The “illusion” of administrative sovereignty in developing countries: A historical institutionalism perspective on administrative sovereignty in Ghana

Abstract

The emergence of transnational administrations and their influence on domestic affairs of countries have led to the questioning of the notion of administrative sovereignty. Yet, the question of whether countries have this sovereignty and how it should be understood is to be fully resolved and the debate continues unabated. In this paper, we contribute to this debate by focusing on whether countries from the developing south, are and can be administratively sovereign and to what extent can they be considered as such. Have developing countries ever been administratively sovereign? To what extent are these states administratively sovereign, if any? In short, how free are the authorities in these countries in organizing their own administrative apparatuses in policy development and service delivery? What can historical institutionalism teach us about the issue of administrative sovereignty? Following the continuum in the understanding of administrative sovereignty and using a desk review and organizing the evidence through historical institutionalism as a concept, the Ghanaian case shows limited administrative sovereignty.

Keywords:

• Administrative sovereignty
• bureaucratic capacity
• developing countries
• Ghana
• historical institutionalism
• sovereignty

Notes

1 This policy was more about politics than capacity building of the bureaucracy (see Grundy, 1963).

2 Some of the foreigners Nkrumah had to rely on included the economist Arthur Lewis, F. H. Hilliard, E. G. Johnson, and others. In 1963, the World Bank sponsored a conference of experts including Albert O. Hirschman, Nicholas Kaldor, Arthur Lewis, Dudley Seers, K. N. Raj, and Walter Birmingham, to examine and advise Nkrumah on his seven-year development plan. There were also a number of British expatriates in the civil service.

3 The native authority system was the use of local or traditional chiefs as the main administrative machinery, rather than the formal political and bureaucratic institutions that existed in governing the state.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Frank L. K. Ohemeng

Frank L. K. Ohemeng is at the Department of Political Science, Concordia University. He obtained his PhD in Comparative Public Policy and Administration from McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario. His main research interests are in the areas of comparative public policy, public management, comparative public administration, public leadership, and development administration and management. His publications have appeared in highly ranked international journals including the International Review of Administrative Sciences, Public Management Review, American Public Administration Review, International Journal of Public Administration, International Journal of Public Sector Management, Public Administration and Development, Canadian Public Administration, Public Organization Review, International Journal of Public Leadership, Development Policy Review, and many more. His current research looks at: traditional leaders as policy entrepreneurs; policy termination and dismantling; administrative reforms; and the relationship between central and local governments.

Rosina K. Foli

Rosina K. Foli is a Senior lecturer at the Political Science Department of the University of Ghana. She has a doctorate in Public Policy from the Johnson Shoyama Graduate School of Public Policy, University of Saskatchewan. Her teaching and research experiences spans public policy analysis, political institutions, policymaking, developing country studies and global governance. Her research interests include social policy, governance and poverty reduction in sub-Saharan Africa and transnational policy processes. She has published articles in Global Social Policy, Policy and Society, and Poverty and Public Policy, as well as book chapters. Currently, her research is focused on exploring how external actors and factors impact the process and outcome of social policymaking in Africa.