Book Review: "Decentralization and Recentralization in the Developing World" by James Tyler Dickovick

In his book Decentralization and Recentralization in the Developing World, Jamse Tyler Dickovick poses two main questions:

1. Why do central governments decentralize power?
2. Under what conditions can they reverse the decentralization of power?

In order to answer these questions, the author utilizes comparative analysis from four countries in the developing world - Brazil, South Africa Senegal and Peru- In order to find the different experiences that this countries had with decentralization and (re)centralization of power he observes why and how the fiscal relations change over time. The author classifies these fiscal relations in three categories. These categories are, sub national revenue  autonomy, sub national expenditure autonomy and sub national contractual autonomy. In addition to this, the author will look at the conditions required for a federal state to decentralize versus a unitary state.

By observing the political and economic conditions that led to decentralization and (re)centralization in these four countries, the author finds that regardless of the organizational structure (federalist or unitarist) of a given country governments tend to decentralize power when they experience an electoral decline. Under this scenario, the decentralization takes a top-down approach and it's main objective is to solidify party power at a sub national level. The other scenario in which a country would undergo decentralization would be due to pressures from sub national governments (bottom up ). Contrary to decentralization, (re)centralization occurs under one circumstance; the successfully resolution of a crises.

Overall, the book provides an insightful understanding as for why decentralization and (re)centralization occurs. Tyler Dickovick, clearly explains the difference between studying the dynamic factors (changes in political economy status) versus static factors (federalism and unitarism). Wby studying the cases of Brazil, South Africa, Senegal and Peru, we now have a better understanding of the high levels of volatility in their political structure as a result of a crises. Furthermore, we now posses a better understanding of the role of the political economy and the institutional arena have on any given country.

Upon further reflection, some concerns or alternative hypotheses come to mind. First, on conocern that comes to mind is the way in which the author assumed the role of the executive leader and the way it interacts with sub national governments. I mention this, due to the fact that the author does not account for the monitoring methods that both societies can implement on sub national  governments. This issue to some extent explained while studying South Africa but much ignored in the other cases. Second, I ask myself how would the combination of Leviathan thery and the theory presented n this book further explain the impact that institutions and political economy have on decentralization and recent realization.

Though the international political economy does not play a major role in the book, the politics economy does. It would be interesting to see what would the inclusion of the  International political economy have on this model.