Pa1.1. Background of the study
In recent years, decentralization has become a global trend and it is on the political agenda in many countries. Education is being decentralized in numerous countries as part of a larger move to reform public management systems (Bjork, 2006). The policies largely aim to reduce government size, reorganize delivery, expand private initiatives, and create new partnerships.
Many researchers suggest that education decentralization especially becomes a political decision that requires strong political will both at the central and state levels. It also becomes imperative to carefully plan the process of decentralization to ensure effective implementation. According to Bjork (2006) the challenge of balancing different aims can be enormous: first, making education more relevant to local needs; second, democratically promoting peoples participation by empowering local authorities and third, improving performance accountability.
The term decentralization was defined as transfer of power and authority from the central government to regional or sub-national governments (Muriisa, 2008). Masso and Norman (2009) assert that the notion of decentralization had gone due attention in the 1950s and 1960s while British and French colonial administrations ready colonies for independence by devolving responsibilities for certain agendas to local authorities. Nevertheless, it became well-known in the 1980s and 1990s when it featured as one of the World Bank’s structural criteria (Muriisa, 2008). According to Kumera (2006), education sector decentralization was one element of a wide program for service delivery improvement. Presently decentralization was being practiced in most the developing countries of the world.
There are many reasons why countries follow decentralization, among these the main rational which led to pursue decentralization was to improve public service delivery and strengthen poverty reduction as result of central governments were unable to be more responsive, accountable, inefficient or ineffective at delivering public services (Yilmaz and Boex, 2010). In line to this, Kumera, (2006) maintains that one of the factors that led to adopting decentralization has been the realization of the difficulty to manage a country’s political, social and economic activities only from the center.
The scope of the concept of decentralization was reveal by the many objectives it serves. Programs were decentralized to overcome delays in service delivery. It was thought that decentralization will improve governments responsiveness to the public and increase the quantity and quality of the services it provides (Rondnelli, Nellis, Cheema: 1988).
As a result, decentralization reforms had come up with different promises counting local level democratization and perhaps improved service delivery for the poor (Tanzania Case Report, 2008). Ahmed (2006) had identified some reasons as decentralization will have probability collapse to achieve its promise of improved service at the grassroots level. These include poor institutional design may weaken the links between information flows, service delivery and accountability as a result it may be a leading factor to poor service delivery outcomes. In addition, a poorly sequenced decentralization process may result in worsening of the service provision when local capacity is low. Like many other countries, Ethiopia has preoccupied in the process of decentralization by transferring responsibilities of the state to lower tiers of government. Such transfer of power is believed to bring not only political stability and contribute to democratic governance, but also improve service delivery and attain equity (Tegegne, 2007). Having this fact the government of Ethiopia has introduced the first and unever seen decentralized governance since 1995 (Tegenge, 2007). The decentralization process was implemented in two phases. The first phase was created in four states (Amahara, Oromia, Tigray and SNNP) soon followed by the other states, established a three tiered local administration through their constitutions. During this phase, the regional governments were given responsibility for delivering all education (except tertiary and secondary teacher training) and health service (Garcia and Sunil, 2008). Following this, the second phase has been introduced since 2001. In this phase, the government decentralized four regions decided to move important sector departments (such as health, education, agriculture extension, and water supply and social sectors) from the zonal to the Woreda level (Yilmaz and Venugopal, 2008). Regional authorities have significant autonomy fiscal and personnel management, and also shoulder significant new responsibilities in terms of service delivery and governance.
Coming to the education sector, Mesay (2011), asserts that since 1994 the government has come up with the first country’s education improvement policy in 20 years setting the dream for the education sector development for having different programs. In this process on the National education Policy and Strategy, the 20-year education Sector Development Program (ESDP) was developed with a series of medium-term implementation plans and speculation programs. The first phase, ESDP I, enclosed the period 1997/98–2001/02 and was followed by the second phase, ESDPII (2002/03– 2004/05), and the third phase, ESDP III (2005/06–2009/10) (Mesay, 2011) and now in ESDP IV.
