Content uploaded by Norman Adamson Sigalla King
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Norman Adamson Sigalla King on Apr 23, 2014
Content may be subject to copyright.
Journal of Public Administration and Policy Research Vol. 1(7) pp. 133-140 November 2009
Available online http://www.academicjournals.org/jpapr
©2009 Academic Journals
Full Length Research Paper
Decentralisation by devolution in Tanzania: Reflections
on community involvement in the planning process in
Kizota Ward in Dodoma
L. Massoi1 and A. S. Norman2*
1Mzumbe University, Dar es Salaam Business School, P. O. Box 20266 Dar es Salaam, Tanzania.
2Faculty of Business and Economics, Tumaini University of Tanzania, P. O. Box 200 Iringa, Tanzania.
Accepted 19 October, 2009
This paper provides a discussion on Decentralization-by-Devolution (D-by- D) in planning process in
Tanzania a focus being on Kizota ward in Dodoma. The paper provides findings on how grassroots
level is involved in preparing the three years strategic plan and its implications towards solving socio-
economic problems at grassroots level. The study employed a combined research design where case
study design and mini –survey designs were used. Questionnaires, In-depth interviews and intensive
documentary reviews were used for data collection purposes. The findings from the Kizota ward in
Dodoma municipality revealed that although the government has done a commendable work in
implementing D-by-D, its contribution in planning process at grassroots level is still minimal and
ineffective. The mitaa residents were not involved in the planning process; rather they were involved in
the implementation of the centrally made plans that did not include their priorities.
Key words: Decentralization, devolution and grassroots involvement.
INTRODUCTION
Decentralization is highly linked with local government
system and has been practised in the country in varying
degrees since colonial times. Historically, the concept of
decentralization has never been a new concept in
countries across the globe. The term attracted attention
in the 1950s and 1960s when British and French colonial
administrations prepared colonies for independence by
devolving responsibilities for certain programs to local
authorities. In East Africa, decentralization has equally
become a buzzword following what is perceived the
failure of the top down approaches to development and
demand for new approaches on decentralization came to
the forefront of the development agenda alongside the
renewed global emphasis on governance and human-
centered approaches to human development in the
1980s. Discourse on decentralization in the 1980’s
associated decentralization with increased citizen’s
participation in decision making process (URT, 1998).
Today both developed and developing countries like
*Corresponding author. Email: adamsonnorman@yahoo.com.
Tanzania are pursuing decentralization policies (URT,
2000).
Soon after independence that is from 1961 to 1980,
Tanzania like many other developing countries set out
ambitious social and human resources development
plans including programmes generally aimed at the
eradication of poverty, ignorance and diseases in a
matter of two decades. It was during that period Tanzania
in 1972 adopted numerous top-down policies including,
Socialism-Arusha Declaration (1967) and the
decentralization policy (1972), which focused on decen-
tralizing key authorities and functions of government from
the centre to the grassroots level so as to enable
community to participate in decision making. The policy
reflected Nyerere’s strong conviction that people must be
directly involved in shaping the decisions that affect their
lives. The policy manifested itself in different two major
forms: deconcentration and devolution. During the
deconcentration period, rural development was centrally
coordinated and managed at the district and regional
levels (Max, 1991).
Tanzania has always seen decentralization as an ideal
approach to rural and urban development (Ngwilizi,
134 J. Public Adm. Policy Res.
2001)1. While central government administrative
structures improved through these decentralization
initiatives, actual participation by the rural and urban
populace in the development process was not realized.
This type of decentralization was more of decon-
centration than devolution of power through local level
democratic organs. Tanzania's ongoing administrative,
political and economic reforms of early 1990’s demanded
effective decentralization in which the involvement of the
people directly or through their democratically elected
representatives is given paramount importance. These
reforms include the civil service reform which started in
1992, which aims to achieve a smaller, efficient and
effectively performing public service (Mmari, 2005).
