optional · CSS study notes
2020 · Q6 · Critical analysis of the NRB five Ds of devolution (2001) (20 marks)
Source: PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION 2020.pdf, PDF page 1 · Answer allocation: 20 marks
Original examination question
Critically Analyze NRB-5Ds Model developed in 2001 in context with; Devolution of Political Process, Distribution of Resources to Districts, Diffusion of Power Authority Nexus, Deconcentrating of Management Functions and Decentralization of Administrative authority.
Bullet outline
- Explain the historical 2001 devolution design.
- Assess political devolution, fiscal distribution and diffusion of power.
- Assess deconcentration and administrative decentralisation.
- Identify participation gains alongside dependence and coordination problems.
- Distinguish the historical model from current provincial systems.
Full exam-ready answer
Introduction
The National Reconstruction Bureau's 2001 devolution framework sought to reorganise local governance through five interrelated dimensions commonly described as the five Ds. Its stated purpose was to bring authority closer to citizens and alter inherited administrative relationships. Assessment must distinguish this historical design from later provincial local-government arrangements, which have evolved under different laws.
Devolution of political power
Elected local institutions were intended to provide representation and make decisions more responsive to community needs. Representation arrangements also created opportunities for groups previously underrepresented in local politics. In principle, citizens could hold nearby representatives responsible for local services.
However, local democratisation operated within a wider political setting shaped by military rule. Provincial politicians contested aspects of the arrangement, and elite influence did not disappear merely because authority moved downward. Electoral representation required institutional continuity and meaningful autonomy to become durable accountability.
Distribution of resources to districts
Fiscal transfers and provincial finance arrangements were intended to connect district responsibilities with resources. More predictable allocation could help local planning and reduce purely discretionary distribution.
Yet dependence on transfers limited autonomy, while local revenue capacity remained uneven. Responsibilities could exceed available resources, and development allocations did not necessarily cover recurrent costs. Equalisation and transparent allocation criteria were therefore essential to prevent weaker districts falling further behind.
Diffusion of the power–authority nexus
The model sought to break concentrated administrative power by redistributing functions and introducing checks among elected and administrative actors. Reorganisation of traditional district arrangements was intended to reduce excessive dominance by a single office.
The difficulty was that dispersed authority could become fragmented responsibility. Where roles were unclear, disputes between political and administrative officials weakened coordination. Diffusion improves accountability only when citizens can identify who is responsible for a decision or service failure.
Deconcentration of management functions
Moving operational decisions closer to delivery sites could reduce delay and improve use of local information. Managers would be better placed to respond to actual service conditions than distant departments.
However, effective deconcentration required managerial skills, reliable information and authority over relevant inputs. Field offices remained constrained when important decisions continued to depend on provincial approval.
Decentralisation of administrative authority
Local administrative control was intended to align personnel and implementation with locally determined priorities. In practice, divided control over postings, careers and finance created tensions between local accountability and provincial service structures. Transferring functions without coherent personnel arrangements weakened the reform.
Conclusion
The five Ds offered an integrated vision linking political, fiscal and administrative change. Its experience demonstrates that no dimension can succeed alone. Sustainable devolution requires constitutional legitimacy, stable elected institutions, adequate resources, clear responsibilities and accountable staffing arrangements. The lesson is to align authority with capacity and public oversight rather than equate structural reorganisation with effective decentralisation.
Supporting references
Study note: This is an original model answer, not an official FPSC marking scheme. The outline is for revision; the prose below it provides the complete answer. Marks guide relative depth rather than a prescribed word count.