Decentralization, the District Assemblies Common Fund and Poverty Alleviation: The Experience of the Kpando District

Abstract

The downward socio-economic trend of the 1970s, which was largely due to the poor management and administration of the resources of this country, compelled the Provisional National Defence Council (PNDC) government to embark on Economic Reform and Structural Adjustment Programmes. Besides in 1988, government embarked on a democratisation process. Decentralisation became a major policy through which the democratisation process could be enhanced. Decentralisation is not a new phenomenon in Ghanaian polities. However, with local government reforms in 1988, decentralisation as a process assumed a new dimension. It was embarked upon by the Provisional National. Defence Council (PNDC) regime, to make the people part of the decision-making process at the local level. It was also meant to ensure total socio-economic transformation of the country and to eradicate poverty. Consequently, structures and institutions, backed by legal instruments were put in place to enhance the process. Some of these are the District Assemblies and their' sub-structures, the National Development Planning Commission (NDPC) and the District Assemblies Common Fund (DACF). The roles of other institutions have also been redefined. For instance, the civil service has been restructured and its role redefined to enhance the decentralisation process. The process sought to transfer means, skills, power and competence to the District Assemblies to enhance their efficiency and effectiveness. A major innovation with the decentralisation process is the institutionalisation of the District Assemblies Common Fund. This Fund is a generous amount that is disbursed through the office of the District Assemblies Common Fund Administrator to the District Assemblies. The Fund constitutes five percent of the total national revenue. It is meant for development. The Assemblies are further directed to use twenty percent of this Fund for poverty alleviation. This study assessed the impact of the decentralisation process, the Common Fund and poverty alleviation efforts on the Kpando district. The assessment was based on information gathered through questionnaires and interviews that were administered. The sample were 24 beneficiaries of the poverty alleviation fund. In addition were 11 members of the District Assembly sub-committee on Finance and Administration, the District Chief Executive, and the Bank Manager of the Managing Bank. The questionnaire for the beneficiaries consisted of two parts. Part I consisted of ancillary information on biodata, such as age, sex, marital status etc. Part II was designed to measure the impact of the Poverty Alleviation Fund (PAF). There were twenty-four (24) questions, of which three were open-ended. The response format was structured as "Agree", "Somehow", and "Disagree". The major findings are that the decentralisation programme is on course. Infrastructural development is going on. However, there is still more to be done. There is the problem of the reluctance of the decentralised departments in the district to accept the authority of the District Assembly fully. The poverty alleviation fund is yet to make an impact due to problems of inadequacy of the fund, ill-timing and delay in release of the fund, low-rate of repayment, lack of supervision, diversification of the fund, low-level technology, and political interference among others. Some of the recommendations are that the Local Government Service should be established without delay; the poverty alleviation fund should be de-politicised and partisan politics should be introduced into the conduct of affairs of the District Assemblies.