Following civil service reforms, in 1984 the Local
Government system was re-introduced, followed by its
reform in 1996, where it was accompanied by the
Decentralization by Devolution policy. The policy shifted
from the former centralized system to the decentralized
local governance system (Max, 1991). For that matter,
the local government Reform was used as a driving
vehicle of Decentralization by Devolution (D-by-D) policy
to strengthen the local government authorities with the
overall objective of improving service delivery to the
public (Ngwale, 2005). Thus, the transfer of power is
made through transferring power of the decision making,
functional responsibilities and resource from central
government to local government authority (URT, 2006).
However, there have been cases including lack of
involvement of stakeholders in planning process, on the
side of the human resources involved in the process
(Shukuru, 2006; Repoa, 2005). This paper aims at
exploring the extent in which D-by-D has been imple-
mented in planning process at the grassroots level with
concentration on people involvement in planning process.
That means to see the extent to which individuals at
grassroots level are involved in the preparation of the
strategic plan and see whether the human resources at
the grassroots’ level have the capacity to undertake
planning process.
THEORETICAL PERSPECTIVES: CONCEPTS, FORMS
AND THEORY
Countries across the globe have opted for a
decentralised policy for diverse reasons. For Tanzania,
the aim was to bring government closer to the people
since in a decentralized system the decisions about
resource allocation and services should be more
responsive to local needs, usually because local people
can be directly involved in decision making or indirectly
1 A paper submitted by Hon. Hassan Ngwilizi, MP., Minister of State,
President's Office (Regional Administration and Local Government) to the
UNCDF Conference on Decentralisation and Local Governance in Africa,
Cape town, 26 - 30 March, 2001)
influence those decisions.
While decentralization and devolution may occur at the
same time, it is quite possible to decentralize admini-
strative functions without devolving the power to make
meaningful decisions (Fisher, 2007). The author (Fisher,
2007) further pointed out that in real devolution, those to
whom responsibilities are devolved should be allowed to
make a real input in setting up of objectives, rather than
being expected to meet objectives set by others. "Real
input" does not necessarily entail completely devolved
decision-making, but it implies some genuine possibilities
of affecting outcomes, as well as a willingness on the part
of those devolving authority to modify their objectives.
According to Fisher (2008), meaningful devolution
relocates not only administrative functions, but also the
power to make decisions and set objectives. However,
decentralization policies are part of vigorous initiatives to
support rural development (Fisher, 2008).
Moreover, Warioba (1999) pointed out that decen-
tralization refer to those tasks and activities which are not
done or executed from the centre. Warioba (1999)
proceeded by pointing out that decentralization is divided
into two main components:- Deconcetration - refers to
delegation of authority by the central government to the
field units of the same central government department,
that is giving decision making power to civil servants in
the regions, districts or/ and village (Warioba, 1999). This
form of decentralization is sometimes referred to as
administrative decentralization (Warioba, 1999). It is the
delegation of authority from the higher to lower echelons
within the bureaucracy, taken as a basis for development
and change. Devolution refers to transfer of decision
making power and much policy making powers
(especially development and social service policy) to
elected local representative authorities or units or to auto-
nomous public enterprise. This model of decentralization
is sometimes referred to as political decentralization.
Devolved local authorities have the power to make laws
of local nature and raise revenue needed to meet
development with very minimum interference from the
centre (Warioba, 1999).
Although most authors seem to link devolution with the
transfer of power to the local authorities, yet what
happened in Tanzania is the transfer of authority from the
central government to the local government, enabling the
later to pursue all matters regarding social, economical
and political development which were formerly being
done by the central government. For example, before
devolution the mandates to determine collection of
revenue on various agricultural products were vested on
the central government but after the reforms which paved a
way for devolution the mandate has been shifted to the
local government authority up to the village level2. Hence
2 See Article 146 (1) of the Constitution of the United Republic of
Tanzania
it can be narrated that decentralization by devolution
means transfer of authority- functional responsibilities,
and resources to all Local Government levels. This is
geared towards making them largely autonomous,
democratically governed and deriving legitimacy through
service they deliver to people in accordance to grassroots
level dwellers’ priorities as communicated to government
decision-makers. From the definition it can be reiterated
that the focus of the law and regulations governing
decentralisation by devolution focused on Mtaa level (in
case of urban authority) and village (in case of rural
authority) due to the fact that these are the lowest level of
authorities within the structure of local government hence
making it possible for the participation of the people at
the grassroots.
CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK
The main issue in this study was to explore the
implementation of planning process at the grassroots
level. Although Decentralised planning process requires
involvement of stakeholders in process, there have been
cases for non-involvement. This study intends to look into
the manner in which community is involved and identify
their implications.
Conceptual model
Community involvement in planning process
At the national level, planning guidelines are issued to
Prime Minister’s Office, Regional Administration and
Local Government as well as Regional Secretariats. The
main role of these institutions is to coordinate planning at
LGA. After receiving planning guidelines either from the
ministry responsible with planning/PMO-RALG or
regional secretariat, Local Government authorities com-
municate them to the wards. Furthermore, ward submits
the same guidelines to mitaa. In this regards, during
meeting through the use of O and OD mitaa priorities are
identified and included in the plan. mitaa plans are
submitted to ward level. The ward compiles the mitaa
plan and submits to the respective LGA. At this stage,
LGA compiles all wards plans and submits to the national
level and copy to Regional Secretariat and PMO-RALG.
At the national level, all LGAs’ plans are integrated to
form a national plan. The issue is to what extent this
process is reflected in Kizota Ward planning process.
METHODOLOGY OF THE STUDY
This section presents procedures used to generate outcomes. It
includes sources of data, collection methods, sampling procedures
and sample size. The data were collected at Kizota ward in Dodo-
ma municipality. Methods of data collection and instruments used
were interview, observation, documentation and questionnaires.
Massoi and Norman 135
Sampling procedures and sample size
In this study, units of inquiry included all residents of Kizota Ward in
Dodoma Municipality. There were a total 30 Wards in the
Municipality. Kizota was selected for study due to the fact that
despite being one of the oldest ward in Dodoma, it faces numerous
problems such as water, roads, trench and sewage system, hence
a need to realize peoples’ involvement in planning process. There
are six Mitaas consisting of 16,432 people at Kizota wards in
Dodoma Municipality. However, 44.36% of this population are
children aged between 0 - 15 years; hence the population of the
study was about 7289 residents (URT, 2003). Out of it, a sample of
729 persons was drawn, which is 10% of the total population aged
15 years and above. The sampling procedures based on
proportionate stratified sampling – where by Kizota residents were
grouped into their respective 6 mitaa; random sampling was used in
selecting a total of 729 respondents in total out of 7289; and
Purposive sampling3 was used to gather information from the
selected key units.
STUDY FINDINGS
This part provides study findings. It includes findings on
people’s involvement in the strategic planning, human
resources utilisation in the planning process at local
government level and achievement attained to mention
but a few.
Involvement levels in preparing the three years
strategic plan
Community involvement at the planning process is
essential for successful implementation of the process.
Moreover, it matters the level of involvement. At the same
time involvement of the officers is much more crucial.
Community involvement level
Findings shown in Figure 1, 2 and 3 summarize
responses collected through questionnaire on community
involvement in preparing three years strategic plan.
Findings revealed that 52.2% respondents said that there
was no involvement in planning process.
Also, 80% of mitaa Executive Officers had the same
view. On the other hand, 35.3% residents asserted that
the extent of community involvement in planning process
was inadequate. Moreover, the same table shows the
summary of the findings from the interviewed Municipality
staff who indicated that about 66.7% of them had the
view that community involvement in planning process
was moderate and it was in most cases made through
involving their representatives (councillors). The
3By virtue of their positions and functions, Municipal Director, Municipal
Planning Officer, Municipal Treasurer, Municipal Engineer, Community
Development Officer, Human Resource Officer and Education Officer,
Mtaa executive officers and ward executive officers were purposively
included in the sample;
136 J. Public Adm. Policy Res.
Table 1. Mitaa social and economic problems.
