ABSTRACT
The word ‘decentralization’ is one which seems to occur with increasing frequency in discussions of systems of government. It is rarely defined with any precision, but usually produces favourable reactions. Centralization is associated with delay, red tape, and the erosion of local ‘liberties’; decentralization with speed, initiative and grass-roots participation in the decision-making process. The executive committee device, therefore, would seem to be most practicable in circumstances where, as a result of a major administrative reorganization, the separate central ministries dealing with the activities scheduled for decentralization are actually abolished, with the result that the decentralized agency's responsibility to the centre becomes more unified. The actual degree of democratic decentralization which may be achieved by this method depends on many factors, for there is often a considerable gap between the legal situation and the actual one. Local self-government is, of course, the most familiar and universal form of democratic decentralization.
