Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
Abstract This article explores explanations for the development of a particular form of decentralisation in the post‐conflict state of Cambodia. It looks at the context in which decentralisation has taken place, and analyses critical aspects of the functioning of the main elements of decentralisation: the commune councils. The article demonstrates that decentralisation has faltered due to a lack of fit with Cambodia's socio‐cultural and institutional context. This helps to explain why there has been relatively little devolution of decision‐making power to commune councils in Cambodia. But this is not the complete answer. A more powerful explanation is one in which an unconducive general environment for decentralisation complements a lack of real political enthusiasm for the idea, and a government agenda that is more consistent with pragmatic short‐term political gains (such as the consolidation of political party interests) than it is with the bolder, largely ideologically‐driven interests of donors in the post‐conflict establishment of strong forms of popular participation and political pluralism. Copyright © 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Blunt et al. (Tue,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: