Elementos a fabricar

A number of scholars have argued that a key motive in the pursuit of decentralisation policies in the Solomon Islands is that at least in theory, the involvement and participation of local governments in decision making processes will ensure the effective and efficient delivery of services that reflect locally identified needs and aspirations (Grindle, 2007b; Miller, 2002; Oates, 1999). Advocates of decentralisation have alluded to the strong link that exists between decentralisation and central-local relations in that the manner in which decentralisation redefines central-local relations has potential implications for successful decentralisation (Freinkman, 2007; Kippra, 2003; Mcloughin, 2010).

Contrary to these arguments, the results emanating from this study suggest that decentralisation has barely strengthened the role of provinces, nor has it enhanced the relations between national and provincial governments in the Solomon Islands. As Ghai and Regan (1989, p. 2) cited in Chapter 2, decentralisation necessitates the establishment of mechanisms to ensure

114

intergovernmental cooperation and coordination in the exercise of respective functions. This study’s finding supports in part Ghai and Regan’s argument that decentralisation has enabled the establishment of institutions necessary for the conduct and negotiations of central-local relations such as the MPGIS and the PC, which was confirmed in the case study that was carried out in the Solomon Islands as discussed in Chapter 3. However, this study’s findings verified that MPGIS and the PC as the institutions dealing with the negotiations of central-local relations were not very effective in fulfilling their mandate. As indicated in the findings, the fact that there are no clear policies and guidelines to facilitate or guide the negotiations of central-local relations meant that government officials (particularly national officials) can engage in ‘forum shopping’ without being penalised. This finding supports Fritschler and Segal (1972, p. 97) argument in Chapter 2 that parties involved in the intergovernmental system need to have an accepted set of rules to guide their actions as this has potential implications on local decision making and policy outputs.

As noted in the findings, very few national line ministries have utilised the MPGIS and the PC in contrast to provincial officials. Moreover, relations between national and provincial governments as shown in the case study have deteriorated, and this is particularly obvious in sectors such as health and agriculture. This illustrates the weakened role that MPGIS and the PC plays in facilitating negotiations between the national and provincial governments. This finding contradicts Crook and Manor’s (1998, p. 4) argument in Chapter 2 that decentralisation will create systems of governance that are more effective and accountable.

Decentralisation as envisaged in the National Constitution of 1978 provides for the establishment of a second tier of government known as the provincial government system. The PGA of 1997 provides for certain powers and functions to be devolved to the provinces. However, in practice Cox and Morison (2004, p. 13) claim in Chapter 3 that the actual responsibilities and resources for service delivery were not devolved and resulted in provincial governments playing a marginal role in delivering services and managing development at the rural level. This argument concurred with UNDP’s (2008b, p. 5) findings in Chapter 3 which supported a conclusion by a United Nations Common Country Assessment in 2002 that in reality “the powers of provinces are largely illusory,” emphasising the need for increased devolution and more equitable distribution of resources to the provinces. Within this context, devolution does not appear to be the purpose of the provincial government system in the Solomon Islands.

115

Furthermore, findings during the fieldwork suggest that the present form of decentralisation may have led to two separate structures, the national government and the provincial governments, rather than a single integrated system of government with complementary and coordinated institutions. The perception by a few national officials that provincial governments are separate entities or are competing with central government departments hinders the development of an integrated decentralised system. Authors such as Bossuyt and Gould (2000); Ribot (2002); and World Bank (2000) claim that decentralisation through devolution is necessary to establish sub- national levels of government and has gained a reputation as the form of decentralisation from which the greatest benefits can be sought, however, within the Solomon Islands context the devolution of functions to the provinces reveals otherwise. Decentralisation through devolution to the provincial governments has had minimal effect in strengthening central-local relations. Rather, it espouses a system of continued dependency by provinces on the national government for human and financial resources.

Hence, this study raises concerns over the ability of the Solomon Islands current decentralised system to enhance the relationship between the national and provincial governments. The findings suggest that the existence of institutions for negotiating central-local relations within a decentralised context, in itself does not foster coordination and collaboration between the national and provincial governments. This is particularly the case in the absence of clear policies and guidelines that would enforce compliance by all actors in the utilisation of these institutions. The results of this study revealed that the MPGIS and the PC, the institutions dealing with the negotiations of central-local relations have not provided meaningful and constructive platforms for the negotiations of relations between national and provincial governments.