The impact of local self-governance on socio-economic development of citizens. The case of Huye District/Rwanda ABSTRACT Some scholars have argued that the enhanced local self-governance of in any nation is a product of good governance, accountability, transparency and trust, which in turn brings about the improvement in the living standard of the people. The implication of this position is that where good governance is absent, accountability of governmental agencies and development in such a society is likely to be affected negatively. With the analysis of primary data, this research examined the impact of local self-governance in ensuring good governance through accountability, transparency and efficiency for sustainable democratization of socio-economic development of citizens. Our case study was Huye District, in Rwanda. Therefore, the ample evidence indicated that their increasing effectiveness in delivering social services, they have been able to effectively promote local socio-economic development. This study therefore set out to find out the impact of local governments on citizens through good governance with its pillars such as accountability, transparency and efficiency. The study analyzed how the local government carried out its local socio-economic development promotional drive, its capacity, the involvement of other stakeholders and other factors influencing its involvement in the process. It employed the use of mainly qualitative research methodology. The case study approach was adopted as the research strategy. Both primary and secondary sources of data were used and a variety of methods including documentary analysis, observations, group discussions and questionnaire administration were employed to ensure triangulation and the quality of data collected and analysed. The study revealed that the local government played several roles in the development of citizens by rapidly addressing the local socio-economic development needs of the district. The various strategies and tools applied are widened in scope. The local government was also more committed to the implementation of programmes and projects stated in its development plans that were of direct benefit to economic entities in local communities. Moreover, the local government‘s involvement of other stakeholders in its local socio-economic development process was obvious. The study therefore recommends that for the local government to be effective, it must put in pragmatic and relevant strategies and tools, have the needed capacity, a strong institutional set-up and should consciously involve all the necessary and potential stakeholders in all the stages of the local socio-economic development process. This should also be complemented by efforts of the central government to strengthen the local government in the process of local socio-economic development of citizens. Key words Self-governance, socio-economic development

1. INTRODUCATION In the aftermath of Genocide of 1994, the underlying concern was faced by the new government of Rwanda was to rebuilt the country, restitute trust among the citizenry, restore good and participatory governance and therefore reduce the prevalent poverty. The government initiated different programs to address these issues; among these was decentralization or the self-governance, a culture of collective action of solidarity at community level. The objective of the program was to revive and foster collective action at the village level, the smallest administrative entity in the country.

The country has a highly decentralized system divided into four (4) provinces plus the city of Kigali. These provinces are made up of 30 districts, 416 sectors, 2,148, cells and 14,744 villages (Imidugudu). The district is the basic political-administrative unit of the country with the village being the closest to the people. It is at this grassroots level that problems, priorities and needs of the people can be identified and addressed (Mupenzi 2010, 18). Among other responsibilities of the village are the maintenance of security and the promotion of peace and social harmony among the citizens. In addition, it is responsible for mobilizing the village community for various development and social agendas. The administrative organs of the village include the village council which comprises of all people living in the village who are 18 years old and above; and the village executive committee elected for five-year term and is composed of five people from the village coordinator to the members in charge of security, social affair, information, and development.

The cell, the next level above the village, is responsible for collecting basic statistics about the population and their welfare. The data are then used for planning purposes at the sector level to facilitate service delivery. All citizens living in a particular cell who are aged 18 and above are members of the cell Council. The council mobilises local residents of the cell to identify, discuss, and prioritize their collective problems, and make decisions about their resolution. The cell council elects the 10-member executive committee that executes functions related to administration and community development, including the day-to-day administration of the cell and the implementation of the decisions taken by the council.

The sector is the principal service delivery point where most services are rendered. A sector has five employees, including the executive secretary who is the overall coordinator. The others include individuals in charge of agriculture and livestock; social affairs, and the secretary who also works as the cashier. The sector also supervises cell-level employees. The sector is governed by a council which oversees policy implementation decides on priority programs and also monitor the performance of sector-level staff.

Next are the Districts, originally created as the focus of decentralized service delivery. The district plans, coordinates, and promotes socio-economic development in areas within its jurisdiction. It also mobilises resources from different sources including the central government, the private sector, civil society groups and development partners. Districts have their own elected councils and mayors and prepare their own budgets. In addition to receiving transfers from the central government, districts have taxing powers which allow them to mobilise resources locally. The cells and sectors serve as constituencies within districts and provide an important vehicle for citizens’ voices. It promotes and supports activities in which the population participates at grass-roots level and is responsible for maintaining infrastructure.

It is required and reported that in planning development activities, a district administration takes people’s wishes into account. District administrations work hand in hand with community-based associations and cooperatives. All civil servants at the district, sector and cell levels are recruited by the district council which reserves the right to punish, fire, or promote any employee based on a report from the executive committee and evidence from his or her immediate supervisor. However, in doing so it must respect the rules and regulations which govern the employment of public servants. The district also pays the salaries of all local administration employees at all levels.

The Province serves as a coordinator between the districts and the central government in the planning, execution and supervision of decentralized services. In addition it serves as a channel through which the central government receives complaints from the population concerning the quality, quantity, and fairness of service provision. Its other responsibilities include the coordination of district planning and allocating implementation budgets and ensuring that districts implement policies with the objective of supporting the culture of peace, transparency, and participation by citizens in decision making. The province also ensures that district-level governance is in line with national policies, laws and regulations; and that development within districts is based on scientific research. At the summit of the administrative hierarchy is the central government which, through line ministries formulates and evaluate policies, programmes and principles which govern the country; as well as resource mobilization to facilitate programme implementation and building the capacity of the population and entities which implement programmes.

However, all the above cannot be reached without the involvement of citizens in all policies implementation. Development actions usually require the transformation of all or a part of the factors that have an impact on a society. A development policy requires a conscious action on all major factors that affect the structure and the life of society. This calls upon all stakeholders i.e. politicians, developers, practitioners, consultants, change agents and beneficiaries of development to plan their interventions in order to benefit the community. Theron and Barnard (1997:37) suggest a number of questions that can guide development actions, such as Development from what? Development by whom? Development from whom? And Development in what way?

Development is said to fail if change agents, especially so government (local government) officials do not comprehend the role of development actions and the use of the indigenous knowledge systems. Local communities can and must play a leading role in responding to local needs especially in reducing poverty and in the reconciliation process. The other institutions intervening in the development process should work in partnership with the local communities in order to attain the expected output for developing the community. To do that each institution needs to design proper procedures, and set out common strategies for a common goal. According to the Republic of Rwanda (2002:3), through its community development policy, these working procedures and common goals should allow the local communities to access information, knowledge and other resources necessary for development. They should stimulate the community towards innovations and to practice entrepreneurship within grassroots structures.

