Introduction
Decentralization is a process where some parts of power are shifted to the lower sphere of government for better service delivery. Most developing countries, and Tanzania in particular, have embarked on the political and administrative decentralization of government and development structures, among others, to promote democratic governance and participatory approaches in development (Hussein, 2004). Scholars have documented a wide range of political and socio-economic merits for adopting some form of decentralization and participatory approaches (Cook and Kothari, 2001:5). From the political perspective, decentralization is considered as a key strategy for promoting good governance, interpreted as greater pluralism, accountability, transparency, citizen participation and development (Crook 1994:340). Administratively, decentralization is an important process that allows decongestion of the central government and reduces the workload to manageable proportions. The breaking-up of the workload promotes greater efficiency, coordination and effectiveness in public service delivery. Since decision-making powers are transferred from the centre to local institutions, decentralization provides an opportunity for local involvement in decision-making and harnessing local knowledge, resources and expertise in the development process (Hussein, 2004). Tanzanians decentralization initiatives can be traced back to 1970 to 1990s. This paper focuses on the decentralization policy initiatives undertaken in Tanzania. It is worth noting that the reorientation of the local governance system towards decentralization is important as it provides a base for identifying viable strategies that ensure effective and sustainable local development. Concept of Decentralization of Education The term Decentralization is covering a wide range of processes and structures it is often hard to define. In general, it refers to devolution of the centralized control of power and decision-making from Central government to local government and school levels (Bray, 1985; Naidoo, 2005). Although a hands-off approach is usually not absolute, federal governmental involvement in provision, financing and regulation of education is minimal. Decentralization also involves making minimum requirements for private participation in the provision of education (Babalola and Adedeji, 2007). According to Bray (1985) and Naidoo (2005), decentralization is often motivated by political, administrative and fiscal considerations. Other motives include increasing efficiency, community participation, accountability, democratization, as well as increasing sensitivity and responsiveness to local needs and mobilizing resources and financial responsibility (McGinn and Welsh, 1999, in Naidoo, 2005). Hussein (2004) spoke out that, discourses in Development Studies show variations in the meaning, purpose and forms attributed to the concept of decentralization. For instance, concepts such as delegation, participation, divisionalisation, deconcentration and devolution are associated with decentralization (see Barle and Uys 2002:143; Rondinelli 1981:137). Despite the variations, there tends to be a common agreement that decentralization is a generic concept for various forms of structural arrangements in government and organizations. As a process, decentralization involves the transfer of authority and power to plan, make decisions and manage resources, from higher to lower levels of the government, in order to facilitate efficient and effective service delivery (Smith 1985:1).However, the major forms of political and administrative decentralization that have been adopted by most developing countries including Tanzania is deconcentration and devolution (Maywood 1993:3; Tordoff 1994:55580). Types of Decentralization · Political Decentralization Political decentralizationtransfers political power and authority to sub-national levels such as elected village councils and state level bodies. Where such transfer is made to a local level of public authority that is autonomous and fully independent from the devolving authority, devolutiontakes place (Work, 2003). · Fiscal decentralization Under fiscal decentralization, some level of resource reallocation is made to allow local government to function properly, with arrangements for resource allocation usually negotiated between local and central authorities · Administrative decentralization Administrative decentralizationinvolves the transfer of decision-making authority, resources and responsibilities for the delivery of selected public services from the central government to other lower levels of government, agencies, and field offices of central government line agencies (Work, 2003). There are two basic types of Administrative decentralization: Deconcentration is the transfer of authority and responsibility from one level of the central government to another with the local unit accountable to the central government ministry or agency which has been decentralized. According to Cameron (2002), it is usually the least extensive form of decentralization where effective control over major policy decisions resides at the centre. Delegation, on the other hand, is the redistribution of authority and responsibility to local units of government or agencies that are not always necessarily, branches or local offices of the delegating authority, with the bulk of accountability still vertical and to the delegating central unit. According to Rondinelli (1981), it entails the transfer of broad authority to plan, implement and manage decisions, concerning specific functions and activities, to organizations such as local authorities that are technically and administratively competent to perform them. Discretionary decision-making is an integral part of delegation · Divestment or market decentralization Finally, divestment or market decentralizationtransfers public functions from government to voluntary, private, or non-governmental institutions through contracting out partial service provision or administration functions, deregulation or full privatization (Work, 2003). Of cardinal importance is that decentralization is a complex process that reaches beyond structural reforms, staff establishments or organograms proposed in institutional frameworks. It has more to do with a new mental model and concomitant philosophy. As already established, decentralization is deeply affixed within democratic values and principles. Decentralization has the capacity to fail or succeed in the engagement and interaction of its fiscal, administrative and local capacity. The centres role is crucial for all three elements and, more particularly, for the design and implementation of decentralization. When there is a soft budget constraint and the relationships of voice (freedom of expression) and client power are weak, incentives are weakened for sub-national governments to develop local capacity and perform well, and local capture is more likely. Unless there is a local capacity, even feedback from clients and hard budget constraint may not lead to sensible local priorities. Ultimately, the centre is both the regulator and the facilitator of decentralization. Its major challenge is to balance these roles as it makes and manages the policy framework for the public sector. Merits of Decentralization
A new enabling environment of democracy and decentralization has begun to take shape in the past few years. Both of these institutional changes address the powerlessness of the poor and make a fundamental contribution to sustainable human development. They exclude factors that perpetuate poverty by giving voice and representation to the poor to remove social constraints and administrative obstacles and to promote better public services. Poverty reduction has to be a part of an overall effort to deepen democracy and to empower local stakeholders, to improve human rights to create local employment and to improve local livelihoods. For these reasons, it has become one of the highest priorities of multilateral and bilateral agencies and national governments (Work, 2002). Decentralization represents a potential to benefit people by: · Increasing peoples participation and access to decision-making, on education especially for the poor. · Increasing the range of peoples choices of education they want. · Improving innovation and creativity arising from improved interaction between people and their governments. · Facilitating transparent decisions on education. · Bringing education services closer to the people. · Delivering effective, sustainable education services in real-time. · Fostering strategic alliances and partnerships resulting in local solutions to local problems within education context. · Making government more responsive leading to greater transparency and accountability. · Reducing costs in provision of education and bringing higher quality services. Viewed from a purely public management and administration perspective (Roux et al, 1997), decentralizing of executive functions has the following practical advantages: · Since decentralization suggests that institutional functions are brought closer to the client, activities can be completed more rapidly (response time). Consequently, delays at the service delivery point can be avoided. · Adaptability and flexibility of activities (responsiveness needs based) can be enhanced because offices on the lower organizational level are better informed about local conditions in which the services need to be delivered. · Centralized Education system can free the head office personnel of routine (operational) activities. The very personnel will be afforded the opportunity to spend more time on strategic, long-term planning and over-all policy making. Furthermore, decentralization reforms on education open the way for multiple level planning systems and new, non-hierarchical forms of inter-governmental coordination as well as accountability of local governments both to the national government and local constituents. With new authority and resources to plan and deliver services comes the opportunity for local authorities to adopt participatory approaches to local level strategic planning, budgeting and capital works programmes. Setback of decentralization of education In reality, there are a host of constraints to enabling decentralization of education in Tanzania to live up to its potential. Decentralization setbacks of education among others include the: · Technical and political capacity gaps that exist make it difficult to transfer relevant power on education from the centre to the periphery; · Current political power dynamics continue to make it difficult to make the transition to people-centred governance, with all its implications for empowerment and participation in eduction. · Decentralization of education remains subject to political manipulation and central control. · Possibility for