Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-t5tsf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T07:17:26.322Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Gender perspectives on decentralisation and service users’ participation in rural Tanzania

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 February 2014

Zacharia S. Masanyiwa ,
Anke Niehof  and
Catrien J.A.M. Termeer
Zacharia S. Masanyiwa*
Affiliation:
Sociology of Consumption and Households Group, Wageningen University, P.O. Box 8060, 6700 DA Wageningen, the Netherlands
Anke Niehof*
Affiliation:
Sociology of Consumption and Households Group, Wageningen University, P.O. Box 8060, 6700 DA Wageningen, the Netherlands
Catrien J.A.M. Termeer*
Affiliation:
Public Administration and Policy Group, Wageningen University, P.O. Box 8060, 6700 DA Wageningen, the Netherlands
*
Email: [email protected] or [email protected]
Email: [email protected]
Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Increasing participation in decision-making processes by service users is one of the objectives of decentralisation reforms in Tanzania. The argument is that decentralisation enhances participation by all sections of the community, and by women in particular, and results in decisions that better reflect local needs. This paper examines the impact of decentralisation reforms on service users' participation for delivery of water and health services in rural Tanzania, using a gender perspective and principal-agent theory. The paper investigates how decentralisation has fostered spaces for participation and how men and women use these spaces, and identifies factors that constrain or encourage women's participation. It shows that decentralisation reforms have created spaces for service users' participation at the local level. Participation in these spaces, however, differs between men and women, and is influenced by the socio-cultural norms within the household and community. Men have gained more leverage than women to exercise their agency as principals. Women's participation is contributing to addressing practical gender needs, but strategic gender needs have been less adequately addressed because gendered power relations have been largely untouched by the reforms.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Modern African Studies , Volume 52 , Issue 1 , March 2014 , pp. 95 - 122
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2014 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Agarwal, B. 2001. ‘Participatory exclusions, community forestry, and gender: an analysis for South Asia and a conceptual framework’, World Development 29, 10: 1623–48.Google Scholar
Agarwal, B. 2010. ‘Does women's representation strength affect their participation? Governing local forests in South Asia’, World Development 38, 1: 98–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Agrawal, A., Yadama, G. & Bhattacharya, A.. 2006. ‘Decentralization and environmental conservation: gender effects from participation in joint forest management’, CAPRi Working Paper No. 53.Google Scholar
Axinn, W.G. & Pearce, L.D.. 2006. Mixed Method Data Collection Strategies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ballington, J. & Karan, A.. 2005. Women in Parliament: beyond numbers. Revised edition. Stockholm: International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance (IDEA).Google Scholar
Ban, R. & Rao, V.. 2008. ‘Tokenism or agency? The impact of women's reservations on village democracies in South India’, Economic Development and Cultural Change 56, 3: 501–30.Google Scholar
Beall, J. 1996. Urban Governance: why gender matters. Gender in Development Resource Room. Available at: <http://www.ucl.ac.uk/dpuprojects/drivers_urb_change/urb_society/pdf_gender/UNDP_Beall_gender_matters.pdf>. Accessed on 5.12.2012.Google Scholar
Beall, J. 2005. ‘Decentralizing government and decentering gender: lessons from local government reform in South Africa’, Politics and Society 33, 2: 253–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beall, J. & Todes, A.. 2004. ‘Gender and integrated area development projects: lessons from Cato Manor, Durban’, Cities 21, 4: 301–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bergh, S. 2004. ‘Democratic decentralization and participation: a review of recent research’, Development in Practice 14, 6: 780–90.Google Scholar