The history of Rwanda shows that, much as the population is willing to work, it has never sufficiently participated in its own development. Before colonisation, the people of Rwanda lived in harmony and had their own vision of community development. The interaction with outsiders was limited. The people based development strategies on the exploitation of locally available resources using various collective methods of solving the socio-economic problems they faced. It was a strong society with a hierarchy structured in a coherent manner with organized leadership (top down), which permitted vertical and horizontal participation in the areas of socio-economic interests. The society was organized on the basis of national interests such as defense, agriculture, livestock and arts and craft industry. The participation and collaboration, which existed in these areas, were not formalized. The same document (Republic of Rwanda 2002:4) tells how the colonizers exploited this centralised structure and introduced a design for supervised development based on the establishment of socio-economic infrastructure. This focused mainly on foreign interests and was supported by forced labour e.g. the growing of cash crops for export, building schools, churches, administrative buildings, and roads. The people were expected to implement all these procedures without prior and proper participation. The exposure of Rwanda to the outside world through the introduction of a monetized economy; new religions and an imported educational system have all contributed to the diminishing spirit of teamwork, which characterized the development model of the country previously. For example individual work or wage-earning replaced communal agricultural tasks (“Ubudehe”), thus introducing an individualistic vision of development. It could be much better to develop this model in order to strengthen and reshape participation as people were already working as a team. Since independence, the country has inherited a politico-administrative structure, which is hierarchical, centralized, and authoritarian. However, in the aftermath of 1994 Tutsi Genocide, as we stated before, Rwanda tried to be example of good governance led countries by allowing the local self-governance through decentralization of the administrative, fiscal, and political functions of the central government to lower-level governments. Though these decentralization efforts are typically politically motivated, they have profound impacts on economies by influencing, among other things, governance in the public sector, including public services. With regard to governance, local self-governance is often thought to “bring government closer to the people.” Furthermore, when there are problems of cooperation on the national level among factions—which might be ethnically, regionally, religiously or historically based—devolution that leads to local jurisdictions along factional lines might be expected to remove obstacles to government decision-making, and public acceptability of government decisions, and in general facilitate collective action and cooperation. This is so because of the greater trust, capacity for collective action and legitimacy of decision making that are sometimes found among more homogeneous groups (see Meagher 1999). Under the right circumstances—e.g., where government actions are transparent and civil society is permitted to operate freely—devolution should increase the accountability of government officials and discourage most forms of corruption. The advocates of decentralization, moreover, argue that decentralizing the delivery and in some cases the financing of local public goods (i.e., public goods that do not have substantial inter-jurisdictional spillovers) improves the allocation of resources, cost recovery, and accountability, and reduces corruption in service delivery. Therefore, this work addressed the above issues through a selective review of the literature dealing with the importance of local self-governance in ensuring accountability, transparency and efficiency for sustainable democratization of socio-economic development of citizens. Specifically, this work reviewed factors that are likely to influence local citizens to participle in resource allocation, cost recovery, accountability and any positive elements which can help them in their self-governing towards the development. These factors include not only the powers, boundaries, and capacity of sub-national governments, but also social and economic characteristics.

2. METHODOLOGY 2.1. Research design In our work we focused on two types of research: Descriptive and correlational research. 2.1.1. Descriptive research In our work we used descriptive research in its both categories which are quantitative and qualitative research. Quantitative research involves collections of quantitative information that can be tabulated along a continuum in numerical form, such as scores on a test or the number of times a person chooses to use a-certain feature of a multimedia program, or it can describe categories of information such as gender or patterns of interaction when using technology in a group situation. Qualitative research involves gathering data that describe events and it allows us to associate ideas and to know the next logical step in the affirmation or negation of the answers given by the respondents. Therefore, descriptive research design is used in our work to attempt to describe and explain condition of the present by using many subjects and questionnaires to fully describe a phenomenon. In this respect, we used quantitative and qualitative approaches. The research for the purpose of this study will be of a descriptive nature making use of information requested from district, sector, cell and village leaders of Huye District from the research instrument. The research instrument will consist of questionnaires and the interview. 2.1.2. Correlational research In our research identified the relationship between two variables such as independent variables which are Local self-governance and dependent variables which are accountability, transparency and efficiency for sustainable democratization of socio-economic development of citizens. 2.2. Target population Our research was conducted in Southern Province, Huye District. This district is made of 14 sectors, 77 cells and 391 villages. Our population consists of members of district council, Director of good governance at district level, executive secretaries of sectors, Executive secretary of cells, executive committee of the village and representative of cooperatives from youth and women. So the total number of respondents is 2081. Table 1: Total population of the research Population Number District council 6 Director of good governance 1 Executive secretary of Sector 14 Executive secretary of cells 77 Executive committee of the village 1955 Representative of cooperatives from youth and women in each sector. 28 Total 2081 Source: Field Data The table above shows the number of District council, Officer in charge of good governance, and Executive secretary of Sector, Executive secretary of cells, Executive committee of the village, and Representative of cooperatives from youth and women in each sector which helped us to select the number of sample population to be used in the research activity in order to take into consideration a sufficient number of respondents so that the findings provide sufficient information. 2.3. Sample and sampling techniques

About sampling techniques, NSUBUGA (2000) said that there are no specific rules on how to obtain an adequate sample that have been formulated. For every situation presents its own problems. Hence sampling tools solve the dilemma; they help a researcher to select a representative unit from which he/she can gather information or data that permits him/her to draw inferences about the nature of the population or the universe. Overall, in this research work, to get a representative sample of all categories of population, the researchers referred to Javeau’s formula. In that formula, C. JAVEAU stated that a good sample is the one which represents 20% of the entire population being studied (JAVEAU 1985). Mathematical formula of C. JAVEAU.

                    S           
                   S = Sample                    N = Total number of population

Javeau’s formula was used to draw a sample from population.

Due to constraints of financial budget and time, the whole district was not involved in the research. A convenience sampling method was used. This is when a researcher questions anyone who is available. In this case, the study was conducted within 7 sectors, in 3 cells from each sector, 3 villages from each cell. Besides, one representative of youth and women at sector level was also involved. At district level, 2 members from the district council and one director of good governance were involved. Therefore, the population was around 108. Table 2: Sample size of definite population District council Director of good governance Representative of youth and women at sector level Executive secretaries of sectors Executive secretaries of cells One member of Executive committee of villages TOTAL 2 1 14 7 21 63 108 Source: our observation 2.4. Research instruments 2.4.1. Questionnaires This research was a descriptive survey. The questionnaire consisted of structured questions. In gathering data on attitude and views from the respondents, the researcher administered questionnaires brought to the participating people (district council, officer in charge of good governance at district level, executive secretaries of sectors, Executive secretary of cells, executive committee of the village and representative of cooperatives from youth and women) with an introductory letter. A pilot study was conducted to make sure the survey instrument would give the researcher reliable and pertinent data. In the pilot study, questionnaires were given to one respondent for each. Those respondents were asked to provide answers to the questions exactly as the participants in the actual research would be asked. The researcher used the information from the pilot to revise the questionnaire. The researcher devised questions according to the respondent responsibility in local governance. The research instrument used contained a number of open-ended questions but to encourage participation in the study, the majority of the questions were written in a multiple choice. 2.4.2. Documentation This technique is a good starting point in any data collection effort. It helped a researcher to retrieve the information that has already been collected by others in the same domain of study.

A number of documents kept by various ministries, NGOs and local government institutions, was studied. The review of previous documents was of paramount importance in giving direction and supporting the arguments of the researcher.Those are mostly related to previous studies linked to this topic. Such sources include theories, policies of community development, territory administration, decentralization, memorandums, books, websites and published data from government’s reports.  

