Rationale of the study in public administration and management

Get Complete Project Material File(s) Now! »

RATIONALE OF THE STUDY IN PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION AND MANAGEMENT

The study on decentralisation policy and the monitoring role of local governments in monitoring policy implementation clarifies the role of politics in public administration and management. It depicts the political supremacy of legislatures over executive institutions and the role of political office bearers and public officials in implementing policies authorised by the legislature (Cloete1994:64-65). The legislature under article 190 of the Ugandan Constitution, 1995, as the body holding political supremacy stipulates decentralisation as a form of government to be used in Uganda. The Constitution defines and creates executive institutions at the central government and local government levels that are responsible for implementing and monitoring the policy. At the central level, the Ministry of Local Government under the minister as the political head (political office bearer) is responsible for overall supervision of the decentralisation policy implementation by local governments. At the local government level (both higher and lower local governments) the executive officers are responsible for monitoring the implementation of the policy programmes under the supervision of political office bearers attached to elected councils. This clearly illustrates how, in practice (Cloete 1994:63), public administration is carried out in executive institutions by public officials appointed to work under the supervision of political office bearers and how public administration is a consequence and part of the political processes.
The essence of the decentralisation policy and the monitoring role of local governments in implementing policy is the empowerment of local governments to monitor the implementation of policy programmes for effective delivery of public goods and services. Effective monitoring of the implementation of decentralisation programmes enhances the capacity of local governments as institutional structures of the state which, Cloete (1994:66) argues, can be at provincial/regional or municipal/local level, to deliver quality goods and services to the public. The delivery of goods and services for the benefit of the community constitutes the objective for which public administration activities are executed (Hanekom & Thornhill 1993:57).
The monitoring role of local governments in the implementation of the decentralisation policy is the focus of this study. This function illustrates the importance of political office bearers and public officials in making and implementing government policies in the public sector. As Hanekom and Thornhill (1993:49) argue, political office bearers and public officials are among the various role players who are involved in policy making and implementation. As the local governments are close to the community (programme beneficiaries), they are therefore expected to understand the needs and problems of the community. These governmental structures, in monitoring the implementation of decentralisation, are meant to ensure that there is value for money and that programme activities are implemented in accordance with both an approved plan/budget and national standards for service delivery. The monitoring of the decentralisation policy implementation in Uganda is a case of how government uses public policy to address society’s needs, expectations and problems. Fesler (1980:3) states that what government accomplishes (through public administration) for a society depends on what policies it formulates and adopts and how effectively these are put into practice or implemented. Therefore, a decentralisation policy is meant to achieve efficiency and effectiveness in the delivery of public goods and services. This must be achieved in an equitable and transparent manner with accountable use of power and resources, which are the very concerns of public administration and management (Henry 1980:26). The achievement of such objectives depends on how efficiently and effectively the policy is implemented. Efficient and effective implementation in turn requires effective monitoring.
The implementation of a decentralisation policy and the monitoring role of local governments in implementing the policy emphasises the importance of accountability which is a principle or tenet of public administration and management. In monitoring the implementation of policy through programmes for development and delivery of goods and services to the community, the local political office bearers and public officials are the key players and are accountable to the society for how the programmes are implemented to deliver services and cause transformation in people’s livelihoods and material well-being. Such accountability to citizens (Moore 1998 cited in Larson & Ribot 2004:6) is the substantive essence of democracy. The central government is also downwardly accountable to local governments since local governments obtain services from the central governments–such as expertise, heavy machinery and financial support, and are enabled to gain market access (Larson & Ribot 2004:6-7). In Uganda, the Constitution of 1995 enshrines the principle of public accountability. According to objective No. xxxvi of the Constitution, public offices are held in trust for the people and all persons placed in positions of leadership and responsibility must, in their work, be answerable to the people.
The implementation of the decentralisation policy in Uganda provides an example of devolution of power. Under the decentralisation policy, power for political decision – making, finance and management is [theoretically- emphasis added] devolved from the centre to local government councils to enable local governments to manage their own affairs (Nsibambi 1998:6).This in theory implies that local government councils can make decisions and allocate resources based.

MOTIVATION FOR THE STUDY

The study was motivated by a number of reasons. First, the available literature on the performance of local governments in implementing decentralisation is too general and not disaggregated in terms of functional areas. Besides, many of these are “self-evaluation” reports published by government agencies. Attempts that have been made on specific areas have focused on development plans formulation processes and existence of such plans in local governments. The general performance of local governments has been assessed mainly by conducting regular national annual performance assessments. These assessments, often conducted by government agencies, are mainly concerned with meeting of standards and targets set by central government and with the utilisation of funds transferred from central government to local governments. The assessments are basically intended to determine whether local governments have met the minimum conditions to access central government funding. A recent attempt in a survey (Tumushabe, Mushemeza, Tamale, Lukwago & Ssemakula 2010) has also been too general, focusing on the assessment of the general performance of local government councils. This was done using a scorecard to rank the performance of local councils and their chairpersons. The survey which was done using a scorecard to rank the performance of local councils and their chairpersons does not provide an intensive investigation. This further justifies the need for an intensive examination of the local governments’ monitoring role in implementing the decentralisation programmes that assess the local governments’ performance in the monitoring process and the impact of a number of institutional factors on their performance. An intensive attempt on a specific area made by Mutabwire (2008) on bottom-up planning in local governments, although it sheds some light on the challenges of LGs that informed this study, it focuses on the formulation processes of the development plans, planning opportunities and constraints and citizen participation in the planning processes.
Secondly, under decentralisation, several reports indicate that there have been continued occurrences of inefficiencies and ineffectiveness in implementing the various policy programmes. This has continually been attributed to local governments’ failure to effectively execute their implementation monitoring role. Both government and the public have continued to identify local governments as being ineffective in monitoring the implementation of decentralised programmes and mobilising communities for development. However, this was being argued without any intensive investigation that examines their monitoring role in view of the factors that influence the effectiveness of the governments in executing their role.
Thirdly, for local governments to play an effective monitoring role in the implementation process, the government has to place emphasis on their critical role in the policy implementation. This means that resources have to be made available; the local governments need to have real exercisable powers; the roles of the various key players have to be clearly understood and executed; the local government officials have to be effectively trained and equipped with leadership, technical and managerial skills to enhance their capacity; there has to be effective working relations including stable power relations among intergovernmental organs and as well as effective collaboration mechanisms between government and nongovernmental key players involved in the monitoring process. All these do not only have to be clearly specified in the policy framework, but also need to be reflected in the actions at the level of the actual delivery of services.

