UNIVERSITI PUTRA MALAYSIA CAPABILITY AND POTENTIALS OF...
Transcript of UNIVERSITI PUTRA MALAYSIA CAPABILITY AND POTENTIALS OF...
UNIVERSITI PUTRA MALAYSIA
CAPABILITY AND POTENTIALS OF RESPONSIBILITY CENTRES UNDER THE IMPLEMENTATION OF DECENTRALISATION POLICY
ZANARIAH MOHD NOR
FPP 2001 13
CAPABILITY AND POTENTIALS OF RESPONSIBILITY CENTRES UNDER THE IMPLEMENTATION OF DECENTRALISATION POLICY
By
ZANARIAH MOHO NOR
Thesis submitted in Fulfilment of the Requirement for the Master of Science in the Faculty of Educational Studies
Universiti Putra Malaysia
April 2001
Abstract of thesIs presented to Senate of the Unlversltl Putra Malaysia In fulfilment of requirement for the Master of SCience
CAPABILITY AND POTENTIALS OF RESPONSIBILITY CENTRES UNDER THE IMPLEMENTATION OF DECENTRALISATION POLICY
By
ZANARIAH MOHO NOR
Apri l 2001
Chairman Assoc. Prof. Dr. Turiman Suandi
Faculty Educational Stud ies
The introduction of a decentrallsed system In a public university In 1 995 was
geared for capacity· bUilding of Responsibi l ity Centres (RCs) In overcoming some
l imitations of the centralised administrative system The decentrallsed system did not
seem to achieve ItS objectives when several problems emerged. The study was an
attempt to examine the capabil ity and potentials of RCs In administering and managing
academic and support functions under the decentrallsed system In a public university
The model of public policy, administration and finance by Rondinelli et a/ (1 989, 1 984)
was used to gUide the study process
The study adopted a quantitative and a modified qualitative approach The study
population comprised administrators at the academic RCs A total of 99 respondents
and 1 6 Informants were Involved the quantitative and qualitative approaches
respectively A self-administered questionnaire was used for the quantitative approach
while the semi-structured Interview was used for the qualitative approach The
quantitative data were analysed uSing the Statistical Package for Social SCience ver 7 5
while the qualitative data were analysed uSing the Ethnograph ver 5
Under the decentrallsed system , the study found that the RCs encountered
several constraints related to bureaucratic, organisational and resources factors The
11
central management tended to provide insufficient empowerment and administrative
assistance to Res to undertake the increased workloads and responsibilities. This
problem was exacerbated with inadequate documentation on policies, regulations,
procedures and strategies to guide Res. The central management seemed unable to
provide adequate resources to Res to operationalise the assigned functions.
In spite of the shortcomings, the Res seemed to have high capability and
potentials in administering and managing the resource management and faculty
administration and management; and the academic functions. The Res had moderate
capabil ity and potentials in administering and managing other functions such as
research; the development and maintenance of physical facilities; and students
development, admission and welfare; and consultancy and community services. Some
Res seemed to be better than others in administering and managing three functions i .e .
resource management; and faculty administration and management; and students
development, admission and welfare. About one-half of administrators were clear with
the objectives of academic and support functions. They also showed different levels of
clarity towards the objectives.
The study discovered that, to some extent, the decentralised system had
potentials to consolidate the university governance. Being empowered and held
accountable seemed to have built strengths in Res viabil ity to seize opportunity to
generate incomes and adopt several coping strategies in mitigating the constraints
faced.
There is a need for the university to review the factors related to bureaucratic,
organisational , and resources to ensure the policy would consol idate capacity building
of Res in governing its various functions. The central management should strongly
support and commit itself to adequately empower Res to discharge their functions . The
effort should be supported with sufficient documents to guide Res with pragmatic
III
decentralisation concepts and principles as an effective monitoring system. The Res
also should be provided with adequate resources to ensure the efficiency and
effectiveness of governance.
