Countries in transition face numerous political and economic challenges often exacerbated by persistent corruption and internecine religious conflict. In Lebanon, existing local governments have proven ineffective at providing many public services, especially those with spillover effects and externalities. This article proposes a structural change: the introduction of special-purpose local authorities to provide a single service transcending the boundaries of individual local governments. This proposal promises an innovative and practical solution to some existing problems; moreover, it will disentangle some of the complexities in the social and political milieus of a country typified by intense conflict.
Points for practitioners
This article proposes a policy recommendation to address one of the many challenges facing decentralization in Lebanon. Existing local governments have proven ineffective at providing many public services, especially those with spillover effects and externalities. Special-purpose local authorities are introduced as an innovative and practical solution to some existing problems; an approach that will disentangle some of the complexities in the social and political milieus of a country typified by intense conflict. The article provides certain decision points that are useful for policy makers and practitioners as they consider possible resolutions to existing challenges, potential implementation obstacles, and mitigating factors.
AbouAssiK (2006) Lebanese Civil Society: A Long History of Achievements, Facing Decisive Challenges Ahead of an Uncertain Future, Johannesburg: CIVICUS.
2.
AndrewsCWde VriesMS (2007) High expectations, varying outcomes: Decentralization and participation in Brazil, Japan, Russia and Sweden. International Review of Administrative Sciences73(3): 424–451.
3.
AntounR (1995) Municipalities in Lebanon: Past and present. The Lebanon Report4: 31–38.
AwortwiA (2011) An unbreakable path? A comparative study of decentralization and local government development trajectories in Ghana and Uganda. International Review of Administrative Sciences77(2): 347–377.
7.
AwortwiNHelmsingAHJ (2014) In the name of bringing services closer to the people? Explaining the creation of new local government districts in Uganda. International Review of Administrative Sciences80(4): 766–788.
8.
BarbarK (1996) Local Administration Systems: A Comparative Study, Beirut: University Institute for Studies, Publishing and Distribution.
9.
BitarG (1998) The beginning of preliminary practice of a successful decentralization. In: SalemPMessaraA (eds) Administrative Decentralization in Lebanon: The Problem and Application, Beirut: Lebanese Center for Policy Studies.
10.
BourdeauxC (2007) Reexamining the claim of public authority efficacy. Administration & Society39(1): 77–106.
11.
BrinkerhoffDWJohnsonRW (2009) Decentralized local governance in fragile states: Learning from Iraq. International Review of Administrative Sciences75(4): 585–607.
12.
CaidenG (2006) The administrative state in a globalized world: Some trends and challenges. In: OtenyoEELindNS (eds) Comparative Public Administration: The Essential Readings, Oxford: Elsevier, pp. 515–542.
13.
ConyersD (2006) Decentralization: The latest fashion in development administration? In: OtenyoEELindNS (eds) Comparative Public Administration: The Essential Readings, Oxford: Elsevier, pp. 447–462.
14.
Cuadrado-BallesterosBGarcía-SánchezIMPrado-LorenzoJM (2013) Determinants of functional decentralization and their relation to debt: Empirical evidence based on the analysis of Spanish municipalities. International Review of Administrative Sciences79(4): 701–723.
15.
FaguetJP (2014) Can subnational autonomy strengthen democracy in Bolivia?Publius: The Journal of Federalism44(1): 51–81.
16.
FanSYuBSaurkarA (2008) Public spending in developing countries: Trends, determination, and impact. In: FanS (ed.) Public Expenditures, Growth, and Poverty: Lessons from Developing Countries, Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, pp. 20–55.
17.
Farmer JL (2008) Institutional collective action and special purpose governments: Special district formation and regional governance. Proquest, Umi Dissertation Publishing, Ann Arbor, MI.
18.
FinkAWagnerRE (2013) Political entrepreneurship and the formation of special districts. European Journal of Law and Economics35(3): 427–439.
19.
FosterKA (1997) The Political Economy of Special-purpose Government, Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
20.
Fox W and Edmiston K (2000) User charge financing of urban public services in Africa. International Studies Program Working Paper Series, AYSPS, GSU. Available at: http://ideas.repec.org/p/ays/ispwps/paper0004.html (accessed 1 February 2014).
21.
GrahamL (1980) Centralization versus decentralization dilemmas in the administration of public services. International Review of Administrative Sciences45(3): 219–233.
22.
