Evaluation of decentralization experience through political, administrative, and fiscal indicators: The case of Jordan

• Author: Mohammad Taamneh,Anan M. Abu‐Hummour,Mohammad A. Rawabdeh
• Date: 01 May 2020
• Published date: 01 May 2020
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1002/pa.2026

ACADEMIC PAPER

Evaluation of decentralization experience through political,

administrative, and fiscal indicators: The case of Jordan

Mohammad Taamneh | Mohammad A. Rawabdeh | Anan M. Abu-Hummour

Faculty of Economics and Administrative

Science, Yarmouk University, Irbid, Jordan

Correspondence

Anan M. Abu-Hummour, Faculty of Economics

and Administrative Science, Yarmouk

University, Irbid 21163, Jordan.

Email: anan.abuhummour@yu.edu.jo

The present study evaluates the decentralization experience in Jordan offering an

empirical test of the tripartite model of decentralization that has been developed by

Schneider (2003) using descriptive and inferential analyses. The finding indicates that

there is a moderate extent of the implementation of decentralization in Jordan with a

mean of 3.12 and standard deviation of 0.581. SPSS analysis confirms a moderate

degree for each core indicator within Jordanian experience; the mean average values

recorded were 3.33, 3.11, and 2.95 for political, financial, and administrative indica-

tors, respectively. As a result, Jordan's local administration essentially remains depen-

dent on the local arms of centralized power. Finally, the implementation of

decentralization experience in Jordan is influenced by the position variable of Jorda-

nian civil servants at level (α≤.05).

1|INTRODUCTION

The set of values that emerged from traditional public administration

consisting of the bureaucratic system as the optimal system for the

work of the executive authority has dominated the formation, struc-

ture, and performance of the government in many countries. The

commitment to implement the principles of traditional public adminis-

tration led the government to put all authorities and responsibilities in

the hands of the public officials at the center. This commitment also

led governments to monopolize policy formulation, implementation,

resource allocation, monitoring and control (Rosenbloom, 2013).

However, the actual application of these principles resulted in serious

social economic and political issues. This has been reflected in a

decline of the citizen's confidence and their participation in the elec-

tions at all levels. These challenges had pushed most western coun-

tries to adopt the theory of new public administration (Ehiobuche &

Tu, 2012). The principles of new public administration theory necessi-

tated a change in the strategy of dealing with customers focusing on

the statement: "The customer is always right". The application of this

theory required diversification of goods and services and the inclusion

of quality and competitive price. It became necessary to eliminate

monopoly through the distribution of management, control, and divi-

sion of structure into semi-autonomous decentralized units. Granting

managers of those decentralized units the discretion in planning,

decision making, and control was required as their counterparts in the

private sector.

Decentralization has increasingly become a globalized policy:

Developed and developing countries have adopted this policy around

the world; thus, this policy has been researched and thoroughly ana-

lyzed (Daun, 2007). Decentralization lies at the heart of new public

administration theory. Many studies have confirmed its important role

in the success of political, economic, and social development efforts

(O'Flynn, 2007). Most of the outcomes attributed to decentralization,

which are assumed in the literature, focus on the following advan-

tages: increasing administrative efficiency; improving procedural

equity; increasing service delivery; enhancing participation and

democratization; improving allocative efficiency due to the better

matching between public good provision and citizens' preferences and

needs, and political decentralization allows elected officials to express

these interests in the local decision-making process (Boex & Yilmaz,

2010, p. 13). Decentralization is seen as a means to maintain political

stability, local empowerment, development, and poverty alleviation

(Ribot, 2002). Decentralized units can take their roles in the compre-

hensive development process when two factors have existed. The

first factor is democratic management; which can be attained through

the creation of free and fair elected councils. The second factor is effi-

cient management, which entails providing decentralized bodies with

various administrative and technical tools to enable them in carrying

Received: 2 May 2019 Revised: 27 August 2019 Accepted: 2 September 2019

DOI: 10.1002/pa.2026

J Public Affairs. 2020;20:e2026. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/pa © 2019 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. 1of17

https://doi.org/10.1002/pa.2026

their missions in the best possible manner. In general, political, admin-

istrative, and financial characteristics of local decentralized units must

be available. Our article hypothesizes three core indicators of decen-

tralization: political, administrative, and fiscal. Political decentralization

is defined as the extent to which the centralized system delegates

powers to perform the political functions of governance. Administra-

tive decentralization is the level to which the centralized system per-

mits local administration to undertake the administrative functions of

governance. Finally, fiscal decentralization is representing the level to

which central authority grants fiscal autonomy to local government

entities to undertake planning, budgeting, and fiscal auditing

(Schneider, 2003).