Response by Mitaa respondents Frequencies Percent
Lack of passable roads, trenches, nearby Health facilities and Market 238 38.8
Too much contribution by mitaa’s residents for running primary school education 64 10.4
Lack reliable clean and safe source of water 33 5.4
Transport problems 39 6.4
High unemployment level, absence of nursery school 76 12.4
Price level of various commodities, e.g. electricity 30 4.9
Environmental pollution, lack of dump problems concerning HIV/AIDS 84 13.7
Security issues and lack of teamwork spirit in solving socio-economic problems 24 3.9
Poor performance of Local Government Authority 6 1.0
Lack of mitaa projects and sites for conducting businesses 20 3.3
Total 614 100.0
Source: Field data (2008).
52%
35%
13%
Non-participation
Very little
Moderate
Figure 1. Level of community involvement in preparing three years
strategic plan (%); response by Mtaa respondents. Source: Field
Data (2008).
20%
80%
No participation
Moderate
participation
Figure 2. Level of community involvement in preparing three
years strategic plan (%); response by Mtaa Executive Officers.
33%
67%
Unknown
Moderate
participation
Figure 3. Level of community involvement in preparing three years
strategic plan (%): Responses from interviewed municipal staff
WEOs.
respondents asserted that direct community involvement
was not practicable due to shortage of funds and time
constraints.
In addition, findings gathered from mitaa minutes for
meetings held in the respective mitaa, financial
contributions for building secondary schools was the
dominant agenda at all mitaa. Findings tally with findings
by Cooksey and Kikula who pointed out that there were
numerous problems related to bottom-up planning such
as unmotivated and untrained staff, lack of transport
facilities and poor communication (REPOA, 2007). Also it
pointed out that most of such funds were spent basing on
national level and donor prioritizing (REPOA, 2007).
Furthermore, the findings from this study coincide with
the study conducted by Chaligha and colleagues
(REPOA, 2005). However, these findings are contrary to
planning guidelines for village and mitaa that are aimed
at enhancing bottom-up planning as a way of
accommodating communities’ identified needs in
preparation of Municipality’s plans and budgets (URT,
2004).
Although ministries had to some extent decentralized
functions and devolved powers to LGAs, Dodoma
Municipality failed to decentralize its planning functions to
LLGL. The findings revealed that there was insignificant
community involvement in planning process at grassroots
community. In most case planning was undertaken by
few experts who did not include residents’ priorities,
hence leaving many problems unsolved.
This is reflected in Table 1 which shows responses
from mitaa residents collected through questionnaire on
mitaa socio-economic problems. As from the table,
38.8% respondents pointed out lack of passable mitaa
roads, trenches, nearby health facilities and market as
major socio-economic problems facing their respective
mitaa. Besides, 3.3% of them mentioned lack of mitaa
project and sites for conducting businesses as mitaa
socio-economic problems facing their ward. Also, 1%
asserted that poor performance of Local Government
was a source of problems.
Massoi and Norman 137
Table 2. Achievements made by involving the grassroots Community in planning process in percent.
Response by Mitaa residents Frequencies Percent
Unknown 169 27.5
Some of the community problems have been solved 13 2.1
Increase in the availability of service, e.g. Secondary education 149 24.2
Cultivates good relationship between residents and mitaa residents 10 1.6
No any achievement 248 40.3
Cleanliness of the mitaa 26 4.2
Total 615 100.0
Source: Field data (2008).
Table 3. Respondents views on grassroots involvement in solving the problems in percentage.
Response by Mitaa residents Frequencies Percent
Unknown 26 4.3
Solving residents complaints 168 27.9
Realizing development of mitaa (In areas of increasing ownership,
accountability, efficiency, improvement and sustainability 304 50.4
Development and the spirit of working together 105 17.4
Total 603 100.0
Source: Field data (2008).