IV
Abstrak tesis yang dikemukakcm kepada Senat Universiti Putra Malaysia sebagai Memenuhi keperluan untuk Ijazah Master Sains
KEUPAYAAN DAN POTENSI PUSAT TANGGUNGJAWAB 01 BAWAH PELAKSANAAN POLISI OESENTRALISASI
Oleh
ZANARIAH MOHO NOR
Apri l 2001
Pengerusi Prof. Madya Dr. Turiman Suandi
Fakulti Pengajian Pendidikan
Pelaksanaan sistem desentralisasi di sebuah universiti awam adalah
bermatlamat untuk membina kapasiti Pusat Tanggungjawab (PT J) dalam mengatasi
kekangan sistem pentadbiran berpusat. Beberapa masalah yang timbul menunjukkan
matlamatnya tidak dicapai sepenuhnya. Kajian ini bertujuan untuk menilai keupayaan
dan potensi PT J dalam mentadbir dan mengurus fungsi-fungsi akademik dan sokongan
di bawah sistem desentralisasi di sebuah universiti awam. Model pentadbiran awam
dan keewangan oleh Rondinell i et a/. (1 989; 1 984) digunakan bagi membantu proses
kajian.
Kajian ini menggunakan pendekatan kuantitatif dan kual itatif yang diubahsuai .
Populasi kajian adalah para pentadbir PT J akademik. Pendekatan kuantitatif
melibatkan 99 responden manakala pendekatan kualititatif melibatkan 16 informan.
Pendekatan kuantitatif mengunakan borang soal-selidik manakala pendekatan kualitatif
menggunakan temubual berpandu. Data kuantitatif dianalisis menggunakan Statistical
Package for Social Science versi 7.S. Data kualitatif dianalisis menggunakan
Ethnograph versi S.
Kajian mendapati PT J mengalami beberapa kekangan yang dikategorikan
sebagai faktor-faktor birokrasi , organisasi dan sumber. Pihak atasan nampaknya tidak
v
memberikan pengupayaan dan bantuan pentadbiran yang sejajar dengan beban yang
dipertanggungjawabkan kepada PT J. Ookumentasi polisi desentralisasi, peraturan dan
strategi didapati tidak mencukupi sebagai garispanduan kepada PT J. Pihak atasan juga
didapati gagal menyediakan sumber yang mencukupi kepada PT J untuk
merealisasikan fungsi-fungsi yang diserahkan.
Oi sebalik kekangan-kekangan yang dialami , di dapati PT J mempunyai
keupayaan dan potensi yang tinggi dalam mentadbir dan menguruskan sumber; fakulti;
dan fungsi-fungsi akademik. PT J hanya mempunyai keupayaan dan potensi sederhana
dalam mentadbir dan mengurus fungsi-fungsi penyelidikan; pembangunan dan
penyelenggaraan kemudahan fizikal; pembangunan, kemasukan dan kebaj ikan pelajar;
dan perkhidmatan konsultan dan komuniti. 8eberapa PT J didapati mempunyai
keupayaan dan potensi yang lebih baik dalam mentadbirkan dan menguruskan sumber;
fakulti; dan fungsi pembangunan kemasukan dan kebaj ikan pelajar. Hampir 50.0
peratus para pentadbir PT J jelas terhadap objektif-objektif bagi fungsi-fungsi akademik
dan sokongan, dan mereka menunjukkan tahap kejelasan yang berbeza terhadap
objektif-objektif tersebut.
Kaj ian mendapati pelaksanaan polisi ini mempunyai potensi mengukuhkan
pengurusan dan pentabiran universiti. Pengupayaan dan akauntabili PT J nampaknya
memberi kekuatan dalam mengukuhkan kemandirian setiap PT J untuk mengumpulkan
pendapatan dan mempraktikkan beberapa strategi bagi mengurangkan kekangan
kekangan yang dialami .
Adalah satu keperluan bagi pihak pentadbir universiti untuk meneliti setiap
faktor-faktor birokrasi , organisasi dan sumber bagi memastikan polisi ini mengukuhkan
pembangunan kapasiti PT J dalam pentadbiran fungsi-fungsi yang diserahkan. Pihak
atasan perlu menyokong dan memberi komitmen untuk memberi pengupayaan yang
mencukupi kepada PT J. Usaha ini perlu disokong dengan dokumentasi konsep dan
VI
prinsip polisi desentralisasi yang praktikal dan mencukupi sebagai sistem pemantaun
berkesan. Penyaluran sumber yang mencukupi kepada PT J perlu bagi memastikan
pentadbiran yang cekap dan berkesan.
VII
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
In The Name of ALLAH, The Most Gracious and The Most Mercifu l , Thank You
for giving me strength to complete the masters programme. Alhamdunillah.