2.5. Data Analysis The raw data collected from the surveys were systematically recorded and descriptively analyzed. Given the fact that this research has both qualitative and quantitative characteristics, the two types of data were analyzed separately. The quantitative data were systematically recorded and presented as percentages using tables. Patterns and critical information were identified at this stage. Finally, the general nature and practices of the sample were inferred from the categories, meanings, and patterns identified in the data analysis. At this level of interpretation, the theoretical framework of related literature lent structure and support to the interpretation, and some simple statistical operations and tests were conducted to help in the data analysis where necessary. As far as the qualitative aspect is concerned, the researcher tried to understand the investigated case essentially from the respondents’ points of view. Qualitative research describes and analyzes “people’s individual and collective social actions, beliefs, thoughts and perceptions. The researcher interprets phenomena in terms of meanings that people assign to them” (McMillan & Schumacher 2006:315). The researcher in the current study interpreted the data, which consisted of the participants’ responses on the questionnaires, in light of the objectives and research questions of the study. The grounded theory approach, frequently used in qualitative research, was applied; it involves the discovery and development of a theory through the analysis of collected data (Denzin & Lincoln 2000). 2.5.1. Reliability The reliability of the measuring instrument, the questionnaire has been widely utilized because of its properties to measure intrinsic, extrinsic and overall ideas about the positive impact of local self-governance on population. 2.5.2. Validity In order to ensure external validity, the researcher conducted the following steps: - The names and identities of the candidates remained anonymous; in this way, more accurate and true information was obtained. - The researcher had to first obtain permission from the Director of the University so that candidates did not experience any fear or uneasiness. 2.6. Ethical Considerations “The researcher must adhere to legal and ethical requirements for all research involving people. Interviewees [or research subjects] should not be deceived and are protected from any form of mental, physical or emotional injury” (Hancock & Algozzine 2006:40). To comply with this important advice, the researcher obtained approval from the proper authorities to conduct the research, assuring that adequate human subject protection was in place. In the introductory letter, the researcher informed participants of the nature and objectives of the research and explained that they were guaranteed confidentiality. Participants were assured their names could not be connected with the research and whatever they reported could not be associated with them as a result of the research. 3. RESULTS The methodology described in the previous part provided the baseline for data gathering. In this chapter, the presentation of data is systematically linked to the format of self-developed questionnaire attached in the appendix. The following were used to analyse data: description of the sample, main results, discussion, presentation and interpretations of the results.

Therefore, this part presents the analysis and interpretation of data from the research carried out on “the importance of Local self-governance on socio-economic development of citizens, case study: Huye District.” It also rotates around the link between data collection, processing and analysis. Therefore, before going in deep different data collected answering our questions, we are going to start with the detailed profile of our respondents. This is the social demographic information about our respondents. 3.1. Characteristics of respondents Table 3: characteristics of respondents Category Frequency Percentage (%) 1. Gender: -Male -Female 61 47 56.4 43.6

                   Total	108	100

2. Positions - Members of District Council - Director of Good Governance - Executive secretary of Sector - Executive secretary of Cell - Members of executive committee of Village - Youth and women cooperative Representatives 2 1 7 21

63

14 1.8 0.9 6.4 19.4

58.3 12.9

                     Total	108	100

3. Age 15-20 21-30 31-35 36-40 Above 40 10 15 11 55 17 9.2 13.8 10.1 50.9 15.7

                     Total	108	100

4. Experience in Local governance Leadership (in years) Less than 1 year 2-3 years 4-5 years 6-10 years More than 10 years 20 12 20 41 15 18.5 11.1 18.5 37.9 13.8

                    Total 	108	100

Source: Field data The table above firstly showed that most of the respondents 47(43.6%) were female and 61 (56.4%) were male. This could have been due to the fact that most of respondents in the area were male headed due to our culture but through gender balance things are changing. When we look into different levels, from villages to district levels, men are the majority which implies that their percentage is higher than women’s.

Secondly, it shows that 10 (9.2%) of our respondents were between 15 and 20 years old while 15 (13.8) were aged in the range of 21 to 30, 11 (10.1%) between 31 and 35, 55 (50.9%) between 36 and 40, 17 (15.7%) for 40 and above. Generally, the majority of the respondents fall in the age 36-40 represented 50.9%, followed by the respondents whose ages are above 40 representing 15.7% while the greater minority is 15 and 20 represented 9.2 %. The majority of our respondents are between the youth and the old people because they are those who are in the best position of leading and mature enough to do so.

On the third hand, the table above shows that the great percentage of respondents was members of executive committee of village representing 63(58.3%) whereas 21(19.4%) were executive secretaries of cells, 14(12.9%) were youth and women cooperative representatives, 7(6.4%) were executive secretaries of sectors, 2(1.8%) were members of district council and lastly 1(0.9%) was the director of good governance.  This implies that being majority in our findings means that members of executive committee of village are the ones who mostly live close to the people and in our research they are the dominant number.

Fourthly, it shows that 20 (18.5%) of our respondents have experience in leadership of less than one year while 12 (11.1%) have experience between 2 and 3 years, 20 (18.5%) between 4 and 5 years, 41 (37.9%) between 6 and 10 years, 15 (13.8 %) more than 10 years. The sample was dominated by respondents of experience of 6-10 years (37.9%). This is because they are re-elected because of their honesty and continue to lead them, means that they are trusted. 3.2. Presentation of the information from the findings related to the research questions This part of data presentation, analysis and interpretation of the findings is going to be based on the findings related to the research questions in the study from the respondents on their points of view about the suggestions following research questions: (i) What should the local self-governance structure be for empowering communities to be self-reliant in their local development programmes? (ii) What is the appropriate channel and framework for community accountability, transparency, and efficiency for sustainable democratization of socio-economic development? (iii) What are government programmes through which citizens are locally self-governed? (iv) What roles does the community play in sustaining local self-governance? 3.2.1. Presentation of findings on the local self-governance structure for empowering communities to be self-reliant in their local development programmes? This research question was analysed basing on different questions which helped us to find out some information from our respondents. Question: Do you know self-governance policy, its structure and objectives? By answering this questions from our questionnaires, all our respondents tried to answer it in their respective views. All of them were 108. Table 4: Self –governance policy, structure and objectives for empowering communities Respondents Question Frequency Percentage Member of District council

Do you know the policy of local self-governance? yes 2 100 No 0 0 Total 2 100 Do you know its structure? Yes 2 100 No 0 0 Total 2 100 Its objectives? Yes 2 100 No 0 0 Total 2 100 Director of good governance Do you know the policy of local self-governance? yes 1 100 No 0 0 Total 1 100 Do you know its structure? Yes 1 100 No 0 0 Total 1 100 Its objectives? Yes 1 100 No 0 0 Total 1 1 Executive Secretary of Sector Do you know the policy of local self-governance? yes 7 100 No 0 0 Total 7 100 Do you know its structure? Yes 7 100 No 0 0 Total 7 100 Its objectives? Yes 7 100 No 0 0 Total 7 100 Executive Secretary of Cell

Do you know the policy of local self-governance? yes 21 100 No 0 0 Total 21 100 Do you know its structure? Yes 21 100 No 0 0 Total 21 100 Its objectives? Yes 21 100 No 0 0 Total 21 100 Member of Executive committee of village

Do you know the policy of local self-governance? yes 60 95.2 No 3 4.8 Total 63 100 Do you know its structure?

