Abstract Since Botswana became independent in 1966 a steady process of decentralization has been undertaken by a Botswana Democratic Party (BDP) government confident in its own legitimacy and committed officially to a policy of rural development. In 1978 the President appointed a Local Government Structure Commission to test the suitability of the existing structure and to advise on the relationship between the four main institutions at district level–the District Administration, the District Council, the Land Board and the Tribal Administration. In its 1979 Report the Commission recommended that each institution should retain its separate identity, with its powers balanced by those of the others. This article reviews the working of each institution, and concludes that the Commission's recommendation was justified. It notes, however, that the balance between the four institutions has been tilted to an extent in favour of the District Administration. It shows that the District Councils have displayed an improved capacity for plan implementation, but need more skilled technical personnel and a better quality of elected councillor; that the Land Boards are no longer subordinate to the District Councils in administrative matters, but are hampered by a shortage of transport and finance; and that Tribal Administration staff still work under very poor conditions, though their salaries and pensionable status are much improved.
China's current reform program in agriculture is enormously ambitious in intent and highly significant for all aspects of future economic and political development. It represents a rejection of past policies of large-scale labor mobilization and communal self-reliance in favor of commercialization and individual incentives for peasants. Diversification of the rural economy, decentralization of farm management, production specialization, crop selection in accord with comparative advantage, expansion of free markets, release of labor from the land, and a shift toward household-based, rather than collective, cultivation have all been important elements of the new line. The resultant explosion of pent-up rural entrepreneurship, fueled also by marked state procurement price rises, produced dramatically positive effects on overall productivity, peasant incomes, and standards of living. These led to widespread introduction of even more radical reforms. The recent agricultural boom will be difficult to sustain, however, without worsening China's already serious budget and finance crisis. Today's leadership coalition also faces intrabureaucratic opposition from cadres at all levels who are threatened by the reorganizations, and widespread popular unease about new patterns of social inequality that may accompany greater reliance on market relations. Decentralized management, a wider role for the market, and the vigor of new commercial combines also appear to be hampering the ability of central planners to regulate the economy. Such factors are capable of producing their own political backlash. The new course is, therefore, still a risky gamble in search of a workable balance between plan and market, growth and equality, national priorities and local demands.