Decentralization

Financing the higher education systems in European countries is a highly debated topic, and the main issues are related to increasing the level of public funding, increasing the degree of autonomy in the management of the financial resources of universities, establishing direct correlations between results and the amount of public funding, and encouraging the diversification of funding sources, combined with the creation of partnerships with research institutes, enterprises, and regional authorities. This chapter presents a four-tiered research regarding the opinions of the Romanian academic community with respect to: (a) the priority measures used to improve convergence in Higher Education (HE) financing, (b) the most relevant indicators for assessing convergence in financing HE, (c) the barriers stopping or slowing down convergence financing in HE, and (d) the institutions responsible for taking measures and clearing any obstacles in financing the higher education system.

Spain is located in southwestern Europe, occupying most of the Iberian Peninsula, which it shares with its smaller neighbor Portugal. With a population of more than 47 million people, the country is geographically and culturally diverse. Castilians are the dominant ethnic group in Spain, and their language is the basis for modern Spanish. Today, the term Castilian often is used interchangeably with Spaniard. However, modern Spain is also home to many distinct regional cultures, including Basques, Catalans, Galicians, and others, that retain their unique traditions and languages. These people often prefer to identify themselves by their regional identities rather than adopt a common Spanish identity, and some groups have lobbied aggressively for independence from Spain.

John Cameron draws on power-based approaches to the study of democratization as he thoughtfully explores efforts by indigenous and peasant groups to gain control of local governments and deepen democracy in Bolivia, Ecuador, and Peru.

Cameron addresses three fundamental questions: What factors best explain the success or failure of local political movements in the Andes? What forms of democracy are emerging in indigenous- and peasant-controlled municipalities? What are the impacts of municipal democratization on the well-being and political identities of the citizenry? As he elucidates his results, he reminds readers that, in the midst of some of the most exclusionary and elite-dominated systems of local government in Latin America, political struggles for democracy are having a profound impact.

In the early nineties the African continent witnessed an extraordinary wave of democratization. The resulting debate highlighted the decentralization as an effective strategy to bring about democracy,
tackling issues such as inclusiveness, local development and inter-ethnic divisions. Following this perspective, Mali has been widely viewed as a relatively successful case of democracy in a low-income
country. In March 1991, the military regime of Moussa Traoré was overturned following extensive public protests, and a new democratic constitution was promulgated in early 1992. Since then and until March 2012, the country had undergone regular elections, and at least one president, Alpha Konaré, peacefully left office after serving two terms. The coup d'état of March 2012 overthrew Amadou Toumani Touré and raised doubts about the effectiveness of decentralization in achieving the objectives. Although the compromise of 1992 has ensured a solid framework to the functioning of democratic procedures, it didn't succeeded to include the Tuareg minority within the national political arena. As the observation of political system will show, the main reason is based on the weakness of local elites, powered by two sets of factors. First, the State's withdrawal from the Northern regions didn't help to consolidate the power over distance and facilitated the emergence of war's entrepreneurs. Secondly, the persisting ineffectiveness of development policies have exacerbated the tensions up to the break-up of March 2012.

บทความนี้มุ่งศึกษาประวัติศาสตร์และพัฒนาการของการกระจายอำนาจในอินโดนีเซีย โดยแบ่งยุคสมัยของการกระจายอำนาจออกเป็น 4 ยุค คือ ยุคก่อนได้รับเอกราช ยุคอดีตประธานาธิบดีซูการ์โน ยุคอดีตประธานาธิบดีซูฮาร์โต และยุคปฏิรูปประเทศหลังซูฮาร์โตพ้นจากตำแหน่ง ข้อค้นพบของบทความ คือ อินโดนีเซียได้เริ่มมีการกระจายอำนาจมาตั้งแต่ยังเป็นอาณานิคมของฮอลันดา แต่ทิศทางของการกระจายอำนาจไม่ได้เป็นเส้นตรงที่เริ่มจากการรวมศูนย์แล้วก็กระจายอำนาจออกจากศูนย์กลางมากขึ้นเรื่อยๆ แต่แท้จริงแล้วมีบางยุคสมัยที่อินโดนีเซียย้อนกลับไปปกครองแบบรวมศูนย์อำนาจอีก จนกระทั่งหลังการโค่นล้มซูฮาร์โตเมื่อ ค.ศ. 1998 อินโดนีเซียจึงได้เริ่มดำเนินการกระจายอำนาจอย่างจริงจังจนถึงปัจจุบัน ซึ่งมีปัจจัยหลายประการที่เกี่ยวข้องกับความเปลี่ยนแปลงของการกระจายอำนาจในแต่ละยุคสมัย