Yes 62 98.4 No 1 1.6 Total 63 100 Its objectives? Yes 63 100 No 0 0 Total 63 63 Youth and women representative Do you know the policy of local self-governance? yes 3 21.5 No 11 78.5 Total 14 100 Do you know its structure? Yes 9 64.2 No 5 35.8 Total 14 100 Its objectives? Yes 14 100 No 0 0 Total 14 100 Source: Field data The above table shows the awareness of local leaders about their self-governance objectives, structure and the policy governing it. When we go in deep, on the first question related to the policy of local self-governance, up to 90% of our respondents affirmed that they are aware of this policy. Which is so interesting. In addition, up to 98% of our respondents said that they know the structure of local government. Lastly, 100% of them confirmed its importance and objectives. To sum up, local leaders know decentralization policy and they are involved in its implementation. 3.2.2. Presentation of findings on the appropriate channel and framework for community accountability, transparency, and efficiency for sustainable democratization of socio-economic development Question: Assess yourself as a leader how far you provide the following activities: Service delivery, accountability and transparency skills in the planning, monitoring and evaluation for decision making of any programme in your area. Check the cases accordingly. Our respondents here are local governance leaders such as executive secretaries of sectors and cells and members of executive committee of villages. The objective is to identify their roles in delivering services, being accountable and transparent to the led people. Their total number is 91. Table 5: Service delivery, accountability and transparency skills in the planning, monitoring and evaluation Activities Rating Frequency Percentage (%) Service delivery Weak 0 0 Needs much improvement 0 0 Satisfactory 21 23 Very good 40 43.9 Excellent 30 33.1 Total 91 100 Accountability and transparency Weak 2 2.1 Needs much improvement 14 15.3 Satisfactory 43 47.2 Very good 30 32.9 Excellent 4 4.3 Total 91 100 Planning Weak 0 0 Needs much improvement 5 5.4 Satisfactory 20 21.9 Very good 45 49.4 Excellent 21 23 Total 91 100 Implementation and monitoring

Weak 0 0 Needs much improvement 12 13.1 Satisfactory 25 27.4 Very good 46 50.5 Excellent 5 5.4 Total 91 100 Evaluation

Weak 1 1 Needs much improvement 18 19.7 Satisfactory 40 43.9 Very good 23 25.2 Excellent 8 8.7 Total 91 100 Source: Field data The table above first describes different activities a good leader has to be able to perform in order to meet leadership conditions. It includes for instance the ability in service delivering, accountability and transparency, planning, implementation and monitoring and evaluation.

Coming back to our analysis, the table above first shows that through local self-governance, 30 (33.1%) of our respondents are excellent in service delivering, 40(43.9%) are very good, 21(23%) are satisfactory whereas there is no weak or those who needs much improvement. The biggest percentage is for those who are good which means that through self-governance, people are involved in policy implementation at local level which impact them positively.

The second activity is about accountability and transparency. 4 (4.3%) of our respondents are very excellent in being accountable and transparent. Besides, 30 (32%) are very good, 43 (47.2%) are satisfactory, 14(15.3%) needs much improvements in their work whereas 2(2.1%) are weak. Thus, the majority 43(47.2%) of our respondents are satisfactory. On the third hand, the table above also shows the level of planning with citizens in local self-governance. 21 (23%) are excellent, 45 (49.4%) are very good, 20 (21.9%) are satisfactory, 5 (5.4%) needs much improvement whereas none of them is weak in involving people in planning.

On the fourth and last, 5 (5.4%) of our respondents are excellent in involving citizens in implementation and monitoring. 46 (50.5%) are very good, 25(27.4%) are satisfactory, 12 (13.1%) needs much improvement while none of them is weak.

Lastly, regarding to evaluation, 8(8.7%) of our respondents are excellent, 23 (25.2%) are very good, 40 (43%) are satisfactory, 18 (19.7%) needs much improvement whereas one of our respondent is weak in involving citizens in evaluating programmes.

Concluding this, generally there is an obvious step forward in improving leadership in local self-governance through different programmes.

Therefore, the Republic of Rwanda (2005b:7) urge that communities can exert their collective voice to influence policy, strategies and expenditure priorities at different levels of policymaking (national and local levels) according to their aspirations and preferences. Their voice enhances the accountability of policy makers and motivates them to be responsive to the needs of their communities and stimulates demand for better service delivery from providers. Citizens can also exercise their powers as users/clients/beneficiaries (client’s power) over service providers and hold them responsible for the access to, the quantity and the quality of services. Local communities have been empowered by law to recall their leaders, which motivate them to be more responsible to the needs of their communities. Finally, the policy makers exert influence on the providers through some implicit or explicit contractual relationship (Compact and management). The provider is to deliver some given level of performance following administrative instruction or contract. The policy-makers use the instruments of financing, regulation and monitoring. In this decentralisation context, the relationship of accountability will include policy makers from both national and local level. Citizens may exert their voice vis-à-vis national and local policy makers. The last are often closer to the day-to-day concerns of the citizens and hence may have an important role to play in ensuring better services. Ultimately, however, the quality of services will depend on the accountability of the front-line service providers, be they public or private. This will be the key challenge to each sector, i.e. education, health, infrastructures, water, and agriculture. 3.2.3. Presentation of findings on government programmes through which citizens are locally self-governed and roles played by the community in sustaining local self-governance a) What roles does the community play in sustaining local self-governance? What is expected from the service providers is to respond to the demand that reflects the interest of the communities’ users. This means building mechanisms that enhance the leverage of citizens over service provision, including strengthening users’ cooperatives, associations, users’ advisory and management boards, and providing financial help to the poor so as to enhance their financial leverage over providers. In strengthening the client’s power over service providers, Rwanda made substantial progress especially in the education, water and health sectors. Thus, Republic of Rwanda (2005:9) states that there have been created: - Parents and Teachers’ Associations (PTAs) with mandate to take charge of the school management together with school managers (head teachers), which mandate brought in beneficiaries-parents in the management of the schools. Through PTAs, parents and communities have improved their knowledge and skills in education management and have, in some provinces, mobilised and recruited additional teachers, paid for by the parents, to reduce the teacher/pupils ratio. Other achievements of PTAs are the creation of nursery schools to cater for pre-primary education not provided by the government, and the introduction for subsidies to poor children to pay for secondary education grants. - In the water sector, local communities identify and select the sites for the construction of safe water points. They hire local technicians and mobilise funds for maintaining the water facilities. The vulnerable groups (very poor, widows, genocide victims/survivors) are exempted by the community from contributing to these projects. - In the health sector, there is experience of introducing performance-based incentives via contractual arrangements. Local NGOs manage funds for health services providers and issue guidelines for access to funds. Health providers have to explain in action plans how they will increase health coverage, compete for resources and they are paid on the basis of their performance. CBOs and individual members of the community are responsible for counter-checking claims by service providers. Many private and public health care providers are involved and instead of waiting for patients, they go out to the communities to mobilise them to come and attend health centres. Local communities no longer complain of the poor attitudes of health workers as the workers see them as important and treat them well. Incentives are based on numbers of clients attended to. The scheme has worked due to a numbers of conditions such as availability of funding, qualified local NGOs, CBOs and private service providers. There has been training and awareness rising as part of the intervention. b) What are government programmes through which citizens are locally self-governed? Do you realize any impact of these programmes on your citizens? The following are the programmes which are locally self-governed as it was stated by our respondents. In addition, their impacts on citizens are obvious and affirmed by 100% of our respondents. Firstly there is the Local Economic Development. This has gained adequate attention. Productive sectors have been mobilized and enhanced through such initiatives as: Girinka, VUP, ubudehe, mituelle de sante, crop intensification and land consolidation programmes as well as Integrated Development Program (IDP). These initiatives have helped reduce poverty and improve people’s livelihoods by directly providing basic needs, creating jobs and increasing incomes of poor people. However, there are still inadequate practical tools and options for different actors (public, private, and non-governmental actors) as well as limited capacities to undertake LED systematically. This includes tools to support local governments in participatory diagnosis of their economies, identify opportunities for private and public investment, formulate plans of action to take up these opportunities and help establish mechanisms to link investors to financial institutions and business development services. Secondly, there is UBUDEHE tradition. The people of Rwanda especially in rural areas have a tradition of coming together to work in groups and teams. This builds social capital and strengthens relationships of trust and reciprocity. Figure 9: Citizens rehabilitating their school across Ubudehe programme