READ  Nomenclature and classification of potato tuber blemishes 

CHAPTER ONE: GENERAL INTRODUCTION AND STUDY BACKGROUND
1.1 INTRODUCTION
1.2 RATIONALE OF THE STUDY IN PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION AND MANAGEMENT
1.3 MOTIVATION FOR THE STUDY
1.4 STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM
1.5 PURPOSE AND OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY
1.6 RESEARCH QUESTIONS
1.7 SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY
1.8 SCOPE OF THE STUDY
1.9 THEORETICAL AND CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK
1.10 CHAPTER DELINEATION OF THE THESIS
1.11 CLARIFICATION OF KEY TERMS
1.12 CONCLUSION
CHAPTER TWO: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY AND DESIGN
2.1 INTRODUCTION
2.2 METHODOLOGICAL APPROACH
2.3 GUIDING RESEARCH PARADIGM
2.4 CONCEPTUAL MODEL
2.5 RESEARCH DESIGN
2.6 AREA OF THE STUDY
2.7 STUDY POPULATION
2.8 SAMPLE SELECTION
2.9 UNIT OF ANALYSIS
2.10 DATA COLLECTION METHODS
2.11 DATA COLLECTION PLAN
2.12 DATA COLLECTION THEMES
2.13. ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION OF DATA AND FINDINGS
2.14 ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS
2.15 TRUSTWORTHINESS ISSUES
2.16 LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY
2.17. CONCLUSION
CHAPTER THREE: POLICY MONITORING IN PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION AND MANAGEMENT: A THEORETICAL EXPOSITION
3.1 INTRODUCTION
2.2 HISTORICAL EVOLUTION OF PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION AND ITS IMPLICATIONS FOR PUBLIC POLICY PROCESS
3.3 DEFINITION OF PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION
3.4 PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION AND PUBLIC MANAGEMENT
3.5 GENERIC ADMINISTRATIVE FUNCTIONS
3.6 THE POLICY MAKING FUNCTION IN PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION
3.7. POLICY IMPLEMENTATION AND MONITORING PHASE
3.8 DECENTRALISED POWERS IN PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION AND MANAGEMENT
3.9 WORKING RELATIONSHIPS IN PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION AND MANAGEMENT
3.10 CAPACITY BUILDING IN PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION AND MANAGEMENT
3.11 COLLABORATION IN PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION AND MANAGEMENT
3.12 CONCLUSION
CHAPTER FOUR: LOCAL GOVERNMENTS AND IMPLEMENTATION OF DECENTRALISATION POLICY REFORMS: INTERNATIONAL EXPERIENCE
4. 1 INTRODUCTION
4.2 CONTEXTUALISATION OF THE ROLE OF LOCAL GOVERNMENTS IN DECENTRALISATION
4.3 MONITORING THE IMPLEMENTATION OF DECENTRALISATION REFORMS
4.4 CONCLUSION
CHAPTER FIVE: LOCAL GOVERNMENT SYSTEM AND DECENTRALISATION POLICY REFORMS IN UGANDA
5.1 INTRODUCTION
5.2 A HISTORICAL OVERVIEW OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT SYSTEM IN UGANDA
5.3 CURRENT LOCAL GOVERNMENT SYSTEM AND STRUCTURE IN UGANDA
5.4 OBJECTIVES, PRINCIPLES AND ASSUMPTIONS OF DECENTRALISATION
5.5 PURPOSE OF MONITORING THE IMPLEMENTATION OF DECENTRALISATION
5.6 DECENTRALISATION INSTITUTIONAL AND POLICY FRAMEWORK
5.7 MONITORING SYSTEM & MONITORING PLANNING IN LOCAL GOVERNMENTS
5.8. CONCLUSION
CHAPTER SIX: ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION OF STUDY FINDINGS
6.1 INTRODUCTION
6.2 LOCAL GOVERNMENTS’ PERFORMANCE IN THEIR MONITORING ROLE
6.3 LOCAL GOVERNMENTS’ AUTONOMY IN EXCERCISING DECENTRALISED POWERS
6.4 CAPACITY BUILDING IN LOCAL GOVERNEMENTS
6.5 WORKING RELATIONSHIP AMONG INTERGOVERNMENTAL ORGANS
6.6 COLLABORATION BETWEEN LOCAL GOVERNMENTS AND CIVIL SOCIETY ORGANISATIONS
6.7 CONCLUSION
CHAPTER SEVEN: SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
7.1 INTRODUCTION
7.2. CHAPTER SUMMARIES
7.3. MAJOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
7.4 RECOMMENDATIONS
7.5 CONSIDERATIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH
7.6 CONCLUSION
LIST OF REFERENCES

GET THE COMPLETE PROJECT

Related Posts