I would like to express my great thanks to my Supervisory Committee:
Assoc. Prof. Dr. Turiman Suandi, Prof. Dr. Rahim Md. Sail and Prof. Dr. Azimi Hamzah
for guidance, support and supervisions throughout the process of completion of this
thesis. I also express my deep sense of gratitude and appreciation to Prof. Rahim Md.
Sail for the advantageous comments, suggestion and moral support.
My sincere gratitude is extended to Assoc. Prof. Dr. Turiman Suandi and the
Research Unit of UPM in providing me a Short Term Research Grant that made the
study possible. Warm and sincere .words of thank to Yang Mulia Dr. Raja Ahmad
Tajuddin Shah the guidance and support in the final touch up to the thesis.
My sincere appreciation also goes to my beloved and respected parents,
Tuan Hj . Mohd Nor Hj . Endut and Fatimah Othman; my elder sister Zarina and the rest
of the family-Sofia, Mohd Nizam, Ahmad Faiz, Nurul Izzah and Amirruddin; for their
affection and support. My deep appreciation also goes to Sis Fazimah Hayati Hassan
Basri for her support and concern .
I would also like to thank to the many individuals, who in one way or another
have contributed directly and indirectly to the completion of my study, I affirm my
indebtedness. Without all these wonderful people and their support and confidence it is
unlikely that I could have made it through.
viii
I certify that an Examination Committee met on 26th April, 2001 to conduct the final examination of Zanariah Mohd Nor on her Master of Science thesis entitled "Capability and Potentials of Responsibil ity Centres Under the Implementation of Decentralisation Policy" in accordance with Universiti Pertanian Malaysia (Higher Degree) Act 1 980 and Universiti Pertanian Malaysia (Higher Degree) Regulations 1 981 . The Committee recommends that the candidate be awarded the relevant degree. Members of the Examination Committee are as follows:
Y .M RAJA AHMAD TAJUDDIN SHAH RAJA ABDUL RASHID, Ph. D. Department of Information Technology Faculty of Agriculture Universiti Putra Malaysia (Chairman)
TURIMAN SUANDI , Ph. D. Associate Professor Faculty of Educational Studies Universiti Putra Malaysia (Member)
RAHI M MD. SAI L, PH. D. Professor I nstitute for Community Development and Youth Studies Universiti Putra Malaysia (Member)
AZIM I HAMZAH, PH. D. Professor Institute for Community Development and Youth Studies Universiti Putra Malaysia (Member)
. GHAZALI MOHAYIDIN , Ph. D. ProfessorlDeputy Dean of Graduate School, Universiti Putra Malaysia
Date: 0 8 MAY ZaOl
ix
This thesis submitted to the Senate of Universiti Putra Malayisa has been accepted as fulfi lment of the requirement for the degree of Master of Science.
AINI IDERIS, PH. D. Professor Dean of Graduate School Universiti Putra Malaysia
Date:
x
DECLARATION FORM
I hereby declare that the thesis is based on my original work except for quotations and citations which have been duly acknowledged. I also declare that it has not been previously or concurrently submitted for any other degree at UPM or other institutions.
Date: 4 mAY �i
XI
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABSTRACT ABSTRAK ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS APPROVAL DECLARA TION LIST OF TABLES LIST OF FIGURES
CHAPTER
1
2
3
INTRODUCTION Decentralisation in the Education Sector Brief Scenario of the Implementation of RCM
in the Study Location Decentralisation Policy in the Capacity Building
of Local Government Statement of the Problem Objective of the Study Significance of the Study Limitations of the Study Scope of the Study Definition of Terms
LITERATURE REVIEW Rationale for Decentralisation Movement Objectives of Decentralisation Concepts of Decentralisation Benefits of Decentralisation Policy Decentralisation in Educational Sector Influencing Factors
Political Related Factors Organisational Related Factors Resources Related Factors
Conceptual Framework of the Study
METHODOLOGY Research Design Location and Subjects of the Study Study Population and Study Sample
Selection of Respondents and Informants Instrumentation
Self Administered Questionnaires Semi-Structured Interviews Questionnaire for Background of Faculty
Xli
Page ii
v viii ix xi xv
xvii
Page
1 4 7
8
10 12 13 14 15 17
19 19
20 23 27 29 32 33 41 53 64
69 69 72 75 76 81 81 95 96
CHAPTER
Validity and Reliability of Instruments Data Collection Data Analysis
Page
96 98 103
4 FINDINGS AND DISCUSSIONS 107 Background of Respondents 107 Background of Faculties 112
Enrolment of Students 112 Courses Offered 114 Staff to Students Ratio 114
Physical Academic Facilities 116 Operational Budget of Faculties 117 Research Projects (IRPA) 117 Short Term Research (STR) Activities 120 Students Drop-Out of Bachelor and Diploma 120
Programmes The Capability and Potentials of Faculties in Administering and 123
