-
1. Introduction: The Paradoxes of Local Empowerment
- Penn State University Press
- Chapter
- Additional Information
In the 1980s and 1990s, decentralization reforms swept across Latin America and the developing world, as almost every country implemented measures to strengthen the authority and autonomy of local governments . Mexico was no exception. At least in formal terms, Mexico had been one of the most centralized countries in Latin America. From the 1930s to the early 1980s, a single party dominated almost all aspects of political life, including holding most elected positions. Between 80 and 90 percent of all public resources in the early 1980s were spent through national government agencies despite the nominal existence of a federal system. By the new millennium, however, Mexico had become a multiparty democracy and almost half of all public resources were managed at the state and local level. State and local governments, which had appeared to be mere appendages of an overwhelmingly dominant central state, now had a degree of discretion in spending and policy making they had not enjoyed in decades. Even more important, this process of decentralization took place in the context of a gradual process of democratization in which the country instituted truly competitive elections for the first time in decades. Proponents have argued that decentralization has the potential to improve democratic governance by making elected authorities more responsive because theywouldbeclosertocitizensandbetterabletodiscerntheirpreferences.Inaddition ,decentralizationwouldbringcitizensclosertogovernment,allowingthemto know what their elected officials were doing and to interact with them more frequently .Decentralizationwouldthusreinforcedemocracybymakinggovernment more accountable and ensuring enhanced opportunities for citizen participation in political life. In short, democracy “close to home” would allow citizens a quality of politics that could not be achieved with democracy on a larger scale. 1 Introduction: The Paradoxes of Local Empowerment However, much of what we know about the relationship between decentralization and democracy is from the experience of the developed world. In most of those countries, the construction of democratic institutions and the extension of citizenship rights took place during a period of centralization, and decentralization has occurred after these rights and institutions were largely determined.1 Citizenship rights, of course, are still being negotiated, extended, and restricted in these countries, and political institutions are frequently modified, sometimes to respond to major failings in the institutional structure.2 However, the greatest expansion of citizenship rights in what are today considered developed countries generally coincided with periods of centralization. Indeed, the struggle for inclusiverightshasoftenledtogreatercentralgovernmentinterventiontoensure equal access to rights in areas where they are least enforced. In contrast, in Mexico, as in much of the developing world, decentralization has coincided with a period of democratic transition.3 Local governments are being empowered at the same time that political institutions at all levels of government are being constructed and citizenship rights negotiated and expanded. We understand too little about how decentralization affects democratic governance in contexts where political institutions are still under construction and citizenship rights are often weakly defined and enforced. Does decentralization 2 Decentralization, Democratization, and Informal Power 1. See T. H. Marshall, “Citizenship and Social Class,” in T. H. Marshall and Tom Bottomore, Citizenship and Social Class (1950; repr., London: Pluto, 1987). 2. See, for example, Judith N. Shklar, American Citizenship: The Quest for Inclusion (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1991) on the United States. For a compelling argument about the commonality of problems in “old” and “new” democracies, see Ariel C. Armony and Hector E. Schamis, “Babel in Democratization Studies,” Journal of Democracy 16, no. 4 (2005): 113–28. 3. For a comparative study of reasons for decentralization around the world, see Philip Oxhorn, Joseph S. Tulchin, and Andrew D. Selee, eds., Decentralization, Democratic Governance, and Civil Society in Comparative Perspective: Africa, Asia, and Latin America (Washington, D.C.: Woodrow Wilson Center Press, 2004); and James Manor, The Political Economy of Democratic Decentralization (Washington, D.C.: World Bank, 1999). On Latin America, see Alfred P. Montero and David J. Samuels, eds., Decentralization and Democracy in Latin America (South Bend: University of Notre Dame Press, 2004); and Joseph S. Tulchin and Andrew D. Selee, eds., Decentralization and Democratic Governance in Latin America (Washington , D.C.: Woodrow Wilson Center Press, 2004). In some cases, national leaders used decentralization to maintain or reestablish legitimacy in the midst of popular protest or generalized discontent. For an argument that follows this logic in three countries, see Merilee S. Grindle, Audacious Reforms: Institutional Invention and Democracy in Latin America (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2000). This model fits Venezuela and Bolivia particularly well. In other cases, demands from newly empowered local governmentsorpoliticalpartieswithimportantregionallyidentifiableconstituenciesdrovetheprocess .Onthis,see the chapters in Montero and Samuels, Decentralization and Democracy...