HaaseTWAntounR (2015) Decentralizaiton in Lebanon. In: DawoodyAR (ed.) Public Administration and Policy in the Middle East, New York: Springer, pp. 189–213.
23.
HendrickRMJimenezBSLalK (2011) Does local government fragmentation reduce local spending?Urban Affairs Review47(4): 467–510.
24.
Hooghe L and Marks G (2001) Types of multi-level governance. European Integration online Papers (EIoP) 5(11). Available at: http://eiop.or.at/eiop/texte/2991-011a.htm (accessed 1 February 2014).
25.
HoogheLMarksG (2003) Unraveling the central state, but how? Types of multi-level governance. American Political Science Review97: 233–243.
26.
HoogheLMarksG (2009) Does efficiency shape the territorial structure of government?Annual Review of Political Science12: 225–241.
27.
Information International Monthly (2009) Revenues of the Independent Municipal Fund for 2006. 78: 9 January.
28.
KabbaniK (1981) Decentralization and the Question of its Application in Lebanon, Beirut: Oueidat Press.
29.
KakumbaU (2010) Local government citizen participation and rural development: Reflections on Uganda’s decentralization system. International Review of Administrative Sciences76(1): 171–186.
30.
LeonardDK (2006) Analyzing the organizational requirements for serving the rural poor. In: OtenyoEELindEE (eds) Comparative Public Administration: The Essential Readings, Oxford: Elsevier, pp. 393–426.
31.
McLure CE (1999) The Tax Assignment Problem: Conceptual and Administrative Considerations in Achieving Subnational Fiscal Autonomy. World Bank Economic Development Institute. Available at: http://www.bndes.gov.br/clientes/federativo/bf_bancos/e0000744.pdf (accessed 1 February 2014).
OulasvirtaLTuralaM (2009) Financial autonomy and consistency of central government policy towards local governments. International Review of Administrative Sciences75(2): 311–332.
RondinelliDA (1981) Government decentralization in comparative perspective: Theory and practice in developing countries. International Review of Administrative Sciences47(2): 133–145.
38.
RondinelliDA (2006) Government decentralization in comparative perspective: The evolution of concepts and practice. In: OtenyoEELindNS (eds) Comparative Public Administration: The Essential Readings, Oxford: Elsevier, pp. 433–446.
39.
RosenbaumARodriguez-AcostaCRojasMV (2000) Decentralizing the health service delivery system in an emerging democracy: A case study of organizational change, civil society participation and local institution building in Paraguay. International Review of Administrative Sciences66(4): 655–672.
40.
SalemPAntounRKrayemH (1998) Conditions of Municipalities in Lebanon, Beirut: Lebanese Center for Policy Studies.
41.
SamaratungeRAlamQTeicherJ (2008) The New Public Management reforms in Asia: A comparison of South and Southeast Asian countries. International Review of Administrative Sciences74(1): 25–46.
42.
Schakel AH (2009) Explaining regional and local government: An empirical test of the decentralization theorem. Paper presented at the 11th Biennial International Conference of the European Union Studies Association, Los Angeles, 23–25 April.
43.
SchroederL (2006) Local government organization and finance in the United States. In: ShahA (ed.) Local Governance in Industrial Countries, Washington, DC: World Bank Publications, pp. 313–370.
44.
SezenS (2011) International versus domestic explanations of administrative reforms: The case of Turkey. International Review of Administrative Sciences77(2): 322–346.
45.
Shah A (2004) Fiscal decentralization in developing and transition economies: Progress, problems, and the promise. World Bank Policy Research Working Paper 3282. Available at: http://ideas.repec.org/p/wbk/wbrwps/3282.html (accessed 1 February 2014).
46.
Shehadeh K and Houry R (1997) Municipalities in Lebanon. Working Paper presented at the MENA Development Forum, Morocco.
47.
TandonBBAgnihotriVKRamachandranH (2001) Globalization and decentralization: Emerging issues from the Indian experience. International Review of Administrative Sciences67(3): 505–523.
48.
Whittington D (2006) Background paper on pricing water and sanitation services. UNDP Background paper for the Human Development Report. Available at: http://esa.un.org/iys/docs/san_lib_docs/Whittington.pdf (accessed 1 February 2014).
49.
YesilkagitAKde VriesJ (2002) The unanticipated consequences of decentralization and reinvention: The case of the province of South Holland. International Review of Administrative Sciences68(4): 579–597.
