TABLE OF CONTENTS
Content                                                                                               Page
Title page i
Certification ii
Dedication iii
Acknowledgements iv
Abstract vi
Table of Contents ix
List of Tables x
List of Figures
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION
- Background to the Study                                                                    1
- Statement of the Problem                                                                           3
- Objectives of the Study                                                         4
- Research Questions                                                                           4
- Justification of the Study                                                                  5
- Scope of the Study                                                                              5
- Operational Definitions of Key Terms                                   6
- Plan of Work                                                                                     7
CHAPTER TWO: REVIEW OF LITERATURE
 2.0 Introduction                                                                                                        8 2.1 The Concept of Decentralization                                                           8
2.1.1 Kinds of Decentralization                                                                             9
2.1.2 African Perspectives of Decentralization                                    12
2.1.3 Growing Trend Toward Decentralization                                    12
2.2 Liberia and the Centralized Problem                                                             13 2.3 Discussion of the Liberia Decentralization Policy                    14
2.4 Necessity for Decentralization in Modern Governance                 17
2.4.1 Arguments for and against Decentralization                                       18 2.4.2 Potential Benefits of Decentralization                                      19
2.5 Local Government                                                                    20
2.5.1 Imperatives of Local Government                                                                    21 2.5.2 The Establishment of Liberia and Local Government                 22
2.5.3 Legal Framework for Local Government in Liberia             23
2.5.4 Local Governance                                                                   24
2.6 Local Government Autonomy                                                24
2.6.1 Local Government Autonomy and Decentralization        25
2.7 The Concept of Development                                                                              25 2.7.1 Grassroots/Rural Development                           26
2.7.2 Grassroots Development and Decentralization                      27
2.8 Theoretical Framework                                                                28
2.8.1 Application of the Theories                                                         29
 2.9 Gap (s) in Literature                                                                     30
CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY
 3.0 Introduction                                                                                          32
 3.1 Research Design                                                                                   32
 3.2 Population                                                                                               32
 3.3 Sample Size and Sampling Technique                                     33
3.4 Method of Data Collection                                                              35
3.5 Sources of Data 35
 3.6 Instrument of the Study                                                                          35
 3.7 Reliability of the Instrument                                                                 36
 3.8 Validity of the Instrument                                                                    36
 3.9 Method of DataAnalysis                                                                     37
 3.01 Ethical Consideration                                                                         37
CHAPTER FOUR: DATA ANALYSIS, RESULTS
AND DISCUSSION OF FINDINGS
 4.0 Introduction                                                                                            38
 4.1 Demographic Profile                                                                            38
4.2 Objective One 43
4.3 Objective Two                                                                                47
4.4 Objective Three                                                                                    50
4.4 Objective Four 52
 4.5 Discussion of Findings                                                                           54
CHAPTER FIVE: SUMMARY, CONCLUSION
AND RECOMMENDATION
5.1 Summary 59
5.2 Conclusion 60
 5.3 Recommendations                                                                              60
 5.4 Contribution to Knowledge                                                              61
 5.5 Limitation of the Study                                                                         62
 5.6 Suggestion for Further Studies                                                           62
REFERENCES 63
APPENDICES 69
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
3.1 Population of Study                                                                                 33
3.2 Sample Size Distribution                                                                       34
3.3 Cronbach Alpha                                                                                                   36 4.1.1 Counties of Origin                                                                 38
4.1.2 Gender of Respondents                                                                      39
4.1.3 Ages of Respondents                                                                            40
4.1.4 Marital Status of Respondents                                                         41
4.1.5 Educational Qualification of Respondents                                       41
4.2 Administrative System of Liberia is centralized                   42
4.2.1 Centralization Impedes Development                                                    43
4.2.2 Lack of Developmental Initiative                                                            43
4.2.3 Respondents View on Political Participation is Low                44
4.2.4 Liberia has been Branded ‘Underdeveloped’                45
4.2.5 Local Dwellers Depend on Government                                     45
4.2.6 Centralization Overburdens Government                            46
4.3 County Development Agenda is a good framework         46
4.3.1 Local Service Centers Brings Development                      47
4.3.2 Establishment of Ministries Agencies and Commissions             47
4.3.3 Lack of Professionals at the Local Level                                          48
4.3.4 Willingness of Central Government to Relinquish Power            48
4.4.1 Government is efficient and Responsive to Local Needs                 49
4.4.2 Decentralization Allow Fiscal, Political and Admin. Autonomy     50
4.4.3 Decentralization Allows Government Accountability                 50
4.4.4 Decentralization Stimulates Economic Growth                       51
4.4.5 Service Delivery and Economic Growth Accompany Decentralization    51
4.5.1 Draft Local Government Allow Full Devolution                          52
4.5.2 Government is willing to Give Power to Local Authorities    52
4.5.3 Political Commitment to Grant Local Autonomy            53
4.5.4 Quality of Development is Improved with Local Capacity        53
4.5.5 Empowerment of Locals to Participate Yields Positive Result     54
4.5.6 Opportunities for Grassroots Development are Increased           54
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Page
4.1 County of Work 39
 4.2 Gender of Respondents                                                                     40
 4.3 Ages of Respondents                                                                         41
CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
- Background to the Study
Decentralization as a concept is not completely new to Africa; but rather, it has adopted diverse strategies. English speaking and French Speaking African nations have seen various pre-and post-war decentralizations. After independence, governments across Africa kept on utilizing governments at the local levels as administrative units, and significant elements of local governments, for example, basic healthcare, construction of roads, education and local revenue collection were shifted toward central government control (Gbartea, 2011).