Source: Huye district annual report 2012 In 2001, the Government of Rwanda chose a participatory approach to crafting poverty reduction strategies for its PRSP. Assisted by DFID, the EU, and ActionAid, a pilot was run in Butare. Later, a policy was adopted to extend this approach nationwide, so that citizens’ own action could dovetail into the decentralized governance model of Rwanda. i. All the households in the cell are encouraged to take part in all discussions about poverty (ref. update Jun’05: 2).This poverty analysis would inform all poverty reduction efforts. ii. Cell residents engage in discussion to prioritise local problems (ref. update Jun’05: 3).This would provide an overview of the types of problems and their frequency for both policy and action. iii. Cell residents are helped to take action on a problem of their choosing through institutions of their own design and with assistance of about $ 1000, to add to their own contributions (ref. update Jun’05: 5). Such crafting of local institutions would create experience of self-governance and would enable communities to take part in decentralised government. iv. Two poor households in every cell are to be helped with some resources to pursue livelihood strategies of their own choosing, with support from local advisory elders (ref. update Jun’05: 4). These cases would provide a basis for planning longer term support to the poor in each sector and district: e.g. timing of labour-intensive work (HIMO), selection of income projects etc. v. Social interactions involved in coordinating such activities would provide the opportunity for people to talk to each other, and to start trusting each other. Local institutional design would increase the types of associational forms. This would create more social capital. vi. Government officials would increasingly take on the role of enablers and supporters of citizens’ efforts to enable citizens to engage in local problem-solving as partners in a decentralised government.

Thirdly, there is GIRINKA PROGRAMME which transforms livelihoods, reconciles communities. As part of efforts to reconstruct Rwanda and nurture a shared national identity, the Government of Rwanda drew on aspects of Rwandan culture and traditional practices to enrich and adapt its development programs to the country’s needs and context. The result is a set of Home Grown Solutions – culturally owned practices translated into sustainable development programs. One of these Home Grown Solutions is the Girinka programme also known as One Cow per Poor Family. “Since its introduction in 2006 hundreds of thousands have received cows through the Girinka program. By June 2016, a total of 248,566 cows had been distributed to poor households, leaving a deficit of 101,434 to achieve the 350,000 cow donations by 2017”, said Kabarisa Arsene, executive secretary of Ngoma sector. The program has contributed to an increase in agricultural production in Rwanda - especially milk production and products, reduced malnutrition and increased incomes. The word Girinka can be translated as ‘have a cow’ and describes a centuries-old cultural practice in Rwanda whereby a cow was given by one person to another, either as a sign of respect and gratitude or as a marriage dowry.

Girinka was initiated by H.E President Paul Kagame in response to the alarmingly high rate of childhood malnutrition and as a way to accelerate poverty reduction and integrate livestock and crop farming. The program is based on the premise that providing a dairy cow to poor households helps to improve their livelihood as a result of a more nutritious and balanced diet from milk, increased agricultural output through better soil fertility as well as greater incomes by commercializing dairy products. Figure 10: Nyiramana, a citizen of Mbazi sector (Huye District) within her family aroud a cow got from Girinka program

Source: Rwanda Agriculture Board The main objective was reducing poverty through dairy cattle farming and improving livelihoods through increased milk consumption and income generation. Also at the helm was improving agricultural productivity through the use of manure as fertilizers which would lead to improving soil quality and reducing erosion through the planting of grasses and trees. Lastly the program aimed at promoting unity and reconciliation among Rwandans based on the cultural principle that if a cow is given from one person to another, it establishes trust and respect between the giver and beneficiary. (While this was not an original goal of Girinka, it has evolved to become a significant aspect of the program.) According to the Girinka coordinator Dr. Nyabinwa Pascal, the program follows a certain criteria in choosing who the beneficiaries should be. “We mainly look at those very poor vulnerable families that don’t own a cow but do have land that can be used to grow grass for feeding the cows” says Pascal. The beneficiary should be in position to construct an animal shed or willing to join others in community to construct a communal cow shed (igikumbarusange); to be jointly used with the rest. For beneficiaries that do not have good knowledge of cow breeding, they are trained by Rwanda Agricultural Board (RAB) in collaboration with various districts. “We insist that the beneficiaries should always attend prescribed trainings in basic animal husbandry management practices, nutrition, breeding, housing, and disease control and management practices in order to have healthy and productive animals,” He adds. Another criterion followed in choosing a beneficiary is the social integration aspect. The beneficially should be socially well integrated in community development activities and should also be willing and enthusiastic to pass on the first female calf to new selected beneficiary.

Girinka has led to a number of significant changes in the lives of the poorest Rwandans. Its implementation has contributed to increased milk production; improved soil fertility; increased crop production; enabled beneficiaries to access loans; improved nutrition; improved access to shelter and different equipment; strengthened social cohesion; created employment to individuals and created an opportunity to educate family members of program beneficiaries. The program has also contributed to the improvement of the mindset towards cattle with the departure of beneficiaries from looking at cattle as a status symbol (the more cows one had the better) to a source of income and livelihood, etc. Fourthly, local governments’ planning, budgeting and formulation of performance contracts-IMIHIGO. LGs’ planning, budgeting and formulation of performance contracts-Imihigo have seen significant improvements in the quality of the product and process. The most important initiative about Imihigo is the understanding that the concept must shift base to households. The process and linkages in the design of Imihigo are summarized in figure ……. This new arrangement has been hailed as realistic and all-involving. Figure 11: IMIHIGO: A Bottom-up Planning and Performance Management framework

Source: Revised Decentralization policy for Cabinet (June 2012) As a result of this understanding and re-structuring, Imihigo are helping to inspire all development actors to set and realize targets; generate internal motivation to perform; re-align resources towards key priorities; and act as an effective mechanism to coordinate institutional efforts. Therefore, the following are findings from our respondents about their views on participation in different programmes initiated to help them and the influences those programmes have to them. Our respondents are youth and women cooperative representatives. All of them are 14 people. Question: Please rate your participation in the following poverty reduction programmes put in place to promote the economic development. Table 6: Participation in poverty reduction programmes Programme Frequency Percentage (%) VUP Excellent 2 14.2 Very good 8 57.1 Good 4 28.4 Fair 0 0 Poor 0 0 Total 14 100 GIRINKA Excellent 4 28.4 Very good 10 71.6 Good 0 0 Fair 0 0 Poor 0 0 Total 14 100 UBUDEHE Excellent 14 100 Very good 0 0 Good 0 0 Fair 0 0 Poor 0 0 Total 14 100 MUTUELLE (Health insurance)

Excellent 14 100 Very good 0 0 Good 0 0 Fair 0 0 Poor 0 0 Total 14 100 PERFORMANCE CONTRACT(Imihigo)

Excellent 5 35.7 Very good 2 14.2 Good 4 28.4 Fair 3 21.4 Poor 0 0 Total 14 100 ELECTION( Amatora) Excellent 14 100 Very good 0 0 Good 0 0 Fair 0 0 Poor 0 0 Total 14 100 PUBLIC WORK (Umuganda) Excellent 14 100 Very good 0 0 Good 0 0 Fair 0 0 Poor 0 0 Total 14 100 Source: our observation The above table shows citizens participation in governments programmes and how they are influenced by them locally. Firstly, for VUP, 14.2% of our respondents are excellent in participating in such programme whereas 57.1% are very good, 28.4% are good, then for the rest, none is fair or poor which means that the influence of this programme is clear. Secondly, there is Girinka program (One cow per family). 28.4% of our respondents judge excellency this programme whereas 71.6% judge it very good which means that it is fruitful to citizens for poverty reduction. The third one is the programme of Ubudehe. All of our respondents agreed with this programme by saying that it is so important. So 100% judged it excellent and they are always ready to participate in it. The fourth one goes with Health insurance (Mituelle de santé). The same as Ubudehe, they agreed 100%. They say that they no longer die at home lacking treatment due to health insurance.

