How do financial and administrative decentralization differ from one another?

In his interview with al-Liwaa newspaper on Thursday, Speaker of Parliament Nabih Berri said that "others seek federalism or confederalism under the name of financial decentralization, which we reject because it is inapplicable in Lebanon's sectarian system." 

"We support expanded administrative decentralization because it facilitates people's affairs and preserves the centralization of the state," he added.

According to Article 4 of the Taif Agreement, expanded administrative decentralization should be adopted at the level of small administrative units (without any further detail) through the election of a council for each district headed by a Qaimaqam to ensure local participation.

Some experts contend that there is no division in the financial decentralization that Nabih Berri publicly opposed.
In Western nations, decentralization is used to refer to both administrative and financial aspects.

The central government will retain control over some of the assets that represent the nation's wealth, while others will go to decentralized authorities. 

Why, then, would anyone object to it when municipalities are already using it? Ziad Baroud, a former interior minister, asks.

Opponents or conservatives of financial decentralization fear what they consider to be an unfair distribution of revenues among different regions.

Decentralization, with its accompanying financial independence for regional entities and its accelerating pace, could, in their opinion, result in regional and internal divisions and widening gaps between communities and regions.

They ask, what prevents residents of less developed regions from moving to more prosperous ones in pursuit of better job opportunities and a better life?