Desentralisation in conflict and post-conflict situations

This paper reviews the literature on decentralization in multiethnic states with the objective of exploring key issues in the literature, identifying research gaps and suggesting policy recommendations for Norwegian development policy. Overall, the review demonstrates that many of the promises of decentralization have not been met or documented, or the results have been mixed. There is no consistent evidence to document that decentralization has served as a conflict management tool. The experience differs significantly between governments in unitary and federal states respectively.

In unitary states governments often use decentralization as a tool for eroding ethnic identity and solidarity. Federal governments often apply the exact opposite approach; they explicitly recognise the rights of ethnic groups in a national system of ethnic accommodation. They believe that accommodation of national minorities holds the key to stability and unity. The evidence is mixed with regard to the impact of federalism on conflict. Some argue that federal solutions may have a conflict mitigating potential in the short term, while in the long term secession is a distinct possibility.

Findings from comparative qualitative case studies provide a mixed picture. Some argue that ‘true autonomy prevents secession’ while others point to the dismal track record of federal states. [the author]