Number four is the performance contract. For this point they affirmed that some people are not aware of it by as days go on, their mind are changing due to the fact that each family has the book of performance contract ( Agakaye k’imihigo) signed with the executive secretary of the cell through the coordinator of the village. From that 35.7% are excellent, 14.2 % are very good, 28.4 % are good and 21.4% are fair.

The fifth is about Election either local or national. This is participated due to awareness and sensitization (campaign) of candidate by explaining what they will do for them once they are voted. So 100% of our respondents know its importance and participate actively.

Lastly, public work (umuganda) was also initiated to help people be self-reliant. That monthly work help their villages to develop themselves without waiting for aid from outside. Therefore, 100% agreed with this local government policy. 5. CONCLUSIONS

This part is about the discussion of findings of the study presented in the previous chapter. This discussion is related to the objectives and research questions stated in chapter one. Besides, conclusions and recommendations are drawn.

The first objective was to identify the local self-governance structure for empowering communities to be self-reliant in their local development programmes. This is shown through self-governance policy, its structure and objectives awareness by all citizens in a given district. Regarding the awareness of their self-governance objectives, structure and the policy governing it, up to 90% of our respondents affirmed that they are aware of this policy. In addition, up to 98% of our respondents said that they know the structure of local government whereas 100% of them confirmed its importance and objectives which means that our first objective of this research was attained. Which means that our first research question was answered.

The second objective was to identify the appropriate channel and framework for community accountability, transparency, and efficiency for sustainable democratization of socio-economic development. In this respect, the majority of our respondents are very good at delivering services (43.9%). There is no weak or those who needs much improvement. The biggest percentage is for those who are good which means that through self-governance, people are involved in policy implementation at local level which impact them positively.

For accountability and transparency, the majority (47.2%) of our respondents are satisfactory. These go hand in hand with the level of planning, implementation and monitoring and evaluation. 

Firstly, through planning with citizens in local self-governance, the majority of our respondents (49.4%) are very good.

Besides this, the way of involving citizens in implementation and monitoring, the biggest number (50.5%) judged it very good. Regarding to evaluation, the majority of our respondents (43%) are satisfactory which means that this is not high and needs some improvement. Henceforth, there is a remarkable impact of local self-governance in the above mentioned angles of leadership or good governance in Rwanda such as accountability, transparency and efficiency. The third objective was to show government programmes through which citizens are locally self-governed.

In fact, productive sectors have been mobilized and enhanced through such initiatives as: Girinka, VUP, ubudehe, mituelle de santé, crop intensification and land consolidation programmes as well as Integrated Development Program (IDP) to reduce poverty and improve people’s livelihoods by directly providing basic needs, creating jobs and increasing incomes of poor people. The problem which can be raised there is that of knowing if people are active in such programmes created to help them in various ways.

Answering our research question, we tried to rate citizens’ participation in such programmes then we found the following findings.

Firstly, for VUP, the majority of our respondents (57.1%) confirmed that they are very good at, which means that they actively participate in such programme and its influence is clear.

Secondly, for Girinka program (One cow per family), the majority of our respondents (71.6%) judge excellency this programme which means that it is fruitful to citizens for poverty reduction.

For Ubudehe, Health insurance (Mituelle de santé), election either local or national and public work (umuganda), all of our respondents (100%) agreed with these programme by saying that they are so important. They participate actively and they aware the impact of all of those programmes on citizens.

Concerning the performance contract, they affirmed that some people are not aware of it and it needs sensitization.

The last objective goes with the roles the community plays in sustaining local self-governance. Development of community consciousness is important for community development. And, it is important to respect the “felt needs” of respective local communities. These are the needs as perceived and felt by the community and could be different from those “needs” which have been identified by “outsiders”. People should be consulted and informed of different choices. Therefore, through effective local self-governance, there is institutional transformation, which is more conducive to such a regional approach. Particularly, the local government institutions and local community organizations establish a collaborative partnership in undertaking the responsibility for developing a local “vision” and strategy; and designing/ planning, allocating resources, implementing and monitoring/evaluating of development activities that would better cater the local needs. They “jointly” become the driving force towards development, develop a “sense of shared ownership” and become “managers “of their development initiatives. From this, all our respondents confirmed by saying that the community is another arm to sustain socio-economic development of citizens through local self-governance.

Therefore, the first conclusion is to identify the problems encountered during the implementation of this program. There are constraints associated with local self-governance and such problems may include resource constraints, lack of accountability and transparency, leadership conflicts, and inadequacies in support services. Another problem confronted with local self-governance is the economies of scale. This may act as a constraint in resource utilization, including human resources. If they are distributed thinly, as demanded by a typical process of local self-governance, this could affect efficiency. Scale economies in agriculture, industry, trade and other services could also affect production.

It is also clear that the roles and responsibilities “assigned” or “allowed” to different actors; namely, local leaders and communities sometimes lack effectiveness such as the policy framework and legal system, institutional framework, fiscal system and resources, etc.

The second conclusion was to show the impact of this program on citizens’ socio-economic development. According to our findings, the impact of local self-governance is very clear. Firstly, it strengthens democracy and civic responsibility, and enhances the potential for community-level interventions.

In addition, governance is closer to the community and it is more accountable to the downstream and the community has better opportunities to participate in the design, implementation, and monitoring of development efforts.

In the past, local development had been adversely affected by top-down approaches to development and has become “supply-driven”. Policies, development strategies and even programs and projects designed at the top by government authorities sometimes with donor assistance had failed to adequately take account the demands and the capacity of local populations. On the contrary, local self-governance advocates a “demand-driven” strategy and has the merit of considering the specific demands and potential of each locality.

Local self-governance takes place in different ways with different degrees of intensity. It could cater effectively to public needs by bringing planning and decision-making closer to people, provide opportunities for beneficiary participation and community management of its own development and help reduce inequity and instability.

It is also noted that these findings are very much similar to those found in chapter two of literature review where many authors identified the importance of local self-governance in any country for its growth and welfare of its citizens so as to have efficiency and effectiveness.