Generally, it is obvious that the implementation of a decentralized educational management requires the development of capacity at the local levels (e.g. woredas). Hence, the study examined the practices of decentralized education management with special emphasis on education authority and responsibility delegated to the local levels, decision making process, level of participation of local stakeholders in education management, level of communication among various local stakeholders and challenges to implement decentralized education management.
1.2. Statement of the Problem
Several countries of the world had adopted the system of decentralized governance, the exact reasons why some decentralization efforts brings improved service delivery while other are either ineffective, or worsen local conditions, remains an open area of active research and country specific (Fritzen and Lim, 2006). After the fall of Derge regime in 1991, Ethiopia has embarked on extensive decentralized system of administration which is mainly to improve democracy, popular participation and service delivery. Lim and Fritzen (2006) argue that decentralization has a potential of improving quality, increasing innovation, increasing effectiveness and efficiency, redistribution of power, solving the problem of financing education. Meheret (2007) also confirms that one of the main objectives of decentralization is to increase the coverage access, effectiveness, efficiently and quality of social services in accountable, responsive and transparent fashion.
In the education sector, different studies have been conducted by different researchers for improving the service delivery system. MOE (2005) in the document ESDP-III PAP shows the challenges of ESDP-II implementation by explaining that weak program management and implementation capacity has contributed to low budget utilization in civil works and procurement. High turnover of professional personnel was one of the contributing factors to the low program management capacity. Such turnovers force the assigning of education personnel with little or no experience or expertise in the relevant field. Moreover, inadequate planning and management capacity at the lower levels of the organizational structures (e.g. woredas) is a critical problem in realizing the goals of education. Skills to collect analyze and interpret education data are critically lacking at the lower level of the organizational structures.
In Ethiopia during the regional devolution, educational decentralization had not achieved the intended objectives because the local governments lack of the basic knowledge and experience to perform effectively (Tesfaye Tadesse, 2007). Recent studies also note acute shortage of skilled manpower as a critical challenge of the implementation of Ethiopian local governance policy (Ayalew Shibeshi, 2009). As shown in the above sources, Ethiopia faces constraints like trained manpower, problems of insufficient administrative institutional capacity, inadequate participation of local communities and financial shortage to carry out decentralization at local level.
Low-quality education is an endemic problem in most developing countries. International tests of student achievement consistently show that developing countries score at the bottom of the performance scale. However, if designed and implemented well, decentralization has the potential to improve service delivery and education quality (Donald, Winkler and Boon-Ling, Yeo, 2007)
As shown in the above sources, on the implementation of decentralization process, various problems related to capacity, participation, accountability, responsiveness, structural arrangement, etc. is prevailing in the woreda. The causes of these problems and their specific contribution towards education service delivery and the challenges of decentralization as well as their aggregate impact on the attainment of the overall goals and objectives envisaged to achieve through decentralization in terms of the level of power devolution were not empirically studied in the selected woreda. The study substantiated the gaps in practical analysis of the mobilization of (human resources, institutional co ordinations and financing) and level of community participation to carry out decentralized education service delivery in the study woreda. In this respect, the study substantiated evidence that implies the improvements in stakeholder mobilization, effectiveness in the facilitation functions of the local offices and improvements in the education service delivery in its investigation to filling the gaps. The result from this investigation generated evidence to improve understanding about the factors that are affecting the woreda’s education service delivery.
1.3. Research Questions
To address the research objectives, the research focuses on the following research questions:
What is the current status of decentralization on education service delivery in the woreda?
What are the levels and the challenges of community participation to promote education service delivery in the woreda?
Are human and financial resources adequate for successful education service delivery in the woreda?
1.4. Objectives of the Study
1.4.1. General Objectives
The general objective of the study is to assess the achievements and the challenges of decentralized service delivery particularly emphasizing on education service in Bahir Dar Zuria Woreda.
1.4.2. Specific Objectives
The specific objectives of the study are to:
To analyze the current status of decentralization on education service delivery in the woreda.
