DECENTRALIZATION BETWEEN EFFICIENCY AND RISK: A CRITICAL AND THEORETICAL ANALYSIS

LEGEA ŞI VIAŢA Publicaţie ştiinţifico-practică 72 aprilie-iunie 2025 LAW AND LIFE Scientific-practical publication April-June 2025 CZU: 352/354 DECENTRALIZATION BETWEEN EFFICIENCY AND RISK: A CRITICAL AND THEORETICAL ANALYSIS Abstract: The topic of decentralization is analyzed in this article from a critical perspective, as a process through which local authorities receive more power and resources at the expense of the central level. Far from being a simple administrative transfer, this process raises questions related to efficiency as well as risks. Based on a review of the specialized literature, the article explores how the transfer of competences and resources to local authorities can bring benefits such as improved public services, citizen engagement, local economic development, or the preservation of cultural identity. At the same time, the risks associated with decentralization are highlighted: inequalities between regions, corruption, lack of administrative capacity, or poor coordination. The study discusses concrete examples from different areas – from China and Burkina Faso to South Korea or France – each with its own outcomes and lessons. What becomes clear is that decentralization does not work the same everywhere. Everything depends on context: local capacity, political culture, community involvement, and the degree of financial autonomy. DOI: https://doi.org/ 10.5281/zenodo.17627460 1 AssociateProfessor,PhD,FacultyofLawandAdministrativeSciences,ȘtefancelMareUniversityof Suceava, Romania (ROR: https://ror.org/035pkj773); e-mail: [email protected]; ORCID ID: 00090005-5774-5489, e-mail: [email protected] 2 Assistantprofessor,FacultyofLawandAdministrativeSciences,“StefancelMare”UniversityofSuceava, Romania (ROR: https://ror.org/035pkj773); e-mail: [email protected]; Phd candidate at ParisPanthéon-AssasUniversityandNicolaeTitulescuUniversityofBucharest,ORCIDID:0009-0007-25831766, e-mail: [email protected] Irina Adriana BILOUSEAC1 [email protected] Raluca Anica ONUFREICUC2 [email protected] LEGEA ŞI VIAŢA Publicaţie ştiinţifico-practică73 aprilie-iunie 2025 LAW AND LIFE Scientific-practical publication April-June 2025 The conclusion? Decentralization is not a magic formula. It only works if it is well-designed, adapted to each context, and supported by strong and transparent institutions. It can bring real development, but only when accompanied by political will, fairly distributed resources, and a local administration capable of handling responsibilities. Keywords: Decentralization, advantages of decentralization, disadvantages of decentralization, fiscal autonomy, local governance, administrative capacity, public services. DESCENTRALIZAREA ÎNTRE EFICIENȚĂ ȘI RISC: O ANALIZĂ CRITICĂ A PERSPECTIVEI DIN LITERATURA DE SPECIALITATE Abstract: Tema descentralizării este analizată în acest articol dintr-o perspectivă critică, ca un proces prin care autoritățile locale primesc mai multă putere și resurse, în detrimentul nivelului central. Departe de a fi un simplu transfer administrativ, acest proces ridică întrebări legate de eficiență, dar și de riscuri. Pe baza studiului literaturii de specialitate, se explorează modul în care transferul de competențe și resurse către autoritățile locale poate aduce beneficii precum îmbunătățirea serviciilor publice, implicarea cetățenilor, dezvoltarea economică locală sau conservarea identității culturale. În același timp, sunt evidențiate riscurile asociate: inegalități între regiuni, corupție, lipsa capacității administrative sau coordonare deficitară. Studiul aduce în discuție exemple concrete din zone diferite – de la China și Burkina Faso, la Coreea de Sud sau Franța – fiecare cu propriile rezultate și lecții. Ce reiese clar este că descentralizarea nu funcționează la fel peste tot. Lucrurile depind de context: capacitatea locală, cultura politică, implicarea comunităților, dar și gradul de autonomie financiară. Concluzia? Descentralizarea nu este o formulă magică. Funcționează doar dacă este gândită bine, adaptată fiecărui context și susținută de instituții solide și transparente. Poate aduce dezvoltare reală, dar numai atunci când este însoțită de voință politică, resurse corect împărțite și o administrație locală capabilă să facă față responsabilităților. Cuvinte-cheie: Descentralizare, avantajele descentralizării, dezavantajele descentralizării, autonomie fiscală, guvernanță locală, capacitate administrativă, servicii publice. INTRODUCTION In Romania, the idea of decentralization has often been promoted as a way to make administration more efficient and closer to the citizens. In theory, if local authorities receive more responsibility and resources, they should be able to make better decisions for their communities. People would feel more involved, and public services would ideally become better suited to the real needs of the population. However, in practice, things are not always that simple. For example, in many small communes, there