Decentralized Governance in Somalia's Federal System: What a 2025 Survey Study Reveals
...
A digest of Sheikh Ali (2025), Journal of Somali Studies
Since federalisation began in 2012, Somalia has shifted responsibility for many public functions to federal member states and local administrations. Decentralisation is widely promoted as a route to better services, more accountable officials and more engaged citizens — but whether it delivers those gains in a fragile, clan-structured state is an open question. This 2025 study surveys 364 people across Somalia's federal member states and Benadir to test which parts of decentralised governance shape how effective people judge it to be, and how socio-economic conditions, regional differences and political stability alter those links. It is relevant to anyone working on federalism, local government or public-sector reform in Somalia and similar settings.
The survey yielded 364 valid responses (91% of the 400 sent out), and 47.5% of respondents live in Benadir. Service delivery is the strongest predictor of perceived governance effectiveness (β = .285), while citizen participation is not significant (β = −.004).
Article at a Glance
The article is "Decentralized Governance in Somalia's Federal System: Evaluating the Effectiveness of Service Delivery, Accountability, and Regional Disparities," by Ali Yassin Sheikh Ali (Faculty of Economics, SIMAD University). It was published in the Journal of Somali Studies (JoSS), Vol. 12, No. 2, pp. 113–148, in the August 2025 issue. Its research area is public administration, governance and federalism, and its study context is Somalia: all federal member states and Benadir, with adult survey respondents. The method is a cross-sectional survey (5-point Likert scales) using factor and reliability analysis, multiple regression, mediation and moderation analysis, and decision-tree analysis (SPSS 27). The DOI is https://doi.org/10.31920/2056-5682/2025/v12n2a6.
The Research Problem
Decentralisation theory promises services closer to citizens and officials who answer to them. Yet the literature the author reviews shows that in fragile states it can also entrench elites, widen regional gaps and produce participation that exists only on paper.
Somalia's federal system operates amid clan politics, uneven institutional capacity and insecurity, and the author argues that systematic empirical evidence on whether decentralisation has improved governance there is scarce.
Research Objective
The study evaluates how service delivery, local accountability and citizen participation relate to perceived governance effectiveness in Somalia. It tests four hypotheses. H1 holds that the three governance drivers have positive direct effects. H2 holds that socio-economic factors mediate these effects. H3 holds that regional variability and political stability moderate them. H4 holds that demographic characteristics shape perceptions of governance effectiveness.
How the Study Was Conducted
A quantitative, cross-sectional survey. A structured questionnaire, adapted from governance measurement frameworks and piloted with 25 people, was sent to 400 participants selected by stratified random sampling; 364 valid responses were received online and in person. Each of seven constructs was measured with five Likert items (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree) and summed into a 5–25 scale.
The analysis followed six steps. In step 01, Sample, respondents were Benadir 47.5%, Somaliland 12.6%, Hirshabeele 10.2% and Puntland 4.9%; 76% were aged 18–34, 64% were male and 72.5% had higher education. In step 02, Validity, exploratory factor analysis gave KMO values of .81–.85, with one factor per construct explaining 58–67% of variance. In step 03, Reliability, Cronbach's alpha was .82–.88 across all seven scales. In step 04, Regression, governance effectiveness was regressed on the three drivers (H1). In step 05, Mediation and moderation, bootstrapped indirect effects (5,000 samples) and interaction models were used (H2, H3). In step 06, Decision tree, tree analysis was applied to demographic predictors of governance perceptions (H4).
Key Findings
The results are reported in Tables 5–7 and Figure 8 of the article, one for each hypothesis. For H1, a joint regression (R² = .25) found service delivery β = .285 (p < .001), accountability β = .252 (p = .002) and participation β = −.004 (p = .954), so the hypothesis is partly supported. For H2, mediation via socio-economic factors gave an indirect effect of about 0.11 for each driver, with confidence intervals excluding zero, and R² rose to .46–.51, indicating partial mediation. For H3, moderation was tested, and only accountability × political stability is significant (β = −0.03, p = .002), which is 1 of 6 interactions. For H4, the decision tree splits first on role in community, then on income (for citizens) and employment status (for officials), so the hypothesis is supported.