Managing Academic and Support Functions under the Implementation of Decentralisation Policy
The Capability and Potentials of Faculties in 123 Administering and Managing the Academic Function Under the Implementation of Decentralisation Policy
The Capability and Potentials of Faculties in 125 Administering and Managing the Function of Teaching and Advising Students under the Implementation of Decentralisation Policy
The Capability and Potentials of Faculties in 128 Administering and Managing the Research Function under the Implementation of Decentralisation Policy
The Capability and Potentials of Faculties in 130 Administering and Managing Consultancy Services under the Implementation of Decentralisation Policy
The Capability and Potentials of Faculties in 133 Administering and Managing Faculty Administration and Management under the Implementation of Decentralisation Policy
The Capability and Potentials of Faculties in 137 Administering and Managing Resource Management under the Implementation of Decentralisation Policy
The Capability and Potentials of Faculties in 139 Administering and Managing the Function of Development and Maintenance of Physical Facilities under the Implementation of Decentralisation Policy
The Capability and Potentials of Faculties in 141 Administering and Managing the Function of Students Development, Admission and Welfare under the Implementation of Decentralisation Policy
Xlii
CHAPTER Page
5
The Capability and Potentials of Faculties in 1 43 Administering and Managing Community Services under the Implementation of Decentralisation Policy
The Clarity of Objectives of Faculties in Administering 1 45 and Managing Academic and Support Functions under the Implementation of Decentralisation Policy
Bureaucratic, Organisational and Resources Related Factors 1 46 Bureaucratic Related Factors 1 46 Organisational Related Factors 1 51 Resources Related Factors 1 62
Summary 1 80
SU M MARY, CONCLUSIONS, I MPLICATIONS AND RECOM MENDATIONS The Study Summary of Findings Conclusions Implications Recommendations
1 83
1 83 1 85 1 87 1 89 1 90
REFERENCES 1 94
APPENDICES APPENDIX
209
1 2 3 4
5
6
7 8 9
10
11
12
Set 1 Questionnaire Set 2 Questionnaire Set 3 Questionnaire Distribution of Training on Administration Attended by
Respondents by Position
210 223 224 234
Distribution of Duration of Respondents Attended Training on 235 Administration
Distribution of Programmes and Courses Offered by 236 Faculty (1 999)
Distribution of Manpower by Faculty Distribution of Physical Academic Facilities by Faculty (1999) The Capabil ity and Potentials of Faculties in Administering and
Managing Academic Function under the Implementation of Decentralisation Policy (details)
237 238 239
The Capabil ity and Potentials of Faculties in Administering and 240 Managing the Function of Teaching and AdviSing Students under the Implementation of Decentralisation Policy (details)
The Capabil ity and Potentials of Faculties in Administering and 241 Managing the Research Function under the Implementation of Decentralisation Policy (details)
The Capabil ity and Potentials of Faculties in Administering and 242 Managing Consultancy Services under the Implementation of Decentralisation Policy (details)
XIV
APPENDIX Page
13 The Capability and Potentials of Faculties in Administering and 243 Managing Faculty Administration and Management under the Implementation of Decentralisation Policy (details)
14 The Capability and Potentials of Faculties in Administering and 245 Managing Resource Management under the Implementation of Decentralisation Policy (details)
15 The Capabil ity and Potentials of Faculties in Administering and 246 Managing the Function of Development and Maintenance of Physical Facil ities under the Implementation of Decentralisation Policy (detai ls)
16 The Capability and Potentials of Faculties in Administering and 247 Managing the Function of Students Development, Admission and Welfare under the Implementation of Decentralisation Policy (details)
17 The Capabil ity and Potentials of Faculties in Administering and 248 Managing Community Services under the Implementation of Decentral isation Policy (details)
18 The Clarity of Objectives of Faculties in Administering and 249 Managing the Academic and Support Functions under the Implementation of Decentralisation Policy (details)
BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH
xv
250
Table 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
LISTS OF TABLES
Caption Enrolment of Students by Programmes in the University: Sessions
July 94/95-Nov 98/99
Distribution of Population of the Study
Distribution of Statements according to Section
Score Categorisation of RC's Abil ity and Potentials in Administering and Managing the Academic and Support Functions
Cronbach's Alpha Coefficients of Variables of the Study