is a lack of both well-trained personnel and the necessary funds to implement decisions. This can make things function more poorly than in a centralized system. Another issue is the significant differences between regions: some are wealthy and developed, while others face shortages. Thus, instead of reducing inequalities, decentralization can actually deepen them. In the absence of clear mechanisms for control and transparency, decentralization can encourage corruption and inefficient management of public funds. Nevertheless, if implemented coherently, decentralization can contribute to harnessing local potential, promoting local initiatives, and preserving local cultural identity. This paper aims to critically analyze these dimensions of decentralization, drawing on the specialized literature. LEGEA ŞI VIAŢA Publicaţie ştiinţifico-practică 74 aprilie-iunie 2025 LAW AND LIFE Scientific-practical publication April-June 2025 APPLIEDMETHODSANDMATERIALS As part of this study, works that directly address the benefits and risks of decentralization—both from theoretical and empirical perspectives—were selected. Sources published between 1995 and 2025 were chosen for their relevance in understanding the impact of decentralization on public services, local development, and citizen participation. The studies were identified through scientific databases such as Scopus, Web of Science, Google Scholar, and SSRN, with priority given to those featuring a clear and applicable methodology and a diverse geographical scope. This research is based on an extensive documentary analysis of the specialized literature on the advantages and disadvantages of decentralization. The selected studies cover both theoretical approaches and empirical research from diverse contexts, including Central and Eastern Europe, Asia, Africa, and Latin America. The existence of numerous works dedicated to this topic highlights not only the high level of interest among scholars but also the practical importance of these findings for local development. The goal was to identify the key ideas or recurring aspects that appear consistently across multiple studies, regardless of country or context. In this way, the selected studies have helped provide a better understanding of the real effects of decentralization and define the analytical framework used to assess its impact on the economic and social life of communities. Opportunities and limitations of decentralization: an analysis based on the review of specialized literature Numerous theoretical works highlight the advantages that decentralization offers for improving the quality of public services. The specialized literature shows that decentralization has many benefits but also points out certain limitations. Although it can bring significant benefits to communities, there are also risks that must be considered. Debates about the decentralization of public administration are divided between those who support this idea and those who criticize it. Supporters of this process argue that local authorities are better prepared to make decisions for the community because they know people’s needs better and can respond more quickly to local problems. In their view, decentralization helps clarify responsibilities, reduces bureaucracy, and leads to better and more efficient public services. On the other hand, opponents warn that decentralization can strengthen the influence of powerful local groups and deepen inequalities, especially in poorer communities. They believe that local authorities do not always have the capacity or resources to manage public services effectively. Another perspective is presented in a 1998 article, which argues that debates about whether decentralization is beneficial or harmful are, in essence, sterile, since decentralization is already an inevitable global reality. The authors emphasize that instead of focusing on whether decentralization has advantages or disadvantages, it would be more productive to focus on how it can be effectively implemented and adapted to national and local particularities. Therefore, the article treats decentralization not as an alternative form of governance but as an inevitable trend, shifting the debate from “for or against” to “how to do it well.”1 1 Jennie Litvack și colab., Rethinking Decentralization in Developing Countries (The World Bank, 1998), https://doi.org/10.1596/0-8213-4350-5. LEGEA ŞI VIAŢA Publicaţie ştiinţifico-practică75 aprilie-iunie 2025 LAW AND LIFE Scientific-practical publication April-June 2025 Numerous studies demonstrate that decentralization brings administration closer to the citizen, facilitating the provision of more efficient public services that are better adapted to the needs of the community. An empirical analysis shows that the advantages of decentralization consist of increased efficiency and accountability, improved quality of governance by bringing public services closer to citizens, more precise adaptation of these services to local needs, stimulation of competition