Some Critical Issues in Government Centralization and Decentralization

Abstract

T his is written with the practicing administrator, not an organizational theorist, in mind. Neither is likely to be fully satisfied. The discussion is often so general that it may be called theoretical, while at the same time it skims over important and unproven theoretical issues. Such are the hazards of a policy analysis which aims at fairly immediate, but general relevance. The last ten years have seen waves of proposals to decentralize government at all levels. This trend first gained currency at local levels, culminating in a broad movement supporting neighborhood and community governments. At the national level, serious discussions began in the Johnson years but little action was taken. The Nixon Administration made decentralization of the federal government a major theme. During much of this discussion, the arguments for and against decentralization have been couched in rhetorical language, with few careful efforts to give explicit statements as to why a program of decentralization was being sought, or which programs will be more effective if decentralized. This study reviews the definitions and justifications for decentralization, and provides some factors for judging which aspects of functions may be effectively decentralized or centralized. We believe that without clear notions of the values to be emphasized and the limitations placed on administrators by the characteristics of the tasks, structural reorganizations may only confuse and frustrate even the most dedicated leaders.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 31 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.