Bossert, T. 1998. ‘Analyzing the decentralization of health systems in developing countries: Decision space, innovation and performance’, Social Science and Medicine 47, 10: 1513–27.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bossert, T.J. & Beauvais, J.C.. 2002. ‘Decentralization of health systems in Ghana, Zambia, Uganda and the Philippines: a comparative analysis of decision space’, Health Policy and Planning 17, 1: 14–31.Google Scholar
Brinkerhoff, D.W. & Azfar, O.. 2010. ‘Decentralization and community empowerment’, in Connerley, E., Eaton, K. & Smoke, P., eds. Making Decentralization Work: democracy, development and security. London: Lynne Rienner Publishers, 81–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bryld, E. 2001. ‘Increasing participation in democratic institutions through decentralization: empowering women and scheduled castes and tribes through Panchayat Raj in Rural India’. Democratization 8, 3:149–72.Google Scholar
Conyers, D. 1990. ‘Decentralization and development planning’, in de Valk, P. & Wekwete, K.H., eds. Decentralizing for Participatory Development? Comparing the experiences of Zimbabwe and other Anglophone countries in Eastern and Southern Africa. Aldershot: Avebury, 15–33.Google Scholar
Conyers, D. 2007. ‘Decentralisation and service delivery: lessons from sub-Saharan Africa’, IDS Bulletin 38, 1: 18–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cooksey, B. & Kikula, I.. 2005. When Bottom-up Meets Top Down: the limits of local participation in local government planning in Tanzania. Dar es Salaam: Mkuki na Nyota Publishers.Google Scholar
Devas, N. & Grant, U. 2003. ‘Local decision making – citizens participation and local accountability: Some evidence from Kenya and Uganda’, Public Administration and Development 23, 4: 307–16.Google Scholar
Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). 1999. Agricultural Censuses and Gender Considerations: concepts and methodology. Rome: Economic and Social Development Department. Available at: <http://www.fao.org/docrep/003/X2919E/X2919E00.HTM>. Accessed on 5.12.2012..+Accessed+on+5.12.2012.>Google Scholar
Francis, P. & James, R. 2003. ‘Balancing rural poverty reduction and citizen participation: The contradictions of Uganda's decentralization program’, World Development 31, 2: 325–37.Google Scholar
Friis-Hansen, E., Duveskog, D. & Taylor, E.W.. 2012. ‘Less noise in the household: the impact of farmer field schools on gender relations’, Journal of Research in Peace, Gender and Development 2, 2: 44–55.Google Scholar
Goetz, A.M. 2007. ‘Political cleaners: Women as the new anti-corruption force?’, Development and Change 38, 1: 87–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grinnell, R.M. 2001. Social Work Research and Evaluation: Quantitative and Qualitative Approaches. 6th Edition. Belmont: Thomson Brooks/Cole.Google Scholar
Gyimah, C. & Thompson, E.S. 2008. ‘Women's participation in local governance in Ghana: the case of the Nadowli district of the Upper West Region’, Studies in Gender and Development in Africa 2, 1: 58–77.Google Scholar
Hemson, D. 2002. Women are Weak When They are Amongst Men: the participation of women in rural water committees in South Africa. Cape Town: Human Sciences Research Council Publishers.Google Scholar
Hicks, J. 2011. ‘Strengthening women's participation in local governance: Lessons and strategies’, Community Development Journal 46 (Suppl. 1): i36–50.Google Scholar
Hiskey, J.T. 2010. ‘The promise of decentralised governance’, in Connerley, E., Eaton, K. & Smoke, P., eds. Making Decentralization Work: democracy, development and security. London: Lynne Rienner Publishers, 25–46.Google Scholar
Kessy, A.T. & McCourt, W.. 2010. ‘Is decentralization still recentralization? The local government reform program in Tanzania’, International Journal of Public Administration 33, 12: 689–97.Google Scholar
Lakwo, A. 2009. Making Decentralization Work for Women in Uganda. Leiden: African Studies Centre, African Studies Collection Vol. 16.Google Scholar