between local authorities, strengthening citizen participation and influence in public decision-making, and promoting the fiscal independence of local administrations.2 A study conducted on Bosnia and Herzegovina3 highlights several important advantages of decentralization, including greater citizen participation in local decision-making, improved political representation of different ethnic groups, and a closer alignment of administration with community needs. However, the research also points out a series of significant drawbacks, such as the low efficiency of many newly established municipalities, challenges in coordinating across different levels of government, rising corruption, and the deepening of economic disparities between wealthier and poorer localities. In South Korea, a study conducted by Shin and Jhee investigates the complex relationship between decentralization and citizen satisfaction with public services. The authors explore whether decentralization, which involves the transfer of power and resources to local governments, directly leads to increased citizen satisfaction or whether its effects are determined by the managerial capacity of local administrations. Contrary to common expectations, the analysis suggests that in South Korea, decentralization has a direct negative impact on citizen satisfaction, and local managerial capacity does not play a decisive role in this relationship. This indicates a preference among South Korean citizens for a strong role of the central government in the provision of public services.4 Although in the case of South Korea decentralization did not automatically lead to increased citizen satisfaction, the study highlights the importance of strengthening local administrative capacity as an essential condition for decentralization to reach its potential in bringing governance closer to citizens’ needs and improving the delivery of public services. In Spain, fiscal decentralization regarding the personal income tax (IRPF) can contribute to increasing social welfare, as it gives the Autonomous Communities (ACs) the ability to adapt their taxation levels to local realities and needs.5 Studies on France (Józsa in the year 2020) and South Africa (Muzekenyi et al in the year 2022) highlight issues related to coordination and risks associated with corruption. In France, an analysis of the decentralization of public services—initiated in the 1980s to bring administration closer to citizens and increase efficiency—shows both theoretical benefits, such as greater efficiency and clearer accountability, and disadvantages, such as 2 Tristán Canare, „Decentralization and Development Outcomes: What Does the Empirical Literature Really Say?”, Revista Hacienda Pública Española 237, nr. 2 (2021): 111–51, https://doi.org/10.7866/hpe-rpe.21.2.5. 3 Aida Soko, „(Dis)Advantages Af Decentralization Models Driven by Non-Economic Reasons: The Case of Bosnia and Herzegovina”, South East European Journal of Economics and Business 13, nr. 1 (2018): 81–92, https://doi.org/10.2478/jeb-2018-0007. 4 Geiguen Shin și Byong‐Kuen Jhee, „Better Service Delivery, More Satisfied Citizens? The Mediating Effects of Local Government Management Capacity in South Korea”, Asia & the Pacific Policy Studies 8, nr. 1 (2021): 42–67, https://doi.org/10.1002/app5.316.{\\i{}Asia & the Pacific Policy Studies} 8, nr. 1 (2021 5 Alejandro Esteller More, „Imposición óptima y descentralización fiscal: El caso del IRPF”, Investigaciones Regionales - Journal of Regional Research 49 (mai 2021): 29–44, https://doi.org/10.38191/iirr-jorr.21.001. LEGEA ŞI VIAŢA Publicaţie ştiinţifico-practică 76 aprilie-iunie 2025 LAW AND LIFE Scientific-practical publication April-June 2025 the lack of conclusive data on the real effects and the risk of deepening inequalities. The author particularly emphasizes the challenges of decentralizing social assistance, illustrated by the problematic transfer of responsibilities for the minimum guaranteed income to local authorities due to constraints related to funding, human resources, and coordination. The text underlines that the success of decentralization reforms depends more on the political, economic, and social context than on the mere transfer of responsibilities to the local level.6 The article examining the decentralization of authority in South Africa and its implications for economic development emphasizes that although decentralization is considered a means to improve public services, reduce poverty, and promote economic growth, in practice South Africa has faced significant challenges. Issues such as corruption, irregularities in public procurement, abuse of power, and a lack of capacity at the local level have undermined the potential benefits, resulting in a gap between the intended objectives and the actual outcomes achieved through decentralization.7 An interesting analysis explores the impact of decentralization on local economic development in Burkina Faso, where the decentralization reform was implemented gradually rather than