In response to our fourth research objective and question concerning the roles the community could play in sustaining local self-governance, every partner in this programme must play its role as it is scheduled. The government and the rest of the community should bear in mind that there is a long way to go since self-governance is one basic key for sustainable democratization of socio-economic development of citizens. In this respect, everyone should take initiative in this policy. 6. Recommendations

In order for the government’s new programme to be successful, citizens must play major roles in tackling the importance and impact of local self-governance in ensuring accountability, transparency and effectiveness for sustainable democratization of their socio-economic development. However, their efforts are likely to prove very tiring, expensive, and not fully effective if they do not receive tangible and consistent support from the government of Rwanda especially the central government. Expecting such help is reasonable because the government instituted the programme. Hence, recommendations are offered to all shareholders including the central government, local government, the local communities, and to the non-governmental organizations in order to reach the improvement of governance quality. 6.1.1. TO THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT Past approaches of central governments as “providers”, “owners” and “managers of rural development” have resulted in the nurturing and perpetuating of a dependency syndrome, which effectively prevented the local community being developed as valuable human resource. In other words, this process has had negative effects in developing human capital stocks. And, the direct state involvement in community development has been on the decline in the recent past. There is however, a need for continued central government involvement in the local sector, but it should be different from the approaches and strategies adopted in the past. As the individual villager’s access to the required services and supplies cannot be assured through bureaucratic modes, the evolution of new forms of organized service delivery is imperative. And, the government, especially the central government, should perform a facilitating role.

6.1.2. TO THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT With local self-governance, local governments assume greater responsibilities and become the focal centers for local development. It is usually responsible for improving the welfare of their residents. Therefore, local governments have to be effectively linked with the national levels as well as with local communities. They would be expected to undertake certain activities hitherto performed by the central government, such as certain legal and regulatory functions and the provision of services like extension. In addition, especially with increased demand and diversification of economic activities mainly due to the growing emphasis on globalization and associated changes, they would be entrusted with extra responsibilities. These may include guiding local communities, especially at the take-off stage, facilitating the capacity-building of local communities, catalyzing the interactions within the community organizations, installation of monitoring mechanisms, etc.

Assuming that they are now adequately empowered with responsibilities and authorities related to the access and management of resources and have decision-making powers devolved through the decentralization process, they should be in a position to promote and institutionalize decentralized planning and ensuring the local financing of community development. Greater efficiency, transparency and accountability are expected with local self-governance or with the shifting of authority from the center to the local level.

Local governments are closer to the communities/people and are more knowledgeable about local potential and needs. On the other hand, local people would develop better relationships with their local governments and begin to trust local officials.

By empowering local governments, response to local needs would become much quicker, information for the formulation local programs and projects would be readily available, as the government is closer to the people and especially to community organizations, abusing and corruption would be less, effectiveness in raising as well as utilization of revenues would be high, and the overall efficiency of managing development should be enhanced. Therefore, it is obvious that local self-governance, if planned and implemented in a proper way, could enhance the overall development of a particular country. 6.1.3. TO THE LOCAL COMMUNITIES For effective local self-governance, local communities should be organized themselves to undertake planning and managing development and are expected to take over the management of support services. This process takes time and a “blue print” approach or a ready-made model should not be adopted. Instead, it should be treated as an “evolutionary process”.

In the past, the great potential (social wealth) of people’s participation was not generally viewed very seriously. Participation of community people has been limited to giving information for top-down planning, receiving material incentives and other passive forms. Interactive participation and planned mobilization of social capital were largely missing.

Unlike in huge business firms, in rural communities, where a large number of small- scale “entrepreneurs” making “uncoordinated decisions”, there is a need for institutional mechanisms to coordinate the decisions. A rational institutional framework is necessary to involve these “mini decision-making units” through organizational activities and to sustain such processes. Also, many of the rural people in many of these countries do not possess the strength to participate actively in a market economy, strengthening of social capital and collective action should help them benefit from the process of globalization. To achieve sustainability, the challenge is to facilitate and institutionalize a process through which rural communities themselves would evolve local organizations to satisfy their own local needs.

As a prerequisite for accumulation and the effective mobilization of social capital for community development, “improving or upgrading” the human capital is crucial. Developing skills of the individuals in a given society will enhance the quality and quantity of the output of social capital such as the collective action.

Also, in communities with long traditions of dependency on government services, building institutional capacity within communities for achieving self-reliance would be a formidable task. To promote association, interaction and cooperation with each other; develop their perception of problems and needs; and then begin a process of exploring how these needs could be met. In effect, what needs to be done is to make a planned intervention into the community. 6.1.4. TO THE NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS Usually, NGOs help reduce government domination at local level. We suggest that the major role of NGOs of “facilitating institutional development/strengthening” in the communities should be maintained.

An experienced and committed NGO could help local organizations and institutions to internalize participatory self-assessment procedures to measure and monitor the performance of the organization as well as the development and management processes. REFERENCES 1. Abusaleh Shariff (ed.) (1999). “India Human Development Report - A profile of Indian States in the 1990s”, National Council of Applied Economic Research. 2. ApoloNsibambi. (1998).Decentralization and Civil Society in Uganda: The Quest for Good Governance, Kampala:Fontana Publishers. 3. Aspalter, C. & Singh, S. (Eds) (2008). Debating Social Development. Taoyuan, Taiwan: Casa Verdi Publishing. 4. Beetham, David. (1993). “Liberal Democracy and the Limits Democratization” in Held, David (ed). Prospects for Democracy; North, South, East, West. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 55-73. 5. Bilance, (1997). “A world in balance – Bilance stands for Social Development: Policy paper”. Oegstgeest, September 1997. 6. Cassinelli, C. W. (1961). The Politics of Freedom: An Analysis of the Modern State. Seattle: University of Washington Press. 7. Coetzee, J.K. (Ed.) (1989). Development is for people. Johannesburg: Southern Books. 8. Dahl, Robert A. (1971). Polyarchy: Participation and Opposition. New Haven: Yale University Press. 9. Diamond, L. (1990b). Developing Democratic Pluralism: A Country Taxonomy. Washington, D.C.: United States Agency for International Development – Seminar on the Democratic Pluralism Initiative, June 15 (unpublished manuscript). 10. Diamond, L. et al. (1990a). “Introduction: Comparing Experiences with Democracy” in Diamond, L., Linz, J. J., Lipset, S. M. eds. Politics in Developing Countries: Comparing Experiences with Democracy. London: Lynne Rienner Publishers, p.1-35. 11. Golooba-Mutebi F. (2007) Social integration and poverty eradication: Indications from Post-genocide Rwanda. Discussion draft, Makerere Institute of Social Research. Makerere University. 12. Government of Rwanda: Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper, June 2002 13. Hall, A. & Midgley, J. (2004). Social Policy for Development. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. 14. Huntington, Samuel P. (1991). The Third Wave: Democratization in the Late Twentieth Century. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press. 15. Dreze J. and Amartya S. (1995 ), India Economic Development and Social Opportunity, Oxford University Press. 16. JeniKlugman. (19994).Decentralization: A survey of literature from a Human Development Perspective” Occasional Papers by the Human Development Report Office New, York 1994. 17. Jones, J. & Pandey, R. (Eds) (1981). Social Development: Conceptual, Methodological and Policy Issues. New York: St. Martin’s Press. 18. Karl, T. (1991). “Getting to Democracy: A Research Perspective”. National Research Council. 1991. The Transition to Democracy: Proceedings of a Workshop. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press. 29-38. 19. Kauzya JM.(2000). Local governance, Health and nutrition for All: Problem Magnitude and challenges with Examples from Uganda and Rwanda” A paper presented during the Global Forum on local Governance and Social Services for All,Stockholm, Sweden, 2 to 5 May 2000). 20. Leedy, P.D. (1997). Practical research, planning and design. New Jersey: Prentice Hall. 21. Lipset, Seymour M. (1959). “Some Social Requisites of Democracy: Economic Development and Political Legitimacy”. American Political Science Review. 53: 69-105. 22. Lipset, Seymour Martin. (1963). “Economic Development and Democracy” in Political Man: The Social Bases of Politics. Garden City, NY: Doubleday. 23. Locke, E.A. (1976). The handbook of Industrial and Organisational Psychology. New York: Wiley. 24. Maslov, A. H. (1954). Motivation and Personality. New York: Harper. 25. McMillan, J.H. & Schumacher, S. (2001). Research in Education. New York: Longman. 26. Meagher, Patrick. (1999). Cooperating Against Corruption: Governance, Collective Action, and Jurisdictional Design in Plural Societies. Mimeo. University of Maryland. 27. Midgley, J. (1995). Social Development: The Developmental Perspective in Social Welfare. London: Sage. 28. Mupenzi Alfred. (2010). Interventions against poverty in Rwanda: A case study of Ubudehe in Gatsibo district, Eastern Province, Rwanda. Master thesis, Makerere University, Kampla, Uganda. 29. Pawar, M. S. & Cox, D. (Eds) (2010). Social Development: Critical Themes and Perspectives. New York: Routledge. 30. Rondinelli, D. A., Nellis, J. R, and Cheema, G. S. (1985). Decentralisation in developing countries. Washington: The World Bank. 31. Rondinelli, D.A. (1993). Development projects as policy experiments. An adaptive approach to development administration. London: Routledge. 32. Rondinelli, D.A. and Cheema, G.S. (1983). Decentralisation and Development: Policy implementation in developing countries. Beverly Hills: Sage. 33. Rwanda Ministry of Local Government and Social Affairs. (2007). Ubudehe to fight poverty. MINALOC Publications, Kigali. Rwanda 34. Sartori, G. (1987a). The Theory of Democracy Revisited: Part One – The Contemporary Debate. New Jersey: Chatham House Publishers. 35. Sartori, Giovanni (1987b). The Theory of Democracy Revisited: Part Two – The Classical Issues. New Jersey: Chatham House. 36. Schumpeter, Joseph A. (1947). Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy. 2nd ed.New York: Harper & Brothers. 37. Sekaran, U. (2003). Research Methods for business: a skill building approach. New York. John Wiley. 38. Society for International Development, “Human Development Report: Rajasthan “Jaipur. (1999). 39. Theron, F. and Barnard, D. (1997). Participation and development planning, In Liebenberg, S. & Stewart, P. (eds), Participatory development management and the RDP, Cape Town: Juta. 40. United Nations (2000). The Millennium Declaration. New York: UN. 41. United Nations Development Programme (UNDP),“Human Development Report 2000”, Oxford University Press, New York, 2000. 42. United Nations, “The Copenhagen Declaration and Programme of Action: World Summit for Social Development”, New York, 1995. 43. Welman, J.C, Kruger S.J. 2004. Research Methodology. Cape Town, South Africa: Oxford University Press. 44. Whicker, M. L. (Eds). Handbook of research methods in public administration. 167-205. New York: Marcel Decker.