Distribution of Respondents by Position
Distribution of Respondents by Faculty
Level of Education among Respondents
Tenure of Current Post among Respondents
Page 8
77
89
95
1 00
1 08
1 09
1 09
1 1 0
10 Distribution of Training on Administration Attended by 1 1 1 Respondents
1 1 Respondents' Adequacy in Attending Training on Administration 1 1 1
12 Distribution of Students in Percentages by Programmes in Each 1 1 3 Faculty (1 998/99)
13 Ratio Staff to Students by Faculty 1 1 5
14 Distribution of Operational Budget by Faculty 1 1 8
1 5 Distribution of Research Projects by Faculty (1 996-1999) 1 1 9
16 Distribution of Short Term Research by Faculty (1 996-1 999) 121
17 Distribution of Drop-Out of Bachelor and Diploma Students by 1 22 Faculty (May 98/99 Session to May 1 999/2000 Session)
18 The Capabil ity and Potentials of Faculties in Administering and 1 23 Managing Academic Function under the Implementation of Decentralisation Policy
XVI
Table 19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
Caption Summary of Capabil ity and Potentials of Faculties (Scores) in
Administering and Managing Academic and Support Functions under the Implementation of Decentralisation Policy
The Capabil ity and Potentials of Faculties in Administering and Managing the Function of Teaching and Advising Students under the Implementation of Decentralisation Policy
The Capabil ity and Potentials of Faculties in Administering and Managing the Research Function under the Implementation of Decentralisation Policy
The Capability and Potentials of Faculties in Administering and Managing Consultancy Services under the Implementation of Decentralisation Policy
The Capability and Potentials of Faculties in Administering and Managing Faculty Administration and Management under the Implementation of Decentralisation Policy
The Capabil ity and Potentials of Faculties in Administering and Managing Resource Management under the Implementation of Decentralisation Policy
The Capabil ity and Potentials of Faculties in Administering and Managing the Function of Development and Maintenance of Physical Facilities under the Implementation of Decentralisation Policy
The Capability and Potentials of Faculties in Administering and Managing the Function of Students Development, Admission and Welfare under the Implementation of Decentralisation Policy
Community Services Conducted by Faculties in the Last Three Years
The Capability and Potentials of Faculties in Administering and Managing Community Services under the Implementation of Decentralisation Pol icy
The Clarity of Objectives of Faculties in Administering and Managing Academic and Support Functions under the Implementation of Decentralisation Policy
XVll
Page 1 26
1 26
1 28
1 30
1 33
137
1 39
1 42
1 43
1 44
1 46
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
The decentralisation movement has been a popular agenda in
reformation, development, building and consolidating the capacity of both local
and central administration in provision of services within bureaucracy
constraints in various sectors nationwide (Hirschmann, 1 999) . Ideally, the most
attractive feature of decentralisation policy, is a win-win situation that benefits
the locals and central management. Whereby, it umbrellas various
fundamental values l ike l iberty, equality, fraternity and efficiency that is
institutionalised within the development and economic growth, resource
mobilisation and allocation, productivity, self-reliance, self-sufficiency,
democracy and accountability (Swanson, 1 989; Faguet, 1 997) .
Rondinelli ( 1981 ) broadly defined decentralisation as the transfer of
responsibil ity for planning, management, and raising and allocating resources
from the central government and its agencies to: (a) field units of central
government ministries and agencies, (b) subordinate units or levels of
government, (c) semi-autonomous public authorities or corporations,
(d) areawide, regional or functional authorities, or (e) non-governmental private
or voluntary organisations. Decentralisation policy entails primarily on
distribution of authority and responsibility in decision-making, mobilisation of
2
resources and accountability framework that is required by the operating units to
perform the offloaded functions by the central administration (Manor, 1 997) . The
objectives of decentralisation are divided into three broad categories that are related
to the political or democratic, institutional or administrative and economic or fiscal
policies. The objectives are usualiy in a mix form of either two or all types (Rahman
Khan, 1 997; Parker, 1 995) that attempt to address overlapping objectives which
occasionally are conflicting (Mohanty, 1 995) . Yet, a mixed of all types noted by
Manor (1 997) is compulsory to gain significant benefit of the policy.