People involved in planning process
According to the study, 80% mitaa executive officers argued
that there was no involvement because there were no
detailed mitaa plans and 20% of them had views that
Economic, Planning and Finance committee was involved
in planning process. Generally, findings correspond with
the study conducted by Chaligha and colleagues
(REPOA, 2005). They revealed that the depth of
implementation of bottom-up planning in the studied
council differed from one council to another (REPOA,
2005). Also in most cases, it was undertaken by few
experts who did not reach people (REPOA, 2005). They
considered it to be top-down rather than bottom-up.
Findings confirm that community involvement in
preparing the mitaa plans was still minimal.
Human resource utilization in the planning process
98.7% respondents revealed that they had never been
trained in relation to community involvement in planning
process. Only 1.3% respondents pointed out that they
were trained in matters related to community involvement
in planning process. On the other hand, all MEOs
confirmed that they had attended training twice and were
equipped with opportunities and obstacles for
development (O & OD) methodology. Results are similar
to those from Kikula (2005) as well as Chaligha and
colleagues (REPOA, 2005). On the basis of these
findings, the study substantiates that there was no
training provided to mitaa residents on community
involvement in planning that would afford them an
opportunity to be fully involved in planning process.
Hence, most mitaa residents stayed idle for most of the
time, implying poor utilization of human resources.
According to Table 2, 40.3% respondents argued that
there was no any achievement made as a result of
involvement of community in planning process. 27.5% of
them were aware of achievements that resulted from
community involvement in planning. However, 24.2%
respondents stated that community involvement in
planning process has lead to an increase in availability of
services such as secondary school education. Thus,
there are no remarkable achievements related to com-
munity involvement in planning process because most of
their priorities and problems remained unattended.
The study revealed that there was insignificant
community involvement in planning process at the
grassroots community. As a result, the respondents saw
it as ineffective with no or little realized positive impli-
cations to grassroots community. However, respondents
argued that implementing community involvement in
planning process would lead to an increased in
ownership of projects, accountability, sustainability,
effectiveness and efficiency in running such projects.
According to Table 3, 50.4% respondents had views
that community involvement in planning process would
result in realizing development of the mitaa. In relation to
it, they pointed out that it would lead to an increase in
ownership, accountability, sustainability, improvement,
effectiveness and efficiency in running the established
138 J. Public Adm. Policy Res.
illiciting commitmenOwnership leading toUnknown
3.5
3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
.5
0.0
Frequency
Figure 4. Views of the municipal staff and WEO. Source: Field data (2008).
Table 4. Suggestions on improving involvement of grassroots community in planning process in percent.
Response by mitaa residents Frequencies Percentage
Workshop, meeting and training on involving mitaa residents 16 2.9
Grassroots level be consulted during planning process 71 13.0
Planning should start at mitaa level to include mitaa priorities 119 21.8
MEOS and mitaa residents be trained on participatory planning 107 19.6
Government should allow bottom up planning 187 34.3
Disbursing money directly to mitaa level for project implementation 45 8.3
Total 545 100.0
Source: Field Data (2008).
projects. Also, under such a situation, projects would be
established in accordance to residents’ needs and its use
will reflect value for money. Moreover, 27.9% respondents
argued that involvement of mitaa residents in planning
process would help to solve residents’ complaints and
problems, hence, contributing to poverty alleviation.
However, 4.3% respondents were unaware of possible
implications of involving mitaa residents. The study
corresponds with the findings by Braathen and
colleagues (REPOA, 2005). Also, Figure 4 presents
municipal staff and Executive officer view elicited through
interview. The findings in Figure 4 shows that 30% res-
pondents claimed that grassroots community involvement
would lead into community ownership of the project and
hence, its sustainability. The study substantiates almost
one third of the respondents had views that community
involvement at the mitaa level would bring about positive
implications.
SUGGESTIONS ON IMPROVING INVOLVEMENT OF
GRASSROOTS COMMUNITY IN PLANNING PROCESS
Table 4 shows responses related to suggestions concerning
the ways of improving the involvement of people at Low
level of Local Government in planning process.
