ABSTRACT

Much of the enthusiasm for decentralisation and for enhancing the powers and responsibilities of local units of government is based on the idea that they are closer to the people that the state is supposed to serve. Judith Tendler characterises this position thus: ‘greater proximity makes government more vulnerable to citizen pressures, and makes it easier for citizens to become more informed and hence more demanding of good service' (1997: 144). From such arguments, it is often swiftly imputed that the global trend towards the decentralisation of public roles, responsibilities and resources is also good for women. The logic is as follows: because prevailing gender relations in most parts of the world continue to see women as responsible for the domestic sphere, women are more likely to be concerned with things homebound and local. As such, decentralisation is often regarded as benefiting from women's input and as an important vehicle for increasing women's representation. Yet the reality is not so clear-cut. First, localisation has its limits and there is reason to believe that effective voice and distributive policies are sometimes better exercised at national level. Second, even where the benefits of decentralisation can be clearly demonstrated, it is not guaranteed that these are extended to women.