To investigate the levels of community participation and its challenges to promote education service delivery in the woreda.
To know how much human and financial resources are essential in education service delivery in the woreda.
1.5. Scope of the Study
The scope of this study is geographically limited to Bahir Dar Zuriya Woreda of Amhara Regional States of in Ethiopia. It was not possible to cover all the Woreda found in the region due to financial and time constraints. Additionally, the study focused on Education Service Sector among other services to findout the nature and a performance of decentralization on education service delivery.
1.6. Significance of the Study
To find out challenges for effective implementation of decentralized education service delivery in the woreda. Findings may also be very useful to provide valuable information on the existing practices of decentralized service delivery in education and forward relevant intervention modalities to minimize the identified gaps create the awareness to the concerned government authorities so that they can take corrective measures accordingly, create the awareness to communities about the education service delivery.
1.7. Limitations of the study
One of the limitation during the conducting the study was lack of recent and field data about the practice of decentralization on education service delivery and lack of voluntarily officials and some experts from office during data collection were some of the limitations that the researcher will faced during the study.
1.8. Organization of the study
This research organized by five chapters, which are chapter one contains, introduction, background, statement of the problem, research questions, objectives of the study, scope of the study, significance of the study and limitations of the study, chapter two deals literature review, chapter three deal with methodology. Chapter four focusing on the findings and discussions of the study. Lastly, chapter five is focus on the summary of the findings, conclusion and recommendation.
CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1. Concept of decentralization
Decentralization is not an easily defined. Different scholars and writers define decentralization in different ways (Mekonenne, 2015). Nevertheless the variations in interpretations and decentralization can be understood as the transfer of legal and political authority and responsibility from central government to local levels.
Decentralization may be defined as the transfer in varying degrees of decision making powers from central government to intermediate authorities, local authorities and educational institutions (UNESCO, 2005). Decentralization is the process of redistributing responsibility and corresponding decision making authority for specific function from higher to lower levels of government and organizational units (Fiske, 1996).
Decentralization is the process whereby central government assigns roles and responsibilities to lower more local levels of the system (World Bank, 2008). Decentralization involves the transfer of all or part of the decision making responsibilities and management vested in the central authority towards another regional, provincial or local authority (districts, municipalities, “communities”) or towards schools themselves. Decentralization is therefore political and financial (UNESCO, 2005).
Defining the concept of decentralization is not an easy task and is a very complex phenomenon, as it may have different meaning depending on the context one tends to use. It may as well have different forms and several aspects depending on the writer‘s point of view. For it has contextual variance depending on the perspective from which the writer sees the subject, this is to say that the one who see it from economic stand point were definitely have different view from the one who see it from political or public administration or social perspective. It means decentralization gives different meanings to different writters (Abnet, 2016). Even there could be one or more variants of decentralization in different countries and even within one country and within a sector (Abnet, 2016).
While some others defined the term decentralization and used as it cover a broad range of transfers of the “focus of decision making” from central governments to regional, municipal or local governments‖. Still other uses it as a reform which refers to transforming the local institutional infrastructure for natural resource management on which local resource management is based. It is “the means to allow for the participation of people and local governments‖. But what is common to all is it represents a transferring of the centralized power from the federal to regional level or delivering management functions to other authorities, which encompass decentralization in decision-making including the resource management (Elizabeth, 2004).
Fortunately enough the existence of these variant of choice of definition enables one to look and choose which accords with his case on hand. Hence, the decentralization definition adopted in this paper which is considered to fit to this study is given by (Fjeldstad, 2004) that states decentralization as: Decentralization refers to administrative changes which give lower levels of government greater administrative authority in delivering services. Devolution which involves, in addition, changes in political institutions, so that electors vote for representatives at lower levels of government who in turn have effective control over lower level bureaucrats involved in service delivery. The electorates are the consumers of government services, and are supposed to elect and put pressure on politicians to translate their demands and requirements for services into policy. Politicians, in turn, are supposed to monitor and control the bureaucrats to ensure service delivery (Fjeldstad, 2004). This definition is preferred as it gives due emphases to service delivery while elaborating the concept decentralization.