all at once. This phased implementation created a rare opportunity for a quasi-experimental evaluation. The experiment in Burkina Faso examined the impact of decentralization implemented in stages (1995, 2000, 2005), allowing for the comparison of communes that were decentralized early with those that were not yet decentralized. It used satellite data on nighttime lights (the amount of light emitted at night from the Earth’s surface—such as street lighting, buildings, industrial areas, or electrified households) as an indicator of local development. These data serve as an indirect measure of economic development and human activity because, in general, more developed regions emit more visible light from space, reflecting better infrastructure, electrification, economic activity, and urbanization. The study showed that early decentralization had a significant positive effect on development, but the benefits were concentrated in communes with their own fiscal capacity, emphasizing the crucial role of financial autonomy. In conclusion, the experiment reveals that decentralization can drive local development, especially where there is independent fiscal capacity, but it also highlights that it is not a universal panacea, as it may risk amplifying inequalities and even triggering, in certain contexts, a paradoxical recentralization of decisions at critical moments.8 Another study critically explores the advantages and disadvantages of centralization (when decisions are made by a single national government) versus decentralization (when decisions are made locally by authorities closer to citizens), focusing in particular on efficiency and political control. The decision to centralize or decentralize should be made depending on the context: if coordination between regions is needed, centralization is more suitable; if more effective political control and faster local responses are required, decentralization is preferable. The authors emphasize that there is no ideal model applicable to all cases—sometimes the optimal solution can be an intermediate form, such as 6 Zoltán Józsa, „A jóléti szolgáltatások decentralizációja Franciaországban”, Pro Futuro 7, nr. 2 (2020): 65–80, https://doi.org/10.26521/profuturo/2017/2/4763. 7 Mike Muzekenyi și colab., „Decentralisation of Authority and its Implications for Inclusive Economic Development strategies in South Africa: A critical review”, Journal of Nation-building & Policy Studies 6, nr. 3 (2022): 47–66, https://doi.org/10.31920/2516-3132/2022/v6n3a3. 8 Olivier B. Bargain și colab., „Shine a (Night)Light: Decentralization and Economic Development in Burkina Faso”, World Development 187 (martie 2025): 106851, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2024.106851. LEGEA ŞI VIAŢA Publicaţie ştiinţifico-practică77 aprilie-iunie 2025 LAW AND LIFE Scientific-practical publication April-June 2025 organizing governance at a regional level.9 A study conducted in China analyzes the effects of fiscal decentralization on citizen satisfaction with public health services, based on individual survey data collected between 2012 and 2020. The results show that greater fiscal autonomy at the local level— both in terms of revenues and expenditures—has a significant positive impact on overall satisfaction with services such as education, health, and environmental protection.10 In conclusion, the decentralization of health budgets has a significant positive impact on citizen satisfaction, with variations depending on residency status and local economic development. On the same topic, a study analyzes how the decentralization of expenditures influences citizen satisfaction with health services in urban areas of China. The results show that when districts have greater control over spending, people are generally more satisfied with healthcare. Thus, although decentralization can make public services more efficient, it does not automatically ensure an equitable distribution of benefits, especially in poorer regions.11 The conclusions of another study highlight how fiscal decentralization influences citizen satisfaction with government services in China, using data from the China Family Panel Studies (CFPS) for the period 2012–2020. The results show a significant positive impact of fiscal decentralization on the level of public satisfaction, with the effect being stronger in the eastern regions of the country. The study also shows that this beneficial effect is weakened by factors such as economic pressure and corruption, while the efficient functioning of the free market contributes to its amplification.12 Similarly, fiscal decentralization has been a driver of regional competitiveness in Indonesia. The decentralization reform initiated in Indonesia in 2001 aimed primarily to give subnational regions the opportunity to leverage their specific potential to strengthen their competitive advantage. Although some progress has been made in the socio-economic field and in the provision of public services—especially in health and education— these