
2.8 Theoretical Framework 28
2.8.1 Application of the Theories 29
2.9 Gap (s) in Literature 30
CHAPTER
THREE: METHODOLOGY
3.0 Introduction 32
3.1 Research Design 32
3.2 Population 32
3.3 Sample Size and Sampling Technique 33
3.4 Method of Data Collection 35
3.5 Sources of Data 35
3.6 Instrument of the Study 35
3.7 Reliability of the Instrument 36
3.8 Validity of the Instrument 36
3.9 Method of DataAnalysis 37
3.01 Ethical Consideration 37
CHAPTER FOUR:
DATA ANALYSIS, RESULTS
AND DISCUSSION OF FINDINGS
4.0 Introduction 38
4.1 Demographic Profile 38
4.2 Objective One 43
4.3 Objective Two 47
4.4 Objective Three 50
4.4 Objective Four 52
4.5 Discussion of Findings 54
CHAPTER
FIVE:
SUMMARY, CONCLUSION
AND
RECOMMENDATION
5.1 Summary 59
5.2 Conclusion 60
5.3 Recommendations 60
5.4 Contribution to Knowledge 61
5.5 Limitation of the Study 62
5.6 Suggestion for Further Studies 62
REFERENCES 63
APPENDICES 69
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
3.1 Population of Study 33
3.2 Sample Size Distribution 34
3.3 Cronbach Alpha 36 4.1.1 Counties of Origin 38
4.1.2 Gender of Respondents 39
4.1.3 Ages of Respondents 40
4.1.4 Marital Status of Respondents 41
4.1.5 Educational Qualification of Respondents 41
4.2 Administrative System of Liberia is centralized 42
4.2.1 Centralization Impedes Development 43
4.2.2 Lack of Developmental Initiative 43
4.2.3 Respondents View on Political Participation is Low 44
4.2.4 Liberia has been Branded ‘Underdeveloped’ 45
4.2.5 Local Dwellers Depend on Government 45
4.2.6 Centralization Overburdens Government 46
4.3 County Development Agenda is a good framework 46
4.3.1 Local Service Centers Brings Development 47
4.3.2 Establishment of Ministries Agencies and Commissions 47
4.3.3 Lack of Professionals at the Local Level 48
4.3.4 Willingness of Central Government to Relinquish Power 48
4.4.1 Government is efficient and Responsive to Local Needs 49
4.4.2 Decentralization Allow Fiscal, Political and Admin. Autonomy 50
4.4.3 Decentralization Allows Government Accountability 50
4.4.4 Decentralization Stimulates Economic Growth 51
4.4.5 Service Delivery and Economic Growth Accompany Decentralization 51
4.5.1 Draft Local Government Allow Full Devolution 52
4.5.2 Government is willing to Give Power to Local Authorities 52
4.5.3 Political Commitment to Grant Local Autonomy 53
4.5.4 Quality of Development is Improved with Local Capacity 53
4.5.5 Empowerment of Locals to Participate Yields Positive Result 54
4.5.6 Opportunities for Grassroots Development are Increased 54
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Page
4.1 County of Work 39
4.2 Gender of Respondents 40
4.3 Ages of Respondents 41
CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
Decentralization as a concept is not
completely new to Africa; but rather, it has adopted diverse strategies.
English speaking and French Speaking African nations have seen various pre-and
post-war decentralizations. After independence, governments across Africa kept
on utilizing governments at the local levels as administrative units, and
significant elements of local governments, for example, basic healthcare,
construction of roads, education and local revenue collection were shifted
toward central government control (Gbartea, 2011).
Kiwanuka (2012) believes that African nations
have additionally capitulated to the expanding wave of cities and
metropolitans. Some dominant elites groups in Africa, for example, the
Americo-Liberian in Liberia embraced decentralization as a means to bargain
with local elites with secessionist tendencies, and as a remedy for political
instability. Nations began truly considering decentralization as an option
after the manifest disappointments resulting from centralized economic planning
in the 1970’s. Although there was no confirmation that decentralization would
succeed, there were adequate information demonstrating that the centralized
system of governance had failed (Awortwi, 2010). As Mookherjee (2006) observes,
the primary reason for embarking upon decentralization is that transfer of some
central government powers, assets, duties, and responsibility to lower tiers
empowers local institutions and associations to engage in more successful
self-administration and improvement suitable to local conditions.
The historical backdrop of modern local
government systems in developing nations, including Liberia, is stacked with
experimentation. There have been purposeful endeavors to modernize; however,
tradition is still profoundly established (Ekpe, 2007). Some eminent issues
confronting local government systems in developing nations with Liberia not an
exemption include, but rather are not restricted to, basic dysfunctionality,
absence of acceptable and ideal structure, capacities and duties. At the point
when these are tended to, local government could be receptive to the
necessities of the rural citizens who make up a large number of the populace in
the developing countries (Ekpe, Ekpe, and Daniels, 2013).