Appendix A: QUESTIONNAIRE FOR YOUTH AND WOMEN COOPERATIVE REPRESENTATIVES (Abahagarariye amakoperative y’Urubyiruko n’abagore) I. Personal Information : Circle one that applies, for age just write the number in the provided space o Gender: M/F (igitsina): Gore/Gabo o Age:………years : Imyaka: ……………. o Representation: (Abo uhagarariye)………………………………………………………………….. II. Questions a) What do you know about self-governance? Does it exist in your district?

(Ni iki uzi ku buyobozi bwegerejwe abaturage? Burahari mu karere kanyu?)

........................................................................................................................................................... b) How is it self-governance according to you? Do you know self-governance policy, its structure and objectives? (Ni gute mwiyobora cyangwa mugira uruhare mu miyoborere? Uzi itegeko ryayo, imiterere n’inshingano zayo?) …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. c) What are your powers towards that self-governance? (Ni izihe mbaraga muhabwa muri ubwo buyobozi) …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… d) Do you have direct involvement in local development and leadership? How? ( Mugira uruhare rwa hafi mu guteza imbere imibereho yanyu? Gute?) ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… e) Please rate your participation in the following poverty reduction programmes put in place to promote the economic development.

(Erekana uruhare rwawe muri gahunda zashyizweho mu guteza imberere imibereho y’ umuturage harwanywa ubukene)
( jyira akamenyetso ka Ѵ kuri gahunda ugiramo uruhare.)

Rating Programme Excellent Very good Good Fair Poor VUP GIRINKA UBUDEHE MUTUELLE (Health insurance) PERFORMANCE CONTRACT(Imihigo) ELECTION( Amatora) PUBLIC WORK (Umuganda) f) How are you satisfied with the self-governance and people’s empowerment programme in your district? (ni gute biguhagije ku byerekeranye no kwegereza ubuyobozi n’ubushobozi abaturage ?) i) Very satisfied ii) Satisfied iii) Somehow Satisfied iv) Not Satisfied g) How confident are you in your ability to make learning more enjoyable for your students? (ni cyizere cyi wifitemo mugushobora gukundisha abanyeshuli amasomo wigisha?) i) Very confident ii) Confident iii) Somehow confident iv) Not confident h) Assess your leaders’ service delivery, accountability and transparency skills in the planning, monitoring and evaluation for decision making of any programme in your area. Check the cases accordingly (Suzuma abayobozi bawe mu mitangire ya serivise no kugaragaza ibibakorerwa bagaragaza gahunda, ishyirwa mubikorwa ryayo no gufata umwanzuro kuri gahunda zimwe na zimwe. Genda ubyerekana ugendeye kuri buri kazu) Weak Needs much improvement Satisfactory Very good Excellent

Service delivery (Gutanga serivise) Accountability and transparency (kugaragaza ibikorwa no gukorera mu mucyo) Planning ( gukora gahunda y’igihe kirekire) Implementation and monitoring (gushyira mubikorwa no kubikurikirana) Evaluation (gusuzuma ibikorwa)

i) In your opinion, are there any barriers for your participation in governance for your socio-economic development? What are they? (Ku bwawe haba hari imbogamizi mu kugira uruhare mu miyoborere kugira ngo utere imbere mu mibereho? Zaba ari izihe ?) …………………………………………………………………………………………………………… Thank you very much for your cooperation (Murakoze cyane mu gusubiza ibi bibazo) Appendix B: QUESTIONNAIRE FOR MEMBERS OF DISTRICT COUNCIL AND DIRECTOR OF GOOD GOVERNANCE

III. Personal Information :

Circle one that applies, for age just write the number in the provided space o Gender: M/F o Age:………years : o Position: ……………………. I. Questions 1. What do you know about self-governance? Does it exist in your district? ............................................................................................................................................... 2. How is it self-governance according to you? Do you know self-governance policy, its structure and objectives? …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 3. What are your powers towards that self-governance and how do you empower your subordinates …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 4. How do you work with local leaders at sector, cell and village levels? How do you allow them to participate with you to conduct any functions? ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 5. How often do you sit in a meeting for decision making? ........................................................................................................................................................... 6. How do you manage bureaucracy in your daily activities? …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 7. Could you please provide me a brief description about the present practice to evaluate people’s involvement in development programmes? ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 8. How far are you being accountable and transparent and what techniques are you using to ensure sustainable democracy in local self-governance? ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

Thank you very much for your participation!