Centralization versus local autonomy: Stalemate in village development in a politically sensitive region

Much rural and regional development literature treats centralization of the state as an obstacle to development. Proper use of the term ‘centralization’ demands that students of rural development adopt the conceptual distinction, frequently employed in political science analysis, between centralization/decentralization of the state and the stateʹs strength/weakness. An Israeli case study, making use of this distinction, shows that centralization combined with weakness leads not to control, but to the mutual frustration of the state and village communities. While each side is capable of blocking the otherʹs attempts to achieve its objectives, neither is able to receive from the other the positive inputs it requires to meet its own goals.