In its broadest sense Decentralization‖ refers to the governance system of any society. It is the process by which authority, responsibility, power, resources and accountability are transferred from the central levels of government to sub-national levels. This definition encompasses as the transfer of responsibility for planning, management and resource raising and allocation from the central government and its agencies to: (a) field units of central government ministries or agencies, (b) subordinate units or levels of government, (c) semiautonomous public authorities or corporations, (d) area wide, regional or functional authorities, or (e) nongovernmental private or voluntary organization (Rondinelli et al, 1983; UNDP, 1999).
2.2. Dimensions of Decentralization
Contemporary, writers explain decentralization in its four dimensions; political, administrative, fiscal and economic. Even though, these are the concepts repeatedly talked about, for the sake of clarity the researcher need to briefly explain what they mean and what their purposes are.
Political decentralization aims to give citizens or their elected representatives more power in public decision-making. It can be realized only in a truly pluralistic politics and representative government. Elections, for lower tiers of government are at the heart of this dimension. Assignment of officials top-down, directly or by influencing their stooges, stops with the realization of this dimension. To this effect, elected officials will have dual accountability, to the center and to their communities.
Fiscal decentralization, which is known as a core component of decentralization is the transfer of or control over resources from federal to regional states or sectors (Jamo, 2005). Generally it comprises of public revenue (taxes, grants, borrowings…), expenditure (recurrent and capital), intergovernmental transfers (matching grants for merit goods, grant to ensure minimum service level and grant to correct externalities or benefit spillovers), and domestic borrowings (for stabilization, for long term capital projects…) (Chanie, 2007).
Administrative decentralization is the redistribution of authority and responsibility of administering the human resource, material and financial resources for providing public services at different government levels. While the central task of this dimension is service delivery, the role of administering the whole sectors falls under this dimension. If officials are elected and authority and power to administer are not transferred in whatever form, then the political decentralization will be meaningless.
Economic/ market decentralization deals with the most complete forms of decentralization- privatization and deregulation from a government’s control. This form of decentralization shifts responsibility of functions from the public to the private sector, which usually is accompanied by economic liberalization and market development latter at a higher stage (USAID, 2009).
The sequence of implementation, balances and demarcations among these forms of decentralization vary from country to country and from sector to sector based on the core interest of the central government, commitment to democratization, nature the ruling party and the existing objective conditions. These sequences, balances and demarcations among these dimensions reflect the extent of autonomy released by the central government on one hand and the maturity of the decentralization practice and the implementation capacity of local bodies on the other hand. The balances outweigh each other and their sequence and pace is determined based on what also derived the decentralization initiative: politics, economy or service delivery? It also goes with overall development stage of a given country (Oxfam GB, 2005).
According to (Rondinelli et al, 1983 and Barkan, 1998) the transfer of power essentially takes four forms: delegation, deconcentration, devolution and privatization /deregulation, the latter being relevant to the economic dimension. So these are bridle and bits to regulate the release and control of power. These four forms of government are discussed as follows:-
De-concentration: occurs when central government disperses its officials to sub-national levels to carry out regular functions under the authority of central government. There is no transfer of power to sub-national levels of government. This form does not empower the regional authority or citizens because decisions would still be made by the ministry having offices in the regions. It is the handing over of some administrative authority or responsibility to lower levels within the central government.
Delegation: is the transfer of certain functions to sub-national levels to be performed on an agency basis. However, central government still retains public accountability and responsibility to provide fund, resources and personnel for the delegated function(s).
Devolution: involves the transfer of functions, resources and power to sub-national levels of government. Here, sub-national governments assume full responsibility and public accountability for decentralized functions. Furthermore, sub-national governments should have clear and legally recognized geographical boundaries over which they exercise authority and within which they perform public functions. This has political implications in that it endangers the sharing of power between these other units and central government institutions.