Maharaj, N. & Maharaj, B.. 2004. ‘Engendering local government in post-apartheid South Africa – Experiences of female councillors in Durban (1996–2000)’, GeoJournal 61, 3: 263–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Matembe, M.R.K. 2010. ‘Gender perspectives on decentralization: The Ugandan experience’, in Local Power and Women's Rights – Gender perspectives on decentralization processes. Workshop of African and European Civil Society Organisations in Bonn, November 2009. Bonn: Association of German Development NGOs (VENRO).Google Scholar
Meena, R. 2003. The politics of quotas in Tanzania. A paper presented at the International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance (IDEA)/Electoral Institute of Southern Africa (EISA)/Southern African Development Community (SADC) Parliamentary Forum Conference. The Implementation of Quotas: African Experiences Pretoria, South Africa, 11–12 November 2003.Google Scholar
Mollel, H.A. 2010. Participation for Local Development: the reality of decentralization in Tanzania. Leiden: African Studies Centre.Google Scholar
Moser, C.O.N. 1993. Gender Planning and Development. Theory, practice and training. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Niehof, A. 1999. Household, Family, and Nutrition Research: writing a proposal. Wageningen: Wageningen Agricultural University, Household and Consumer Studies.Google Scholar
Norman, A.S. & Massoi, L.. 2010. ‘Decentralisation by devolution: reflections on community involvement in planning process in Tanzania’, Educational Research and Reviews 5, 6: 314–22.Google Scholar
Pennartz, P. & Niehof, A.. 1999. The Domestic Domain: chances, choices and strategies of family households. Aldershot: Ashgate.Google Scholar
Prime Minister's Office – Regional Administration and Local Government (PMO-RALG). 2006. Integration of Women and Gender Issues in Local Government Reform in Tanzania. Dodoma: PMO-RALG.Google Scholar
Sachs, C. & Alston, M. 2010. ‘Global shifts, sedimentations, and imaginaries: an introduction to the special issue on women and agriculture’, Signs 35, 2: 277–87.Google Scholar
Scrimshaw, S.C.M. (1990). ‘Combining quantitative and qualitative methods in the study of intra-household resource allocation’, in Rogers, B.L. & Schlossman, N.P., eds. Intra-household resource allocation. Tokyo: United Nations University Press, 86–98.Google Scholar
Shayo, R. 2005. Women participation in party politics during the multiparty era in Africa: the case of Tanzania. Electoral Institute for Sustainability of Democracy in Africa (EISA).Google Scholar
Shivji, I.G. & Peter, C.M.. 2003. Village Democracy Initiative Report. Dodoma: President's Office Regional Administration and Local Government.Google Scholar
Todes, A., Sithole, P. & Williamson, A.. 2010. ‘Including women? (Dis)junctures between voice, policy and implementation in integrated development planning’, Urban Forum 21: 69–84.Google Scholar
Tordoff, W. 1994. ‘Decentralization: a comparative experience in Commonwealth Africa’, Journal of Modern African Studies 32, 4: 555–80.Google Scholar
United Republic of Tanzania (URT). 1996. Local Government Reform Agenda. Dar es Salaam: Ministry of Regional Administration and Local Government. Local Government Reform Programme.Google Scholar
United Republic of Tanzania (URT). 1998. Policy Paper on Local Government Reform. Local Government Reform Program. Dar es Salaam: Ministry of Regional Administration and Local Government. Local Government Reform Programme.Google Scholar
United Republic of Tanzania (URT). 2004. Local Government Reform Programme Restructuring Manual: a strategic approach to reform by local councils. Dodoma: President's Office – Regional Administration and Local Government.Google Scholar
United Republic of Tanzania (URT). 2009 a. Local Government Reform Programme II (Decentralization by Devolution): Vision, Goals and Strategy July 2009 – June 2014. Dodoma: Prime Minister's Office Regional Administration and Local Government.Google Scholar
United Republic of Tanzania (URT). 2009 b. Poverty and Human Development Report 2009. Research and Analysis Working Group. MKUKUTA Monitoring System. Dar es Salaam: Ministry of Finance and Economic Affairs.Google Scholar
Venugopal, V. & Yilmaz, S.. 2010. ‘Decentralization in Tanzania: an assessment of local government discretion and accountability’, Public Administration and Development 30, 3: 215–31.Google Scholar