According to findings on Table 4, 34.3% respondents
pointed out that in order to improve community
participation, the Government should emphasize on
bottom-up planning. Also, about 21.8% respondents
explained that in order to improve it, planning should start
at mitaa levels including their respective mitaa priorities.
Moreover, 19.6% respondents suggested that for
improving the community involvement in the process,
MEOs and mitaa residents should be trained on
participatory planning. In the same vein, Local
Government Authorities should allocate funds for projects
and running the offices because currently no funds are
allocated for the same. For example in case the service is
associated with writing letters, mitaa residents were
required to buy ruled papers for the same. According to
findings collected from MEOs revealed that LGAs should
allocate funds at Mitaas level for both running offices and
implementing various projects.
Also, MEOs, WEO and municipal staff suggested that
the government should change the manner in which it
allocates funds. More funds should be allocated according to
grassroots priorities.
Moreover, 2.9% respondents mentioned workshop,
meeting and training in community involvement on
planning as ways of improving community involvement in
planning process. Thus, in order to improve community
involvement in planning process, the government should
frequently train MEOs and mitaa residents on the same.
It should allocate adequate funds for running offices and
implementation of projects that reflect the priorities of
grassroots community. It is through community involve-
ment in planning process and disbursing adequate funds
for the projects would contribute to poverty alleviation.
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
The findings of this study justifies that, currently the
contribution of D-by-D in planning process at the
grassroots level is minimal and ineffective in mitaa of
Kizota ward within Dodoma Municipality. The failure
resulted from inability of the council to involve the
community in planning process that would include their
respective priorities. Moreover, the study revealed that
there has been poor utilization of human resource at the
grassroots level because the council failed to engage
mitaa residents in productive ways. Also, council plans
were in all cases prioritized over mitaa plans, hence
leaving most of the mitaa socio-economic problems
unsolved. Hence, there is a need to institute community
involvement in planning process as they would lead to an
increased ownership of projects, accountability,
sustainability, effectiveness and efficiency of the process.
The study concurs to a great extent with other studies
conducted in Makete and ludewa in Iringa region where it
was found that community involvement was being
hindered by irresponsiveness of the councils in creating
an enabling environment (TREECARE, 2005).
Despite the fact that D by D among other things calls
for community involvement in deciding matters affecting
their livelihoods including planning and setting their
priorities, the study noted numerous gaps as the mitaa
residents were not involved in the planning process;
rather they were involved in the implementation of the
centrally made plans that did not include their priorities
and as a result, efficiency in implementation becomes
minimum. Moreover, utilization of the human resources
available and their competence was also noted to be
insignificant. In that regard, it is recommended that
councils should ensure that they effectively involve the
community in setting their priorities and develop their own
plans – involve them in the planning process through
utilization of the available human resources at the grass
root levels.
REFERENCES
Adam J, Kamuzora F (2008). Research Methods for Business and
Social Studies, Morogoro: Mzumbe Book project.
Massoi and Norman 139
Ahmed E, Mbwambo J (2004). Does decentralization have a positive
impact on the use of natural resources Prepared term paper for the
interdisciplinary course, international doctoral studies program at ZEF
http://www.zef.de/fileadmin.
Babbie E (2004). The practice of Social Research, 10th Ed. Singapore:.
Pte Ltd.
Bonnal J (2005). A History of Decentralization http://www.ciesin.
columbia.edu/decentralization/English/General/history_fao.htm
Boon S, De JF (1999). Local government Reform in Tanzania: A solid
Base or Missing Stones? A research into the expectations of success
of decentralisation considering the extent to which factors affecting
success are present in the Tanzanian context
Fisher J (2008). Devolution and Decentralization of Forest Management
in Asia and the Pacific Bangkok, Thailand http://www.fao.
org/docrep/x3030e/x3030e03.htm 13.11.2007
Forje J (2006). Towards an Effective Delivery of Public services in
Africa, Rethinking decentralization and devolution of power within the
African context: challenges and opportunity University of Yaounde ii
Kothari C (2005). Research Methodology, methods and techniques, 2nd.