Privatization: is the transfer of service provision through the divestment of state owned enterprises and public private ventures. In this case the government creates parastatals which will provide services on the business principle of gaining profit. Normally such parastatals do give the government some dividends from their profit which the government used to provide other essential services to the citizens. Generally it is concerned with the transfer of activities from the public to the private sector.
De-regulation: consists of transferring service provision or production activities previously owned and regulated by the public sector to competing private organizations. The best example of de-regulation is outsourcing, where government hire a private company to provide certain services to the government. This can either by in the form of the government hiring a cleaning company to clean its offices instead of government employing cleaners itself.
In general terms, it is difficult to come across a country that has undertaken only one of the above different types of decentralization. All countries, centralized or decentralized, always seek to find an appropriate mix of these types, the central question always concerning how much decision-making power to transfer to local governments. This is directly linked to issues of political decentralization. There are various reasons why decentralization is implemented by developing countries. According to its proponent decentralization stimulates the search for program and policy innovation. First, it is, per se, an innovative practice of governance. Second, through its implementation, local governments are required to assume new and broader responsibilities in order to provide public services for all. The assumption of new responsibilities through decentralization often requires improved planning, budgeting and management techniques and practices; the adoption of new tools; and the development of improved human resources to operate the decentralized programs (UNDP, 1999).
Whatever the reason for decentralization its main objective or goal is more or less similar (Smoke, 2003). As he has summarized these goals into four broad categories, namely, improved efficiency, improved governance, improved equity and improved development and poverty reduction.
According to Smoke (2003), improved efficiency achieved as local information (which outsiders lack) can be brought to bear on selection and targeting of government programs, and a reduction of authority of central bureaucrats that do not face pressures of accountability from citizens directly. It also leaves decision-making in the hands of those who not only have local information, but who can increase the flexibility of public programs in response to local conditions which have implication on resource allocation (Mehrotra, 2006). Improved governance relates with the condition that if people see that their interactions with elected local governments lead to decisions that are more consistent with their wishes than those made by higher levels; they were feeling better connected to local governments. Being able to influence public affairs in at least some modest ways that directly affect them empowers people, giving them a new sense of control and autonomy. Improved equity refers to if local governments are familiar with local circumstances, they may be in the best position to more equitably distribute public resources and target poverty within their own jurisdictions. They are, of course, constrained by their internal resources, so the redistribution from richer to poorer areas must be the responsibility of central governments.
Institutions such as associations of local authorities and neighborhood associations were encouraged to be more influential in enhancing partnership programs for the purposes of decentralization and good local governance. It is also notable that, although the management of local government has recently come under much criticism, it‘s quite evident that the central government does not have the institutional framework to take the local authorities to task whenever they violated regulations and vice versa. It is agreeable that a local government system based on public awareness and consensus would be more stable and responsive to the people‘s needs and strengthen and support a more democratic system of governance. (Global Campaign on Urban Governance, 2002).
Then, what is the implication of decentralization on service delivery or specifically education service delivery? Before dealing with this question, it requires clearing about what we call education service and it‘s relating concepts.
2.3. Rationales for Decentralization
The rationale for adopting decentralization is context specific. To achieve efficiency, promote equity and enhance community participation in the process of local decision making are the major reasons for adopting decentralization (Smith, 1985; Abbay et. al, 2004; Cheema & Rondinelli, 1983; Meherete, 1998 in ibid). Griffin (quoted in Ribot, 2002) contended that decentralization can achieve effectiveness and efficiency by improving the implementation and allowing actor to participate in the process. It also improves coordination mechanism at lower level and enhances the relevance and sustainability of the service. In addition, Maas (1959) and Hill (1974) argued that political decentralization enhances local accountability and improves the political skills of the local politicians and helps national integration. It brings government closer to people. It also provides better services to the client groups. Prud’home (1995) lists a variety of problems that might occur with decentralization, including macroeconomic mismanagement, corruption, the growth of unneeded bureaucracy, and a widening of the income gap between regions. The ‘erosion of the highly centralized developmental state in the 1980s and realization of the importance of local actors in promoting local development were playing important role of shifting from centralization to decentralization. Globalization and external influence was also part of the factor triggering local decentralization in order to improve local governance and accountability (European Commission, 2007).
