Why decentralization is not optimal in Ghana

A relentless proliferation of districts, a lack of competition for innovation and management and limited funding.

“One broomstick breaks easily, but a bunch does not” - African Proverb

Decentralization has swept across Africa as common governacne reform. Today, virtually every African country has some form of local government. The report Decentralization and Urban Governance in Africa states that “Subnational governance bodies exist in all African countries, and 81% of African countries have established legal frameworks defining the powers of municipalities, districts, or counties. The logic is simple: bring government closer to the people, and development will follow.

But has it? The record is uneven.

Ghana: Progress and Pitfalls

Ghana has been a pioneer in decentralization. Since 1988, it has steadily expanded its local government system. The legal framework underlying this system is enshrined in Article 240 of the 1992 Constitution, and grounded in key legislation including the Local Government Law (PNDCL 207) of 1988, the Local Government Act (Act 462, 1993), the Local Government Service Act (Act 656, 2003), and most recently the Local Governance Act (Act 936, 2016) which harmonizes and strengthens the powers and administration of Metropolitan, Municipal and District Assemblies.

The ambition is clear. Smaller districts are meant to be more responsive. But the reality is more complicated. Ghana has seen a 137 percent increase in the number of districts since 1988. As of 2024, Ghana has 261 Metropolitan, Municipal, and District Assemblies.

This fragmentation creates governance reach and participation, but it also fuels inefficiency. Many districts are poor in revenue, dependent on central transfers, and trapped in high administrative costs that leave little for investment. There are also built-in weakness within Ghana’s decentralization. Unlike Kenya, where governors are elected, Ghana’s mayors and district chief executives are appointed by the President. This means that local leaders often look upward for approval rather than downward to citizens. It weakens accountability and dampens the spirit of competition. A poorly performing district head can remain in office if politically loyal, while an innovative one risks removal if they fall out of favor.

Without competition for innovation and adequate resources, districts resulting from decentralization risk becoming stagnant rather than engines of development.

Watch this presentation by Dr. Victor Osei Kwadwo.

Kenya, South Africa, and Uganda: Contrasting Lessons

While Ghana shows both promise and pitfalls, Kenya has a success story. The 2010 constitution created 47 county governments, each with its own governor, assembly, and budget. These powers are constitutionally protected, giving counties both autonomy and stability. The results have been visible. At the 2025 Devolution Conference, leaders highlighted improvements in healthcare, agriculture, and education as direct outcomes of devolution. Counties like Makueni have pioneered community health insurance, while Kisumu has drawn attention for urban renewal and service delivery. Counties compete for recognition, investment, and voter approval. This competitive spirit raises standards, showing that decentralization can work when local governments have real authority and resources.

Not all experiences are positive though.

In South Africa, municipalities are powerful on paper, but many are failing in practice. An audit of 166 local municipalities in 2021–22 found only 18 with clean audit status while the rest showed failures in governance or financial management. Uganda offers another caution. It was an early adopter of decentralization in the 1990s and initially saw improvements in schools and clinics. But political dynamics have driven a relentless creation of new districts, from 56 in the early 2000s to 146 by 2024. With so many districts, resources are thinly spread. Many lack administrative capacity. The system has shifted from competition for excellence to competition for scarce transfers from the center.

Making Decentralization Work for Africa

Decentralization was meant to stimulate local led development. It improves governance and local participation in development, but it also fuels inefficiency when there is unguided creation of districts. Many decentralized districts in Africa are poor in revenue generation, dependent on central government transfers, and burdened by high administrative costs, leaving little for investment. Compounded by a lack of competition for innovation and leadership in some countries, like Ghana, decentralization risks becoming stagnant rather than an engine of development.

This is not unique to Ghana. Across Africa, decentralization has often been more political than developmental. New districts are created for the sake of votes, not efficiency. Regional coordinating councils exist but hold little authority. Districts are too small to think regionally, while the central state is too large and distant to manage local details. Central government transfers which is the major source of fuding for most districts are spread too thin to make real impact.

There is hope though.

“Hope is being able to see that there is light despite all of the darkness.” Desmond Tutu

Decentralization can still yield positive results when there is local competition. Where districts see themselves not just as administrative units but as competitors in attracting investment, improving services, or managing space, outcomes improve. Competition pushes local governments to innovate, to show results, and to benchmark against neighbors. This will turns decentralization from a convenient political exercise into a genuine driver of development.

Decentralization will yield positive outcomes when it creates incentives for local governments to perform, innovate, and compete, while also collaborating on challenges that cross borders.

DISCLAIMER: The views expressed in this blog are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official position of Governance and Development Advisory, or any institution with which the author is affiliated. This piece is written in a personal capacity to contribute to critical dialogue on decentalization and development in Africa.