improvements have been relatively modest. The study conducted by Puspa Delima Amri and Mulya Amri, based on district-level data between 1998 and 2016, explores the causes of competitiveness differences between regions and highlights a clear link between fiscal decentralization and economic performance. At the same time, the research shows that high dependence on transfers from the central government and the disproportionate allocation of resources to personnel expenses, at the expense of investments, are associated with lower productivity and real GDP per capita.13 In a study on the decentralization reform in Ukraine, decentralization gave citizens the opportunity to democratically decide on the development priorities of their local communities. Thus, decentralization did not remain just a theoretical idea but became a 9 Mariano Tommasi și Federico Weinschelbaum, „Centralization vs. DeCentralization: a PrinCiPal‐agent analysis”, Journal of Public Economic Theory 9, nr. 2 (2007): 369–89, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9779.2007.00311.x. 10 Yuxin Wang și colab., „Fiscal Decentralization and Citizens’ Satisfaction with Public Services: Evidence from a Micro Survey in China”, preprint, Elsevier BV, 2023, https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4625729. 11 Jian Huang și colab., „Expenditure Decentralization and Citizen Satisfaction with Healthcare: Evidence from Urban China”, Social Indicators Research 133, nr. 1 (2017): 333–44, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205016-1361-y. 12 Xiaohong Pu și colab., „Does Fiscal Decentralization Really Matter for Public Service Satisfaction?”, Applied Economics 56, nr. 49 (2024): 6020–38, https://doi.org/10.1080/00036846.2023.2267815. 13 Puspa Delima Amri și colab., „What Influences Subnational Competitiveness in a Decentralized Indonesia?”, Southeast Asian Economies 38, nr. 3 (2021): 336–57, https://doi.org/10.1355/ae38-3d. LEGEA ŞI VIAŢA Publicaţie ştiinţifico-practică 78 aprilie-iunie 2025 LAW AND LIFE Scientific-practical publication April-June 2025 practical choice that brought greater local autonomy and increased citizen involvement in decisions that affect them.14 A study on the link between decentralization and development argues that decentralization emerged because a strictly centralized system cannot ensure effective overall development. To counteract the negative effects of excessive centralization and to enhance efficiency, transparency, and the speed of policy implementation, decentralization is considered an essential measure.15 For example, another argument regarding the efficiency of decentralization is that its implementation in China has succeeded in reducing carbon emissions. The study finds that this is because local governments have a better understanding of local conditions and preferences, allowing them to manage the ecological environment in a “localized” manner and to select emission reduction schemes that are most appropriate for the actual situation.16 An article on the Chinese land system provides a detailed analysis of China’s land system, highlighting both the benefits and challenges of decentralization in this context. The central concept of the study is “limited decentralization”, which describes a situation in which local governments have considerable autonomy, but this autonomy is constantly under the supervision and control of the central authority. Decentralization is presented as a strategic tool with significant benefits for economic growth and local finances, but one that also requires strict central control to mitigate undesirable side effects.17 Another proven advantage of decentralization appears in the context of local communities that include ethnic minorities. By transferring part of the decision-making power to the local level, these groups can have a direct role in decision-making processes and can more easily preserve their specific ethnic identity.18 Additionally, as Schrottshammer 14 Volodymyr Udovychenko și colab., „Decentralization Reform in Ukraine: Assessment of the Chosen Transformation Model”, European Spatial Research and Policy 24, nr. 1 (2017): 23–40, https://doi.org/10.1515/ esrp-2017-0002. 15 Keneilhounuo Usou și Tiatula Ozukum, „Decentralization and Development: The Missing Link”, International Journal For Multidisciplinary Research 6, nr. 3 (2024), https://doi.org/10.36948/ijfmr.2024.v06i03.23585. 16 Sailian Xia și colab., „Analysis of the Spatial Effect of Fiscal Decentralization and Environmental Decentralization on Carbon Emissions under the Pressure of Officials’ Promotion”, Energies 14, nr. 7 (2021): 1878, https://doi.org/10.3390/en14071878. 