The structure of this paper is in five parts. The first part presents

an introduction to the paper. The next part provides the theory on

decentralization. The third part presents the methodology used in this

evaluation, which covers the research sample, the research data col-

lection method and its reliability, data analysis, and the results. The

fourth part consists of the conclusion and recommendations for

future study. Finally, the fifth part points to implications for practice.

1.1 |Problem statement

Although the structure of Jordan includes different types of decentral-

ization, empirical studies have shown that most policies and proce-

dures are still decided by the central government (Alnsour, 2014;

Taamneh, 2018; Taamneh, Abu-Hummour, & Al-quraan, 2019). Jordan

is rooted in bureaucracy. The bureaucratic system is characterized by

control, standardization, the rational decision making, hierarchal lines

of authority, limiting the delegation from the top to the lowest, and

the central control over inputs for effective resource utilization

(Rosenbloom, 2013). However, the actual application of these princi-

ples resulted in the inflation of the size of the government by 3.3%

(2019 EST), increasing its expenditure and debt due to the burdens

placed on the economic sector by 95.6 % of gross domestic product

(2019 EST). This has also resulted in high rates of unemployment

14.9% (2019 EST), and budget deficit has averaged 3.6% of gross

domestic product (2019 EST; Jordan Economy:, 2019 Index of Eco-

nomic Freedom). At the same time, citizens' confidence in their insti-

tutions and politicians has declined because of the unfulfilled

promises and lack of response. This has been reflected in a decline in

the participation of citizens in the elections at all levels. These issues

had pushed most western countries to abandon the theory of tradi-

tional public administration (Ehiobuche & Tu, 2012); Jordan is no

exception. Therefore, the primary goal of this study is to evaluate the

extent of decentralization experience in Jordan, through a broad per-

spective of decentralization using nontraditional measuring tool.

Depending on the tripartite model of decentralization that has been

developed by Schneider (2003), the study hypothesizes major indica-

tors of the decentralization experience in Jordan: political, administra-

tive, and fiscal indicators (Schneider, 2003).

1.2 |Significance of the study

The government of Jordan has requested assistance from the United

Nations Development Programme (UNDP) for designing and improv-

ing the decentralized regulatory framework. A mission was organized

on August 14–25, 1994; the report on the mission entitled The Future

of Decentralization in Jordan came up with the following recommenda-

tions: (a) creation of a governorate council composed of elected mem-

bers with certain decision-making powers; (b) municipalities as a

decentralized local government should be empowered and their finan-

cial resources strengthened; (c) only one ministry should be in charge

of both governorate council and municipalities. In the Arab world,

decentralization was partially implemented by colonial powers. After

the establishment of independent nations in the late1980s and

early1990s of the last century, the financial situation made decentrali-

zation hard to survive in these poor countries. Progressively, the

majority of Arab nations advocated decentralization, and then, decon-

centration was increasingly implemented whereby a central system

increases its domination by transferring some of its responsibilities to

the localities. However, since the Arab Spring, arguments about

regionalism have been at the forefront of political and economic

reforms to tame oppositions groups (Harb & Atallah, 2014). The

decentralization legacies vary among Arab countries such as Jordan,

Morocco, Yemen, Tunisia, and Lebanon. In Jordan, over that past

years, the reform of the Jordanian local administration has been a cru-

cial priority for His Majesty King Abdullah II who has supported

reform efforts of national and local administration through a series of

radical changes that strengthened decentralization and improved

transparency and accountability of the provision of public services at

local level to address disparities between localities in the coverage of

these basic services provided (UNDP and European Union, 2019). The

Jordanian parliament has adopted the law on decentralization and a

revised law on municipalities in 2015 to improve public participation

in decision making through amending the existing membership and

roles of governorates and municipalities. The decentralization law

established a new governorate council composing of 85% elected and

15% appointed members. In parallel, the municipalities law establishes

new local councils and articulates their relationships with mayors

(UNDP and European Union, 2019). These significant reforms were

done by His Majesty to maximize decentralization in Jordan, whereas

in Lebanon, the central government still controls the municipalities'

power to distributes public services to their citizens and similar to the

Tunisian tribes that provide the public services to their clientele under

the supervision of the central government (Harb & Atallah, 2014). In

Morocco, deconcentration was the most prominent policy applied to

avoid contradictions between centralized and decentralized authori-

ties. Finally, in Yemen, decentralization was preferred to balance pow-

ers in localities and regions.

Back to the Jordanian context, even though Arab uprisings led to

major changes in Jordan such as the promulgation of the new decen-

tralization law no. 49 of 2015 (governorates councils) and the munici-

palities law no. 41 of 2015 that came to enhance decentralization,

some of the changes grant the King absolute power in areas of

2of17 TAAMNEH ET AL.