Service delivery and accountability carry the most weight. Respondents who rate services and accountability more favourably also rate governance as more effective; service delivery has the largest coefficient.
Participation adds little once the other drivers are included. The author reads this as "cosmetic participation" — involvement without real decision-making power. On its own, however, participation is significantly related to governance effectiveness (total effect 0.38).
Accountability matters less where stability is perceived as higher. The negative interaction supports what the author calls "stability-induced complacency".
Officials are more critical than citizens; income shapes views. Citizens average 14.29 versus 12.16 for officials and community leaders. Higher-income citizens rate governance highest, and unemployed or self-employed officials rate it lowest (10.45).
Reading note: Some claims in the abstract go beyond what is directly tested: region-by-region comparisons of capacity and resources are not reported, public scrutiny is not measured, and education does not appear in the decision tree. Several scales also ask whether a factor affects governance (for example, "security conditions influence access to services") rather than measuring its level.
What the Study Contributes
The contribution is primarily empirical: a multi-region survey of governance perceptions under Somalia's federal system, combining service delivery, accountability and participation with socio-economic, regional and security factors in one model. It introduces two interpretive labels — "stability-induced complacency" and "cosmetic participation". The author recommends stronger local capacity, independent monitoring, participation with real authority, governance reform aligned with economic development, and federalism tailored to each member state, implemented gradually.
Important Limitations
Identified by the author: No dedicated limitations section; the author notes that limited capacity, insecurity and aid dependence call for gradual, pilot-based implementation.
Skilful cautions arising from the study design: The sample is young, highly educated and nearly half from Benadir, so it may not reflect all Somali opinion. The data are cross-sectional and self-reported, so mediation and moderation show associations, not causal pathways, and common-method bias is possible. Participation correlates .69–.77 with the other drivers, so its null effect in the joint model may partly reflect overlap. Finally, some statistics appear inconsistent (e.g., F = 9.95 with R² = .57; 15.08 in the text vs 15.98 in the figure).
Why This Research Matters
Somalia's federal arrangements remain under active negotiation, and donors fund extensive local-governance programmes. Survey-based evidence on what citizens and officials value — services and accountability over formal participation — can help set priorities, and the study offers a replicable instrument for tracking perceptions over time.
Skilful Research Insight
Editorial commentary — not a finding of the study. Three lessons stand out. First, match item wording to the concept: a scale that asks whether stability affects governance measures a belief, not how stable a region is, which matters when interpreting moderators. Second, when predictors are highly correlated, report each one's unique and shared contribution before concluding that one has no effect. Third, the study invites follow-up that pairs perceptions with administrative data — budgets, service coverage, audit results — and compares member states directly, ideally with repeated surveys to test whether stability really erodes accountability over time.
Read the Original Research
The original article is "Decentralized Governance in Somalia's Federal System: Evaluating the Effectiveness of Service Delivery, Accountability, and Regional Disparities," published in the Journal of Somali Studies, 12(2), 113–148 (2025), by Ali Yassin Sheikh Ali. Its DOI is https://doi.org/10.31920/2056-5682/2025/v12n2a6, and the article can be accessed via that DOI link. Skilful summarises; all findings belong to the original author.
SEO Information
The SEO title is "Decentralised Governance in Somalia: 2025 Survey Study Summary." The meta description is "A Skilful digest of a 2025 survey of 364 Somalis on how service delivery, accountability and participation shape perceived governance under federalism." The URL slug is /decentralised-governance-somalia-federal-system. The primary keyword is decentralised governance in Somalia. The secondary keywords are Somalia federalism; service delivery; local accountability; citizen participation; political stability; federal member states.
Prof Ali Yassin Shaikh
Senior Researcher
Senior Researcher | Experienced in conducting research, analyzing insights, and contributing knowledge that drives meaningful learning and informed decisions.