New Delhi: Ed.Dharmesh,.
Lukamai EC (2006). The Implementation of civil service reforms in
Tanzania 1991-2000, University of Norway
Marczak M, Sewell Z (2000). Using focus groups for evaluation
http://ag.arizona.edu/fcs/cyfernet/cyfar/focus.htm
Maro P (1990). The impacts of World Development. The
multidisciplinary journal devoted to the study and promotion of world
development, Pergamon press. Vol. 18,
Max J (1991). The development of Local Government in Tanzania, Dar
es Salaam: Educational Publishers and Distributors Ltd.
May T (2001). Social Research: Issues, Methods and Process Third
Edition Open University Press
Mmari DMS (2005). Decentralisation for service delivery in Tanzania
delivered at the conference on Building Capacity for the Education
Sector in Africa Oslo, Norway October 12th to 14th 2005, New Zealand
http://www.lins.no/events/NETF05PaperTanzania.doc.
Ndunguru P (2008). Lectures on Research Methodology for Social
Science Morogoro: Mzumbe University.
Nelson C (2000). Development Strategies, AID and African Capacity
Building: Tanzania: A Report for The Bureau for Africa, Agency for
International Development, September 1990 C:\Documents and
Settings\Student\My Documents\Nelson's Development
Strategies.htm
Ngware S, Haule M (1992). The Forgotten Level Village Government in
Tanzania. Hamburg: Institute of African Affairs.
Ngwilizi H (2002). The Local Government Reform Programme in
Tanzania – Country Experience. A paper delivered by Minister of
State, President’s Office, Regional Administration and Local
Government, Dodoma,
Othman H, Liviga A (2002). Tanzania at the Commonwealth Advanced
Seminar on Leadership and Change in the Public Sector held in
Wellington
REPOA (2008). Local Governance Finances and Service Delivery in
Tanzania A summary of findings from six councils
REPOA (2005). The Budget Cycle in Tanzania: Issues Relating to Local
Government, A paper prepared for the Training Course in Budget
Analysis and Tanzania’s Participatory Public Expenditure Review
Organized by REPOA on 20 to 23 January
2004)http://info.worldbank.org/etools/docs/library/106
Ronald R (2005). Understanding Decentralization http://www.
equip123.net/docs/e2
Saunders M, Lewis P, Thornhill A (2003). Research Methods for
Business Students, 3rd Ed. Harlow, Peason Education Limited.
TREECARE (2005). Community Involvement in Local Government
Plans: A Case of Makete and Ludewa in Iringa Region, Tanzania
Research Education and Environment Care Association, Dar es
Salaam
URT (2004). Local Government Capital Development Grant System,
Planning Guidelines for Village and Mitaa, Dar es salaam,
Government Printers.
URT (2000). Legal Framework for Implementation of the Government
policy on Decentralization by Devolution Dar es Salaam, Government
Printers.
140 J. Public Adm. Policy Res.
URT (1996). The Local government Reform Agenda, Dar es Salaam,
Government Printers.
URT (1998). Local Government Reform Programme, Policy paper on
Local Government Reform, Government Printers, Dar es Salaam.
URT (1999). Local Government Reform in Tanzania, Dar es Salaam:
Government Printers,
URT (2000). Local Government Laws, Principale Legislation (Revised
Edition), Dar es Salaam: Government printers.
URT (2000). Poverty Reduction paper, Dar es Salaam,. Government
Printers.
URT (2000). The public Service Reform Programme 2000-2011
URT (2004). History of Local Government in Tanzania, Dar es salaam:
Government Printers
URT (2006). Embedding Decentralization by Devolution Across
Government, Strategy and Roadmap, Final Draft, Dar es Salaam:
Government Printers ,
URT (2003), Tanzania Census, 2002 Population and Housing census,
Volume II. Age and Sex Distribution, Dar es Salaam: Government
Printers.
Wilkinson TS, Bhandarkar PL (2005). Methodology and Techniques of
Social Research, 11th Ed. Mumbai: Himalaya Publishing House
