Decentralization is often seen as a positive one in many contexts, not least in terms of public administration. Is the same true for the management of migration, however? That was the question posed by a recent paper from the University of Sheffield, which questioned whether decentralization actually delivers the promised benefits in terms of accountability and efficiency.
The researchers focused their attention on the Czech Republic, and in particular how they integrated the wave of migrants from Ukraine following the Russian invasion. Czech has long been viewed as a champion of decentralization, with a large number of municipalities for the size of the population. What’s more, the country also received more migrants per capita than anywhere else in the world, with those local municipalities given a key role in managing the situation.
Evolving infrastructure
The rapid nature of the situation meant that few municipalities had any kind of integration infrastructure, so a few different approaches emerged to deal with the situation. Two of the most common are referred to by the researchers as “municipal activism” and “municipal passivism”.
When municipalities are more active, they find their own resources and develop their own policies to manage the situation they have locally. When municipalities are more passive, however, they tend to wait for support from central government and have decisions imposed on them centrally.
Failing to handle emergencies properly can lead to bigger problems, like people losing trust in the government and more extreme beliefs taking hold in society. This can be even more true when the government doesn’t have enough resources and abilities to make good plans and carry them out. In this situation, it might make sense for local governments to save their resources for later, in case the crisis lasts a long time.
One of the main reasons local governments act the way they do is because they don’t have enough money or people to deal with the crisis. They also don’t get enough help from the central government. But even though the central government is important, local governments often feel like they’re on their own.
The research also found problems with housing for refugees, giving them emotional support, and finding places for them in preschools and schools. While local governments are good at quickly finding places for refugees to live, this doesn’t solve the bigger problem of not having enough housing.
The arrival of Ukrainian refugees has made the housing problem worse in the Czech Republic. The same goes for emotional support, which is not easy to find in the Czech Republic. Giving this support to refugees is tough, especially when there are a lot of Ukrainian refugees in one place. And there are also challenges in making sure there’s enough room in kindergartens and schools.
Key takeaways
First, local governments are good at handling the beginning of migration crises, but it’s crucial to have strong local leaders. These leaders really make a difference. As the crisis goes on, the central government’s help becomes very important because more resources are needed to meet the basic needs of migrants. Even though we’re talking about decentralization (where power is spread out), we can’t ignore the central government’s role.
The central government needs to do two things. First, it must make sure information and resources flow smoothly between different groups involved. Second, it should build connections, not just between government levels but also with private companies, non-profit organizations, and the public.
To solve crises in decentralized systems, it’s crucial to make everything work together better than each part on its own. This means that when different groups work together effectively, they can achieve more than if they worked separately. This is the key to solving the many challenges of migration crises in decentralized systems.