Kiwanuka (2012) believes that African nations have additionally capitulated to the expanding wave of cities and metropolitans. Some dominant elites groups in Africa, for example, the Americo-Liberian in Liberia embraced decentralization as a means to bargain with local elites with secessionist tendencies, and as a remedy for political instability. Nations began truly considering decentralization as an option after the manifest disappointments resulting from centralized economic planning in the 1970’s. Although there was no confirmation that decentralization would succeed, there were adequate information demonstrating that the centralized system of governance had failed (Awortwi, 2010). As Mookherjee (2006) observes, the primary reason for embarking upon decentralization is that transfer of some central government powers, assets, duties, and responsibility to lower tiers empowers local institutions and associations to engage in more successful self-administration and improvement suitable to local conditions.
The historical backdrop of modern local government systems in developing nations, including Liberia, is stacked with experimentation. There have been purposeful endeavors to modernize; however, tradition is still profoundly established (Ekpe, 2007). Some eminent issues confronting local government systems in developing nations with Liberia not an exemption include, but rather are not restricted to, basic dysfunctionality, absence of acceptable and ideal structure, capacities and duties. At the point when these are tended to, local government could be receptive to the necessities of the rural citizens who make up a large number of the populace in the developing countries (Ekpe, Ekpe, and Daniels, 2013).
The Liberian Local Government system is exceptional when contrasted with different countries in West Africa. Local Government authorities, generally, are designated by the central government, and have no characterized powers and capacities. All choices with respect to development projects and use of money are made at the central, and the local governments are compelled to do the bidding of the central government (Gbartea, 2011). The 1986 Constitution of the Republic of Liberia gives the President the exclusive authority to appoint county administrators and other local authorities (Article 54 Sec D). The Constitution additionally states in Article 56 (A) that every single such authority appointed by the President holds office at the pleasure and will of that President. This obviously has been the pattern of administration in Liberia since the 1986 Constitution came into existence. Authorities of government work at the will of the President and are not responsible to the general population even at the local sub-units (Gbala, 2004).
The process of decentralization in Liberia began as far back as the later phase of the nineteenth century. In 1880, G.W. Gibson outlined a plan by which full citizenship would extend to aboriginal groups in return for an increased production of agricultural commodities. However, the coming of Arthur Barclay to the presidency of Liberia in 1904 is by and large considered a defining moment in Liberian politics; since it denoted the start of a deliberate, official strategy to build up a hinterland administration grounded on the British principle of indirect rule. Barclay formally established the principle of recognizing the pre-existing indigenous power structures (or rather, what “Americo-Liberians” took for indigenous power structures) and controlling through powerful families of local political groups. He imposed a uniform system of administration through a two-layered system of “Paramount Chiefs” and “Town Chiefs” on the hinterland (Gerdes, 2013).
Afterward, President William V.S. Tubman in 1948 promulgated the Unification Policy which was adapted towards integrating the hinterland. His endeavors can, to a significant degree, be traced to the way that Tubman, brought up in Maryland County, was relatively untouched by the Monrovia establishment and in part turned to less powerful groups with a specific end goal to build a voting public (Pham, 2004).
Immediately following President Johnson- Sirleaf ascendency in 2006, the President’s administration started sweeping changes geared toward the consolidation of peace and the establishment of a legal framework simultaneously that would set the basis for a decentralized system of government. Amongst her first acts as President, Ellen Johnson Sirleaf repositioned the Governance Reform Commission (GRC) which was a brainchild of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA) in Accra, Ghana, which was geared toward promoting good governance and instituting public sector management reforms. Executive Order Number 2, issued March 6, 2006 changed the GRC into the Governance Commission (GC) authorized to finalize and actualize blue print giving alternatives to political, social and economic decentralization (USAID, 2012).
In any case, the return to civilian democratic leadership in Liberia was an initial step to bringing sustainable change. The first post- war government through an initiative of the President introduced programs and decision-making processes geared toward empowering local citizens to take interest in electing county officials, and managing local development. This process could be enhanced, and will engender adequate local participation in making decision at the local level (Nyei, 2011).
Alongside the draft Local Government Act of 2013, the decentralization process will concede political, fiscal, administrative and economic autonomy to the counties; this will induce sufficient participation in basic leadership at the local level, allowing local ownership of development activities.
1.2Statement of the Problem
In line with the current global trend of streamlining the role of the state, the governments of most developing countries including Liberia have devolved power to grassroots institutions with a view to enhance development. Grassroots development is very essential to the overall development of any country. It is intended to bring development closer to the people and enhance local participation in the governance process of any country.
However, this seems to be absent in Liberia. Liberia has been branded as under-developed after several decades of existence. The country remains inaccessible and impassable after more than a century and a half of existence. The administrative system of governance and development initiatives have been firmly situated in the capital and in the hands of a very few people with the president at the center of this hegemonic authority. There seems to be lack of basic structures at the local level which leads to government employees at all levels to abandon their duties to travel to the capital to receive their pay check not without difficulty. Local government employees are seen as an extension of the government in the capital; at such, they are reportable to their bosses in the capital in every respect.
Additionally, rural citizens lack control over resources and the opportunity to participate in decision making. They are not empowered to participate or engage their leaders in the development process. Development programs are planned by stakeholders at the central level; some of whom have not seen what is obtainable at the local level. Consequently, this has led the researcher to investigate the centralized problem and how decentralization and local government autonomy could enhance grassroots development in Liberia
1.3 Objective of the Study