2.4. Key Factors for Effective Decentralization
Decentralization demands some kind of commitments and also the existence of well framed institutional structures to encourage the development effort both at national, regional and local levels (Fritzen and Lim 2006; Robinson, 2003; Fenta, 1998 and Jennie Litvack, 2005). These scholars indicated the following points that are necessary conditions for effective decentralization. These are:-
Political Commitment: Political factors are of intrinsic importance to decentralized service delivery for several reasons. It is widely accepted that political commitment on the part of federal or state governments is a sine qua non of effective democratic decentralization, and especially forms of decentralization that are specifically geared to the interests of the poor. Successful pro poor decentralization is associated with governing parties that are politically committed to the democratic empowerment of local governments. Decentralization cannot occur until it is supported by the highest political authority. Decentralization in whatever from it occurs is a political agenda i.e. it takes place within and under a political regime and the regime should be properly committed for the achievement of political objectives. The degree to which national political leaders thought the political hierarchies are committed to decentralize planning objectives determines the effectiveness of decentralization policies.
Effective inter-organizational relations: In recognition of the latent power of organized civic protest, local authorities in different countries have experimented with institutional arrangements designed to facilitate public engagement, feedback and oversight. Decentralization requires some sort of special implementing machinery including an agency specifically responsible for coordinating and implementing an action plan and a public relations exercise to ensure understanding of and support for the reform.
Availability and access to resources required: The availability of resources is a critical determinant of the equity, quality and efficiency of public services and the inadequacy of financial resources often explain poor service outcomes. Lack of resources implies incapacity of any agency. Most developing countries are mostly constrained by lack of finance to implement decentralization policies.
Capacity of implementing institutions: Genuine decentralization has to be institutionalized and integrating their own organization polices into practice. The nature and capacity of that agency determine the outcome of decentralization policy.
Environmental accessibility: The remoteness of the territory covered by many local government authorities are accompanied by related difficulties in communications, transport service delivery etc. These factors, allied to the weakness of civil society organizations at local level, make local participation and local accountability even more difficult to achieve (Mmari, 2005). Living in remote settlements will have very different levels of exposure, sensitivity and adaptive capacity. The most vulnerable are those suffering from multiple sources of disadvantage are low incomes, low education levels, poor health (Morrison, 2009).
Complementary Support: An effective process of decentralization must be based on a proper understanding of the limitations and the possibilities of top down directives and bottom up initiative and impulses.
2.5. Overview of Decentralization in Ethiopia
Decentralization in Ethiopia during Emperor Hailesilase (1931-1975): The first move towards institutional decentralization in Ethiopia dates back to the imperial era when the HaileSilase I. The draft bill proposed to grant administrative autonomy to 50 ‘Awraja” governments drawn from the majority of the country, 14 provinces on the basis of their potential are self-sufficient. In spite of strong self-resistance from parliament, the program was implemented in 17 selected Awrajas on experimental basis (Meheret, 1998).
In July 1931, the emperor granted a constitution that asserted his own status, reserved imperial succession to the line of HaileSelassie, and declared that “the person of the Emperor is sacred, his dignity inviolable, and his power indisputable.” All power over central and local government, the legislature, the judiciary, and the military remained with the emperor. The new strength of the imperial government was demonstrated in 1932 when a revolt led by Ras Hailu Balaw of Gojam in support of Lij Iyasu was quickly suppressed and a new nontraditional governor put in Hailu’s place. By 1934 reliable provincial rulers had been established throughout the traditional Amharic territories of Sheba, Gojjam, and Bleeder, as well as in Kefa and Sidamo well outside the core Amharic area. The only traditional leader capable of overtly challenging central rule at this point was the Ras of Tigray. Other peoples, although in no position to confront the emperor, remained almost entirely outside the control of the imperial government (Fenta, 1998).
After the World War II, the emperor introduced four tier administrative divisions which included the Teklay Ghizat or a province, Awraja, Woreda and Mikitil woreda (Fenta, 1998). In the mid 1968 there were 99 Awrajas, 505 Woredas and 449 Mikitil Woredas under the direct supervision of the Ministry of Interior. An Awraja was the second administrative hierarchy governed by the appointed governor. The Awraja governor was responsible and accountable to the provincial governor. It was administered by the woreda governor who, in principle, had to be appointed by the emperor but was nominated by the provisional governor who, in turn would learn of the candidate from among Awraja local men (Fenta, 1998).
Decentralization in Ethiopia during the Military Regime (1975-1991): The second experiment to decentralize state was made by derg regime. However, the derg had no better record than the imperial in decentralizing the Ethiopian state. The plan was a response to political; pressure is intended to give some kind of autonomy and opposed to central rule. Hence, derg established autonomous and administrative regions by Proclamation number of 14. Of 1987. This Proclamation was necessity by increasing instability some provinces of the country notably, Eritrea, Dire dawa, Asseb, Tigray and Ogaden areas (Tegenge, 1998). These were troubled areas were both ethnic conflicts were raging and sentiments for separation were running high out of most of the 1970s and 1980s.These regions were given autonomous status while the rest of the country was divided in to 25 administrative regions. The autonomous and administrative regions were further divided into Awrajas establishing three tier divisions of the center, regions, and awrajas (Meheret, 1998: Tegeng, 1998).Then the attempts derg’s decentralization policy was fatigue to the fact that it is not basically designed to grant self-administration secure the preservation of peace and security and stability of the country (Fenta, 1998).
When it assumed power in 1974, the Derg only slightly reordered the imperial regime’s pattern of administrative organization at the national level. By contrast, the new regime saw existing local administration as anathema to the objectives of socialist construction, and its reform efforts were initially more evident on the local level than in the central bureaucracy.
Immediately after assuming power, the Derg reorganized Ethiopia’s fourteen provincial administrations and replaced all serving governors general. The fourteen provinces (Teklay Ghizats) were relabeled regions (Kifle Hagers) and were divided into 102 sub regions (Awrajas) and 556 districts (Woredas). By 1981 the number of administrative divisions had increased to sixteen with the addition of Addis Ababa and Aseb. The restructuring was a major step toward dismantling feudal privilege. Moreover, all new appointees were either military men or university educated individuals who were considered progressives.
Decentralization in Ethiopia during FDRE (1991-till now): Following the fall of the derg regime, the establishment of the transitional government in 1991 brought a new era in decentralizing in the country. Initially the country was divided in to 14 transitional regional governments but this was later reduced to nine regional states and two administration areas. The 1995 Federal constitution of Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia indicates that the regions are formed on the basis of population, settlement, language, and identity. The constitution clearly laid down the foundation decentralized system of governance by giving decision making power to regional states. Regional states have been granted a substantial degree of decision making authority in a decentralized system of fiscal and infrastructure administration. The constitution also recognized regional states with equal powers and rights as member states of Ethiopian federation. The regions are divided in to zones, and the zones into Woredas. The nine regions of Ethiopia are: Tigray, Afar, Amhara, Oromia, Somali, and Benishangul gumuz, SNNP, Gambela and Harer. All of regional states can be considered to have a semi sovereign status because each has its own flag, a constitution, government, defined territory, and population (TGE, 1992, FDRE, 1995; Berhanu, 2008).
The regional administration is divided in to Zone 66, which divided in to 611. Woredas are considered to be the key local units of government. Below this level, woredas are further sub-divided in smaller electoral units, known as kebeles, to further enhance community grass roots participation in formulation as administration of policy decisions (FDRE, 1994).
Presently, Ethiopia has a three tiered local government; Zonal, Woreda and Kebele administration. Generally, Zonal administration is just a branch of the regional governments that is established at zonal level, holding a number of Woredas in it. A Woreda administration is the most important local administrative institution under the Ethiopian local governance system. The lowest level of local administration is the Kebele administration. It is established in a geographical area which is inhabited with 10,000 or more people (FDRE, 1995).