subversion through disruptive interference by powerful and undemocratic local elites. · Dissatisfaction of people due to insufficient financial resources made available for education from the central government. · Lack of local institutional capacity to fulfill their given mandates on education. Local governments suffer from poor delivery capacity.Materials and equipment needed to carry out work on education institutions are found to be in short supply. Shortages of skilled staff and a lack of training hampered delivery. corruption and nepotism, in personnel practice and management is also highly practiced at local level. · Local governments have limited authority.Fiscal decentralization is limited for education and considered to be justifiable because of weak financial management at local levels. Both central governments contend that decentralization is ongoing and gradual and that further fiscal and resource devolution needs to be preceded by increased capability and accountability at local levels. Viewed from a purely public management and administration perspective (Roux et al, 1997), decentralizing of executive functions has the following practical setbacks: · Decentralization of education activities to regional or district offices may cause coordination and control problems as a result of extended lines of communication. · Standardization of education activities can be more difficult due to the fact that utilization of labour-saving devices and aids are expensive and difficult to provide to all lower level offices. · Education personnel who are scattered over large geographical areas and need to function within particular local circumstances can hardly be expected to be treated on an equal basis with the personnel of head office. · Decentralization of education may make specialization more difficult because activities are deconcentrated to various lower level offices, often with divergent needs. Recommendation and Conclusion Decentralization is not necessarily a new concept, and, indeed, it has been prevalent as a policy in many developing countries and Tanzania in particular for decades. Many countries have longstanding institutional arrangements of provincial or local government as part public governing structures. However, in many scenarios, the pertinent and relevant issue is not the formal existence of decentralized structures but rather the degree to which decentralization has been made an effective policy. The following considerations are equally important in this regard; to what extent have resources and functional authority been transferred to the local level, and to what extent has decentralization become an instrument for democratization? Experience reflected upon in this paper shows that where substantial resources are transferred, functional responsibilities are clarified and accountability mechanisms are established at local levels, decentralization may very well deliver upon the socio-political, economic and developmental benefits that policy makers intend. Educational decentralization in Tanzania is facing challenges. Innovations in decentralized governance should mean to provide people with the freedom to achieve their aspirations by experimenting with new solutions to local problems on their own. REFERENCE Babalola, J. B, & Adedeji, S. O. (2007). Deregulation of provision of education in Nigeria truth, torture and tactics from American experience (In Press). Barle, D.G., & Uys, F.M. (2002). Macro perspective on intergovernmental relations in respect of local political structures: Journal of Public Administration. Vol. 37: 2. Bray, M. (1985). Education and decentralization in less developed countries: A comment on general trends, issues and problems, with particular reference to Papua. New Guinea. Cameron, RG. (2002). Local government: Journal of public administration, 37/4. Roux, NL, Brynard, P, Botes, P, & Fourie, D. 1997. Critical Issues in Public Management in South Africa. Cape Town: Kagiso Tertiary. Cooke, B. & Kothari, U. (2001). The case for participation as tyranny in Cooke, B., and Kothari, U., eds., Participation. The New Tyranny:London, Zed Books. Crook, R.C. (1994) Four years of the Ghana District Assemblies in operation, decentralisation, democratisation and administrative performance: Public Administration and Developmen., Vol. 14. 339-64. Maywood. (1993).Local government in the third world: Experience of decentralization in tropical Africa. McGinn, N. F, & Welsh, T. (1999. Decentralization of education: why, when, what and how? Fundamentals of Educational Planning. Paris: UNESCO: International Institute for educational planning. Naidoo, J. (2005). Managing the improvement of education. In: Verspoor, Andriaan M. (ed). The Challenge of Learning: Improving the Quality of Basic Education in Sub-Saharan Africa. Rondinelli, DA. (1981).Government decentralization in comparative perspective: Theory and practice in developing countries. International Review of Administrative Sciences. 47/2. Smith, B.C.(1985). Decentralisation: The territorial dimension of the State. London : Allenand Unwin. Tordoff, W.A.(1994). Decentralisation: Comparative experience in commonwealth. Work, R. (2002). Overview of decentralization worldwide: A stepping stone to improved governance and human development. International conference on decentralization federalism: UNDP. Work, R. (2003). Discussion document: Innovations linking decentralized governance and human development: UNDP.