Regardless of claimed "democracy", most impetus and survival of
decentralisation were heavily inspired by the upheavals of politics and economy
than the democracy itself. This was demonstrated in Japan (Takao, 1 999), Sri Lanka
(Slater, 1 997) , Indonesia (Gabriele, 1 999; Devas, 1997) , Bangladesh (Rahman and
Khan, 1 997) , New Zealand (McGrath, 1997), Nigeria (Slater, 1 990), Phil l ipine,
Bolivia, Honduras, Kartanaka, Ukraine and Mali (Blair, 1 997) . Several bureaucratic
factors were found to strongly influence the success of the policy implementation in
these countries; whereby, the central governments often not wanting to devolve any
real power to the locals; and if there existed significant devolution, it created
disproportionate share of benefits. Thus, the national politicians and civil servants
commonly settled for deconcentration that is hidden behind the formality of
devolution. In extreme cases, it can cause adverse impact to beneficiaries as the
programmes and activities failed to achieve the intended objective (Gabriele, 1 999;
Rahman and Khan, 1 997; Devas, 1 997; Semboja and Therkildsen, 1 994; Silverman,
1 990; Rondinelli and Cheema, 1 983).
In Bolivia's Law of Popular Participation, the inappropriate leadership norms;
low capacity level of the municipalities to undertake decentralised functions; locals'
fai lure to play an active role to pursue development work; central government's
delays and increase costs were among the factors which caused failures in reaching
sound decisions for municipal planning and management. Yet, it promoted
3
democratic government and accountabil ity of the locals (Gannitsos, 1999; Pierce,
1 998) . In a comparative study of decentralisation policy implementation in agricultural
extension services in Java, Indonesia, Waridin (1 999) reported that the policy was not
effectively executed at the implementation level. The decentralised units received
inadequate support from district government bureaucracies and weak co-ordination
among the related agencies. The scarcity of resources and acute shortage of
qualified agricultural officers at the implementing units reduced their commitment in
executing the extension and activities effectively.
The decentralisation of the National Health Services (NHS) in England,
h indered the implementing units (the Primary Care Groups, PCGs) in performing its'
functions well . This was due to unci early defined boundaries to exercise power and
responsibility; and inconsistently received necessary facilitation and direction from
the Health Authority (HA) that caused unequal development growth among the
PCGs. The system's flexibility failed to address diversity issues of the PCGs but
initiated conflict of interest that induced inconsistency in aims, objectives, structure
and outcome which contradict from the central unit (Hudson, 1 999; Mays et a/.,
1 998; Taylor et al., 1 998). Non-existence of apt structure in a decentralised system
was detrimental to the policy implementation. Restrictions in exercising authority to
manage the project capital , complicated procedures and interventions in retrieving
the funds prohibited the adequate supply of funds to the development projects
(Slater, 1 997) . Devas (1 997) reported that rigid grant system prevented the
decentralised units to achieve mixture of resources. Hence, absence of an
appropriate structure will effect on the financial viabil ity of the decentralised units .
Decentralisation system in various settings disclosed that shortage of human
resources and deficiency in managerial and communication skills and competence
among personnel (managers, decentralised officers and staff) obstructed them to
carry out the heavy responsibil ities (Hudson, 1 999; Mays et a/., 1 998; Taylor et a/. ,
1 998, Devas, 1 997; Lil l is, 1 990). Absence of incentives, threat to self-interest and
4
professlonallsatlon compounded with sustainable and heavy workloads expenenced
by the personnel will detnmentally reduce their support and commitment towards the
policy Implementation Among the consequences were Inequalities of resource
dlstnbutlon and services (Rahman and Khan, 1 997) , less participation (Hudson,
1 999), and the reluctance of senior administrators to delegate authonty to
decentrallsed officers (Nsallwa, 1 996) Nsallwa (1 996) also noted that lacks of
consistent Interest and support from the beneficiaries and stake holders also
hampered the policy Implementation
Decentralisation in the Education Sector
Decentralisation In educational policies was appropriately viewed as a
means of reducing abstraction In deCISion-making, clarifYing lines of accountability,
IdentifYing and responding to problems more qUickly, and promoting innovation It
also created partnership between the locals and the government ThiS bolsters local
Willingness to support locally governed schools and becoming highly accountable for
their own educational necessities and promoted effiCiency that resulted In better
schools (Kemmerer, 1 994, Windham, 1 992, Rondinelli et aI, 1 990, Ranson, 1 990)
A study done by Lunenburg and Ornstein (1 996) revealed that the profeSSional
