AN ASSESSMENT OF WOREDA CAPACITY: THE CASE OF ...

local agencies; for example, the acquisition of managerial, planning, and technical skills,
knowledge and experience for program planning and implementations; the ability to finance
local economic development initiatives by generating revenues locally and tapping external
resources; and the ability to manage the local economy and initiate development activities within
the framework of national policy goals.
Hence, capacity building or capacity development is the most critical factor for effective local
governance. Capacity development requires local governments to undertake reforms in the way
they conduct their operations, to make investment in human resources and equipment, to adopt
new work practices; and for this efforts to occur, innovation and responsible leadership and
community participation provides the required motivation and the principal elements. Local
capacity development needs, therefore, have to give attention to areas such as staff skills and
professionalization, equipment, materials and buildings, access to adequate financial resources,
organization and the administration‘s planning and execution, local autonomy, creation of
flexible managerial approaches and legal reforms so that the performance of local governance
can improve.
2.4 Decentralization and Capacity Building in Ethiopia
Ethiopia‘s experience in decentralization and local governance is very limited. The country has
been under a highly centralized system with very little powers and responsibilities for local
governments. Local governments in Ethiopia were not autonomous organs with full control over
resources and with adequate decision-making; rather they acted as field agents of central
governments for a long time.
Except for the deconcentrated and delegated forms of decentralization observed during the
previous two regimes, Ethiopia has been a unitary state with strict centralization of authority and
responsibility until 1991. In spite of the existence of woredas and awrajas as sub national tiers
of government structure, their roles in providing public services were limited as the central
government was responsible for providing services at the local level and the local governments
were powerless and could not participate in local development (Mehret, 2002; Vander Loop,
2002; Yigremew, 2001). Under both the Imperial and Derg regime, thus, very little effort was
made to decentralize power.
29