17 Shenghua Lu și Hui Wang, „Limited Decentralization: Understand China’s Land System from the Perspective of Central-Local Relation”, Land 11, nr. 4 (2022): 517, https://doi.org/10.3390/land11040517.the central government has decentralized considerable autonomy of land development to local governments to encourage the latter to adopt their advantages in local information for economic growth. However, the local government pursues more development-oriented goals, leading land to be an endowment for jurisdiction competition, fiscal revenue maximization, and officials’ career advancement at the local level. The discretion of local government, however, is constrained by the central authority. Land quotas, land approval, and, perhaps most importantly, nomenklatura, all of which are controlled by the central government, undermine the credibility and irreversibility of decentralization. We call such a central-local relation limited decentralization, a framework that could be applied to explain a range of land issues such as farmland protection and real estate regulation. Although we believe the central government is the principal determinant of the degree of decentralization, we also acknowledge that the initiative of local governments is essential. The interactions between central and local governments result in rights definition, power distribution, and, consequently, land use policy change over time.”,”container-title”:”Land”,”DOI”:”10.3390/land11040517”,”ISSN”:”2073-445X”,”issue”:”4”,”language”:”en”,”license”:”https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/”,”note”:”publisher: MDPI AG”,”page”:”517”,”source”:”Crossref”,”title”:”Limited Decentralization: Understand China’s Land System from the Perspective of Central-Local Relation”,”title-short”:”Limited Decentralization”,”volume”:”11”,”author”:[{“- family”:”Lu”,”given”:”Shenghua”},{“family”:”Wang”,”given”:”Hui”}],”issued”:{“date-parts”:[[“2022”,4,2]]}}}],”schema”:”https://github.com/citation-style-language/schema/raw/master/csl-citation.json”} 18 Yusoff, M. A., Sarjoon, A., & Hassan, M. A. (2016). Decentralization as a Tool for Ethnic Diversity Accommodation: A Conceptual Analysis. Journal of Politics and Law, 9(1), 55. https://doi.org/10.5539/jpl.v9n1p55 LEGEA ŞI VIAŢA Publicaţie ştiinţifico-practică79 aprilie-iunie 2025 LAW AND LIFE Scientific-practical publication April-June 2025 and colleagues emphasize, this approach helps reduce the risk of autonomy claims or separatist tendencies from these minorities.19 While there are a number of strong theoretical arguments suggesting that decentralization could lead to improved performance of local public services, empirical evidence does not always validate these assumptions.20 The specialized literature highlights that, in practice, some decentralization schemes contribute positively to community development, while others fail to generate significant favorable effects. The author of such an article identifies four main factors that influence the performance of these schemes: the relationships between local and central government, the effectiveness of increased participation in ensuring accountability, the type of resource allocation system (both administrative and financial), and the length of time the decentralized system has been in operation.21 In reality, another study argues that the relationship between decentralization and economic efficiency is negatively influenced by several factors. For example, it is difficult to accurately identify citizens’ needs—they may lack clear priorities, fail to express their preferences, or change them frequently. Additionally, meeting these needs is complicated by issues such as the potential for increased corruption, the risk of segregation, and the unequal redistribution of income. In practice, it is impossible to have so many autonomous administrative units that each individual can choose exactly the combination of services and taxes they want. 22 An article written by Remy Prud’homme draws attention to the risks of governmental decentralization, challenging the idea that it is always beneficial. The author compares decentralization to a medicine which, if applied incorrectly, can do more harm than good. Among the main dangers are the deepening of inequalities between regions and social groups, difficulties in implementing national economic policies, and reduced efficiency in the delivery of public services. Prud’homme emphasizes that decentralization must be carried out carefully, analyzing which responsibilities can be transferred, in which areas, and to which regions, while also highlighting the importance of collaboration between local and central authorities.23 Bardhan and Mookherjee analyze the risk that decentralization may have negative effects on local communities because it limits the accountability of local governments toward vulnerable individuals, such as the landless or those with low levels of education. The authors argue that in contexts characterized by pronounced inequalities (related to wealth, education, or social status), the limited participation of poor and landless people, combined with the lack of real political competition, favors the capture of resources by 19 Schrottshammer, E., Kievelitz, U., & Bleis, C. (2006). Decentralization and conflicts: A guideline. Deutsche Gesellschaft für technische Zusammenarbeit (GTZ), , Eschborn, Germany. http://www2.gtz.de/dokumente/bib/07-0148.pdf 20 Sujarwoto, „Why decentralization works and does not works? A systematic literature review”, Journal of Public Administration Studies, Vol. 1, No. 3, pp, 1-10, 2017, http://www.jpas.ub.ac.id/index.php/jpas. 21 C. Richard Crook și Alan Sturla Sverrisson, „To What Extent Can Decentralized Forms of Government Enhance the Development of Pro-Poor Policies and Improve Poverty-Alleviation Outcomes?”, 79-89, 1999. 22 Jūratė Baltušnikienė, „Viešojo valdymo sistemos decentralizacija: turinys, pranašumai ir trūkumai”, VIEŠOJI POLITIKA IR ADMINISTRAVIMAS, Nr. 27, 2009. 23 R. Prud’homme, „The Dangers of Decentralization”, World Bank Research Observer, Vol. 10, No.2, 201-220, 1995, https://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/602551468154155279/pdf/770740JRN0WBRO0Box0377291B00PUBLIC0.pdf. LEGEA ŞI VIAŢA Publicaţie ştiinţifico-practică 80 aprilie-iunie 2025 LAW AND LIFE Scientific-practical publication April-June 2025 local elites and their clientelistic allocation.24 In Ukraine, where the decentralization reform is taking place under difficult socio-economic and political conditions, an article lists several disadvantages of decentralization, including the resistance of local elites who block the process by manipulating public opinion and maintaining control over resources, as well as the formation of fragile local communities that are inefficiently organized and economically weak. In addition, the lack of homogeneity and intense competition between localities lead to difficulties in implementing unified regional policies and to long-term vulnerability.25 The same disadvantages are mentioned in another article, also based on an analysis of the empirical literature. First, it is noted that decentralization leads to the loss of the cost-saving advantage achieved when services are provided on a large scale, as well as to a reduced capacity of the central government to implement fiscal policies and social support programs, which can affect social cohesion and macroeconomic stability. In addition, there is a risk that local leaders may exert excessive influence on the decision-making process, increase regional disparities, and weaken fiscal discipline, especially when local authorities have limited resources to generate their own revenues.26 Crook and Sverrisson (1999) also highlight that decentralization implemented in Colombia, West Bengal, and Brazil—despite the substantial transfer of authority and resources to democratic local administrations—had only a modest impact on improving public services.27 However, there is a risk of corruption and inefficient use of public resources by poorly monitored local authorities. It cannot be stated with certainty whether decentralization limits or, on the contrary, encourages abuses of power, as its effects vary depending on the political, social, economic, and cultural context of each country. Empirical research on the relationship between decentralization and corruption provides contradictory conclusions: some authors28,29 argue that decentralization fosters corruption, while others30 show, based on data, that it helps reduce the phenomenon. DISCUSSIONS AND RESULTS OBTAINED Based on the points presented above, it can be concluded that the effects of decentralization on the quality of life in different communities vary significantly depending on how it is implemented. In certain contexts, decentralization supports the development of disadvantaged communities, while in others the results are limited or even ineffective. The success of this strategy depends on multiple interconnected variables, such as 24 P. Bardhan și D. Mookherjee, „Poverty alleviation effort of West Bengal panchayats”, Economic and Political Weekly, 39(9), 965-974., 2003. 25 Udovychenko și colab., „Decentralization Reform in Ukraine: Assessment of the Chosen Transformation Model”. European Spatial Research and Policy 24, nr. 1 (2017): 23–40. https://doi.org/10.1515/esrp-2017-0002 26 Canare, „Decentralization and Development Outcomes: What Does the Empirical Literature Really Say?” Revista Hacienda Pública Española 237, nr. 2 (2021): 111–51. https://doi.org/10.7866/hpe-rpe.21.2.5 27 C. Richard Crook și Alan Sturla Sverrisson, „To What Extent Can Decentralized Forms of Government Enhance the Development of Pro-Poor Policies and Improve Poverty-Alleviation Outcomes?”, 79-89, 1999. 28 Jeff Huther și Anwar Shah, „Applying a simple measure of good governance to the debate on fiscal decentralization”, Policy Research Working Paper Series 1894, The World Bank, 1998. 29 Zethembe Mseleku, „Decentralisation, Governance, and Corruption: Evidence from the Commission of Inquiry into State Capture in South Africa”, African Journal of Public Administration and Environmental Studies (AJOPAES), Volume 4, Number 1, March 2025, 67-90, 2025. 30 Raymond Fisman și Roberta Gatti, „Decentralization and Corruption: Evidence across Countries”, Journal of Public Economics 83, nr. 3 (2002): 325–45, https://doi.org/10.1016/s0047-2727(00)00158-4.