educators see a greater need to reduce school bureaucracy Thus by accepting
decentralisation It allows them to retain power and make much better academiC
deCISions
Decentralisation In education IS broadly defined by Kemmerer (1 994) as the
transfer of authOrity (and responsibil ity) for the finanCing or governance of schools to
a subnatlonal agency Decentral isation according to Lunenburg and Ornstein (1 996)
diVides the schools system Into smaller Unit, yet the focus of power and authOrity
remains In a Single central administration and board of education The policy, hence,
creates more centres With more opportunity and preferences that served and
reflected different levels of the local Interest, needs and priorities (Nalsbltt, 1 982)
5
Responsibility Centre Management (RCM) is an entity that signified the
decentralisation effort in public and private Institutions of H igher Learn ing (IHLs) . The
impetus of RCM is to address fragmentation in governance and managing l imited
resources prudently in provision of quality services (Lazerson, 1 997; The RCM
Committee Members of IUB, 1 996). Decentralised decision-making in the RCM
allows flexibil ity in governance of financial resources that assisted prompt act in
pursuing the university m ission and objectives. It's potential to produce prosperous
outcome such as rationality, efficiency and increase of productivity has positioned
RCM as a popular agenda in public or private IHLs in several countries (Adams,
1 997; Stocum and Rooney, 1 997; Plater, 1 996; 1996a).
Anon (1 996) stressed that the RCM is an operational decentralisation which
is to support the successful achievement of institutions academic priorities by
aligning operational authority commensurate with operational responsibility. While,
Stocum and Rooney (1 997) defined RCM as a financial management model that
decentralised fiscal authority and responsibility. By transferring significant financial
decision-making power to the academic units that generate university revenues,
RCM enables these units to become directly involved in the resource management
and more accountable for outcomes. The RCM places responsibility closest to
people who knows most about the decisions. Thus, with delegation of authority and
responsibil ity, it provides the "identified people" the ability to make competent
financial decision (Anne Mai, 1 996). Under the RCM, the fiscal responsibil ity is a
shared responsibility and accountabil ity to the provost or vice chancellor as well as to
the deans, department chairs and the faculty (Stocum and Rooney, 1 997) . Plater
(1 996) indicated that, under RCM , a faculty is viewed as a university.
The introduction of the RCM concept contributes to incentives of increasing
and enhancing performance of the university with high quality system. It is an
avenue to ensure that shared visions of academic excellence of each entity of the
university operates to accomplish their objectives and in consensus striving to
6
achieve the missions and visions of IHL under the leadership of the vice chancellor
(Stocum and Rooney, 1 997; Lefstein, 1 996; Overly, 1 996; Reafnsyder, 1 996; Plater,
1 996a; 1 996b; The RCM Committee Members of IUB, 1 996; Robbins and Rooney,
1 995; Whalen, 1 991) . It is strongly recommended to IHLs that undertake
corporatisation as it practices empowerment that transfer authority and responsibil ity
of managing and mobil ising resources through the entrepreneurship spirit, strategic
planning and budgeting process. It ena�les the operating units to heighten their
efficiency, effectiveness and accountability in performance and in provision of
services and products (Stocum and Rooney, 1 997; Plater, 1 996; Osborne and
Gaebler, 1 992) .
Lazerson (1 997) claimed that the RCM was difficult to be implemented and to
be maintained by self-sufficient units as it could caused "violation of academic
freedom. Operating without constraint, the entrepreneurship spirit advocated under
RCM could adversely become a threat and caused complication to pursue a
common academic vision and goals. Several major downsides identified were the
entrepreneurship spirit will influence the selection of activities, the turf interest of the
entities distorted their judgement on educational needs of students and intense
competition for students among the entities (Stocum and Rooney, 1 997; Adams,
1 997) .
Low in clarity towards the defined roles and duties, decision-making process
and the ultimate outcomes of the implementation caused the administrators to
become perplex and apprehensive. As a repercussion, they become uncertain and
uninterested to substantiate the implementation of RCM. The deans also were with
insufficient knowledge and expertise to administer the decentralised unit and to
execute the resource management. The deficiency exacerbated by inadequate
training and technical assistance received from the central administration. Increased
of staff workloads and constraints of time obstruct the operating units in executing
the decentralised functions effectively and efficiently. These impediments discovered