The Liberian Local Government system is
exceptional when contrasted with different countries in West Africa. Local
Government authorities, generally, are designated by the central government,
and have no characterized powers and capacities. All choices with respect to
development projects and use of money are made at the central, and the local
governments are compelled to do the bidding of the central government (Gbartea,
2011). The 1986 Constitution of the Republic of Liberia gives the President the
exclusive authority to appoint county administrators and other local
authorities (Article 54 Sec D). The Constitution additionally states in Article
56 (A) that every single such authority appointed by the President holds office
at the pleasure and will of that President. This obviously has been the pattern
of administration in Liberia since the 1986 Constitution came into existence.
Authorities of government work at the will of the President and are not
responsible to the general population even at the local sub-units (Gbala,
2004).
The process of decentralization in Liberia
began as far back as the later phase of the nineteenth century. In 1880, G.W.
Gibson outlined a plan by which full citizenship would extend to aboriginal
groups in return for an increased production of agricultural commodities.
However, the coming of Arthur Barclay to the presidency of Liberia in 1904 is
by and large considered a defining moment in Liberian politics; since it
denoted the start of a deliberate, official strategy to build up a hinterland
administration grounded on the British principle of indirect rule. Barclay
formally established the principle of recognizing the pre-existing indigenous
power structures (or rather, what “Americo-Liberians” took for
indigenous power structures) and controlling through powerful families of local
political groups. He imposed a uniform system of administration through a
two-layered system of “Paramount Chiefs” and “Town Chiefs”
on the hinterland (Gerdes, 2013).
Afterward, President William V.S. Tubman in
1948 promulgated the Unification Policy which was adapted towards integrating
the hinterland. His endeavors can, to a significant degree, be traced to the
way that Tubman, brought up in Maryland County, was relatively untouched by the
Monrovia establishment and in part turned to less powerful groups with a
specific end goal to build a voting public (Pham, 2004).
Immediately following President Johnson-
Sirleaf ascendency in 2006, the President’s administration started sweeping
changes geared toward the consolidation of peace and the establishment of a
legal framework simultaneously that would set the basis for a decentralized
system of government. Amongst her first acts as President, Ellen Johnson
Sirleaf repositioned the Governance Reform Commission (GRC) which was a brainchild
of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA) in Accra, Ghana, which was geared
toward promoting good governance and instituting public sector management
reforms. Executive Order Number 2, issued March 6, 2006 changed the GRC into
the Governance Commission (GC) authorized to finalize and actualize blue print
giving alternatives to political, social and economic decentralization (USAID,
2012).
In any case, the return to civilian
democratic leadership in Liberia was an initial step to bringing sustainable
change. The first post- war government through
an initiative of the President
introduced programs and decision-making processes geared toward empowering
local citizens to take interest in electing county officials, and managing
local development. This process could be enhanced, and will engender adequate
local participation in making decision at the local level (Nyei, 2011).
Alongside the draft Local Government Act of
2013, the decentralization process will concede political, fiscal,
administrative and economic autonomy to the counties; this will induce
sufficient participation in basic leadership at the local level, allowing local
ownership of development activities.
1.2Statement of the Problem
In line with the current global trend of streamlining the
role of the state, the governments of most developing countries including
Liberia have devolved power to
grassroots institutions with a view to enhance development. Grassroots
development is very essential to the overall development of any country. It is
intended to bring development closer to the people and enhance local
participation in the governance process of any country.
However, this seems to be
absent in Liberia. Liberia has been branded as under-developed after several
decades of existence. The country remains inaccessible and impassable after
more than a century and a half of existence. The administrative system of governance and development
initiatives have been firmly situated in the capital and in the hands of a very
few people with the president at the center of this hegemonic authority. There
seems to be lack of basic structures at the local level which leads to
government employees at all levels to abandon their duties to travel to the
capital to receive their pay check not without difficulty. Local government
employees are seen as an extension of the government in the capital; at such,
they are reportable to their bosses in the capital in every respect.
Additionally,
rural citizens lack control over resources and the opportunity to participate
in decision making. They are not empowered to participate or engage their
leaders in the development process. Development programs are planned by
stakeholders at the central level; some of whom have not seen what is
obtainable at the local level.
Consequently, this has led the researcher to investigate the centralized
problem and how decentralization and local government autonomy could enhance
grassroots development in Liberia
1.3 Objective of the Study
DECENTRALIZATION, LOCAL GOVERNMENT AUTONOMY AND GRASSROOTS DEVELOPMENT IN LIBERIA