2.6. Public Service Delivery
Alike to decentralization the definition of public service is ambiguous for a number of reasons. First, the term public service is used interchangeable with the term public good (no clear distinction between good and service). Second, those services or goods which are termed as public in some groups of countries may be termed as private in others. And third, even there is no uniformity in demarcating between private and public sector itself among countries. This section of the paper tries to summarize literatures on these three points. Moreover, (Maurice, 1992) defined public goods/service as a product upon which there exists non exclusion in consumption. That is to say one persons’ consumption is not affected by all other person‘s consumption of the same product. In other words, Public goods/services are goods whose possession by one member of the public does not prevent its possession by others. By implication public goods are goods which are if available to one, should be equally available to all and when consumed by one, are still available in the same amount to others. Therefore, the consumption of public goods or services is open to all people and difficult to prohibit an individual from consuming it (Maurice, 1992). For this is due to the main reason that public services are considered as those services which are mainly, or completely, funded by taxation (public fund). As such, they can differ markedly from commercial private sector services in a number of ways. These differences need to be both acknowledged and discussed, because of their potential implications for the development of delivery systems.
Most typically, public services would include the following areas of public management: central and local government, the health authorities, education, defense, justice affairs and noncommercial semi state organizations (Humphreys, 1998). But Humphreys further argued that it is particularly important to appreciate that such a broad functional definition of the public service can vary both through space and over time.
As some researchers has observed, in relation to ‘social public services’ within the developed nations for instance European Union (EU), there are significant definitional differences between public administrations in the EU member states and it is mistaken to regard public, private or voluntary services as discrete and non-interactive spheres of human activity. As any attempt at cross national comparisons of services makes abundantly clear, the same activities (e.g. health or education) may be undertaken by either the public and/or private and/or voluntary sectors depending on the country concerned. With regard to the services provided, the relationship between these three sectors can also vary significantly (Humphreys, 1998). In the case of developing countries most of the services indicated above such as education, health, including water supply, roads etc. are mostly provided by government agencies and some of them is provided in collaboration/jointly or partially by the private sector.
Therefore, in developing countries by and large, services which are related with broad public consumption issues are provided by government agencies and termed as access to basic rights or services available to citizens and contributes to human needs or development. In varying degrees, basic public sector services like water supply and sanitation, housing or shelter, primary healthcare, education and roads are largely provided at local level (Dube, and Danescu, 2011).
In this study, service refers to public goods services such as education is provided at woreda level. Public sector is defined in general terms as a sector consists of governments and all publicly controlled or publicly funded organizations that deliver public programs, goods, or services.
2.7. Empirical Evidence of Decentralization on Education Service Delivery
There are perceived advantages and disadvantages of decentralization on service delivery. If well-designed and implemented, Akpan H. Ekpo (2008) outline that decentralization could have following advantages on service delivery:
Facilitating Good Governance: Facilitating good governance by mobilizing the local communities and allowing them to participate in decision-making process and service delivery. This allows the local community to be a watchdog on the system and ensure that the public officials deliver quality goods and services (Ekpo, 2008; World Bank, 2000/2001).
Improving Service Delivery: The improving service delivery means that the lower levels of government could deliver services such as education, water, health, sanitation…etc effectively and efficiently than the central government. Also, at the lower levels of government, politicians and civil servants are more aware of the needs of their community making them more responsive in delivering such services. Preferences of local communities are better known at lower levels of government (Ekpo, 2008).
Productive Efficiency: The productive efficiency means that local governments can produce the same goods and services at lower costs then the central government. Because local governments are closer to the local communities, cost of producing goods and services will be minimal. The usual “middle-men” and bureaucracy involving contract procedures could be reduced (Ekpo, 2008).
Improving the Efficiency of Central Governments: Decentralization helps central government to pay attention on national and international issues. The central government can concentrate on macroeconomic policies for the whole economy rather than being pre-occupied with delivering services to the all the communities (Ekpo, 2008).