A platform for research: civil engineering, architecture and urbanism
A platform for research: civil engineering, architecture and urbanism
Decentralization and Town Development
Decentralized governance offers opportunities for achieving development through good governance and community participation at grass root (Ayenew, 2007).Thus, this study examines the contribution of decentralization for town development and; the opportunities and challenges of wereda decentralization for town development. The study was conducted in two selected Wereda capital towns in Metekel zone, Bulen and GilgelBeles. Data were collected from primary sources with the help of questionnaires, interviews and observation. The primary data were also supported by secondary documents such as federal and regional constitutions, proclamations, regulations, local development plans, official performance reports, and magazines. The data was analyzed qualitatively and quantitatively. The study revealed that wereda level decentralization actually has influenced development at grass root level in Metekel zone in general, and towns in particular. Better infrastructural provisions (education and health) were witnessed in the towns. This is due to better community participation in decision making process and availability of opportunity to express their interest. Though, more is expected, the financial capacity of towns has also registered progress. However, the situation in urban land delivery does not show an improvement. Partiality, bias, and unaccountability are major hindrances in urban land delivery. The top down hierarchy between town administrations and wereda administrators has become a major challenge for a full exploitation of town resource and administration. Besides, shortage of qualified manpower and weak community participation in development activities were also other factors that have impacted the further performance of towns.Int. J. Soc. Sci. Manage. Vol-3, issue-1: 78-80
Decentralization and Town Development
Decentralized governance offers opportunities for achieving development through good governance and community participation at grass root (Ayenew, 2007).Thus, this study examines the contribution of decentralization for town development and; the opportunities and challenges of wereda decentralization for town development. The study was conducted in two selected Wereda capital towns in Metekel zone, Bulen and GilgelBeles. Data were collected from primary sources with the help of questionnaires, interviews and observation. The primary data were also supported by secondary documents such as federal and regional constitutions, proclamations, regulations, local development plans, official performance reports, and magazines. The data was analyzed qualitatively and quantitatively. The study revealed that wereda level decentralization actually has influenced development at grass root level in Metekel zone in general, and towns in particular. Better infrastructural provisions (education and health) were witnessed in the towns. This is due to better community participation in decision making process and availability of opportunity to express their interest. Though, more is expected, the financial capacity of towns has also registered progress. However, the situation in urban land delivery does not show an improvement. Partiality, bias, and unaccountability are major hindrances in urban land delivery. The top down hierarchy between town administrations and wereda administrators has become a major challenge for a full exploitation of town resource and administration. Besides, shortage of qualified manpower and weak community participation in development activities were also other factors that have impacted the further performance of towns.Int. J. Soc. Sci. Manage. Vol-3, issue-1: 78-80
Decentralization and Town Development
Atnafu, Aldo Morka (author)
2016-01-21
doi:10.3126/ijssm.v3i1.12451
International Journal of Social Sciences and Management; Vol 3 No 1 (2016); 78-80 ; 2091-2986
Article (Journal)
Electronic Resource
English
DDC:
710
Population Growth in Rural and Small Town Ontario: Metropolitan Decentralization or Deconcentration?
| Online Contents | 2009
Decentralization, Governance, and Sustainable Regional Development
| British Library Conference Proceedings | 2001
Partial fiscal decentralization
| Online Contents | 2009
Partial fiscal decentralization
| Online Contents | 2009