Theory and Practice of Decentralized Governance and Development in India

Transcription

1 Theory and Practice of Decentralized Governance and Development in India Abstract Dr. Nivedita Giri Assistant Professor, Department of Political Science Kalindi College, University of Delhi, India This paper makes an attempt to understand the concepts of decentralization, governance and development, and their correlation. The Constitution of India prescribes a decentralized form of governance aims at development. India since 1990s has undergone major changes, which were introduced in the form of economic reforms. On the one hand, while a centralized interventionist state has been challenged by an increasingly decentralized and regulatory state, on the other, the growing importance of free market economy has forced its vast sections of people from rural areas to live in backward condition. Hence, to address this issue, the new definitions of governance that have emerged in recent years include not merely institutions of national government, but also those of local and global governance. On one hand, this research paper will focus on three components of the decentralization; Deconcentration of power, Devolution of power, and Delegation of power, and on the other hand highlights two components of development; Participation and Ownership. The following points will also be of major discussion in this paper: In partnership Panchayati Raj Institutions (PRI) is extending the scope of governance Inclusive politics Percentage of participation Extent and effectiveness of delivery of the services Actualization of components of decentralization Extent of ownership The paradox of decentralization and development in India is that most progressive legislations are in place but their effective practices on the ground are not very effective. It cannot be ignored that the centre-state relations are more or less defined in the Constitution but Panchayati Raj is still evolving. The paper would conclude with a host of recommendations on how to address the decentralization and development challenges. Introduction The notion of decentralization is being exceedingly desirable all over the world in the matters of governance. Various political institutions have developed and experienced numerous mechanisms to better governance for the development of countries as a whole. Decentralization is one of the techniques that provide better and smoother governance. This type of governance system is expected to be effective and responsive in delivery. Hence, decentralization has been at the centre stage of the policy formulation in the case of European Union and even United States on the issues of subsidiarity and devolution of power. In recent years, the World Bank, for example, has also embraced it as one of the major governance reforms on its agenda (World Bank, 2000; Burki, Perry and Dillinger, 1999). One cannot ignore the case of China where decentralization has been considered as a major institutional framework for its impressive industrial growth. India too adopted constitutional reforms in the 90s to ensure effective, 1

2 efficient, inclusive and participatory governance and all-round development at every level of governance (Pranab Bardhan, 2002). i Political thinkers from Montesquieu to Madison suggest that decentralised governance can contribute to democratic participation, better representation, accountability and effectiveness. It is also seen as a means to restrained possible conflict from people who are ethnically and culturally minority from the majority groups. Numerous philosophic traditions have given arguments in support of decentralisation principles. In India, those who belong to the Gandhian thoughts have all been known for their advocacy of decentralisation. Furthermore, several social movements have given strength to decentralisation too. Many studies have assessed the benefits of decentralization system that are associated with (i) clear political will and effective management, an instrument of democratization, reconciliation, social integration, while at the same time promoting sustainable development and good governance, (ii) when civic engagement is seen in the process of decentralization, the chances are good that resources would be mobilized and allocated to poverty reduction and as well as for all kinds of development needs, (iii) participation of local people in the decision making process at their respective regional and local levels is essential for the identification of proprieties and goals related to development, (iv) decentralization provides an opportunity to strengthen women s participation in the governance process which deepen the democratic principles, (v) decentralization is instrumental in protecting and promoting cultural diversity which, in turn, enriches participatory and pluralist democracy, (vi) decentralization can improve service delivery, especially in the field of health and education. It has been experienced that the centralised political systems have lost their legitimacy to a great extent everywhere and decentralization of institutions have achieved greater success ii (Pranab Bardhan, 2002). Hence, looking at number of benefits of decentralization governance many states in the world have either adopted it as political system or bringing adequate reforms in their systems. It is well accepted that a fragmented authority and devolution of power encourages checks and balance and ensures transparency, responsive and accountability in governance. However, at present time one must see that decentralization, both as a theoretical proposition and in practical reforms is quite striking. The strongest theoretical argument in favor of decentralization is that - it will improve the accountability and responsiveness of government by altering its structure so as to increase citizens voice and change the deep incentives that public officials face (Faguet 2012). The other arguments in favor are that it can reduce misuse of centralized power by transferring certain central government functions and resources to lower levels of governments, improve political stability by involving minorities and giving control over sub-national governments with limited power over issues that affect them the most, and also increase political competition by creating many smaller arenas that politicians strive to control. Decentralization further affects the budget and enhances the service provision. One of the most important reforms in governance system is decentralization. A decade ago, estimates of the number of decentralization experiments ranged from 80 percent of the world s countries to effectively all of them (Manor 1999). Many countries such as Bolivia, Cambodia, Ethiopia, France, Indonesia, Japan, Peru, South Africa, South Korea, Uganda, the UK, and many more have accepted decentralized system with suitable reforms in their governance. The trend covers all of the world s regions, and includes both rich and poor economies, large and small, and with varied colonial backgrounds. In nutshell, decentralization is being implemented almost everywhere. 2

3 India provides an important context for understanding the ways in which decentralisation can improve the performance and accountability of local governance. Though India had adopted decentralized structure of governance after its independence because of its size and population in 1993, later the Government passed a series of constitutional reforms, designed to democratise and empower local political bodies the Panchayati Raj Institutions (PRIs). Since that time, the experience has been variable, ranging from ambitious attempts at Gram Swaraj (or village selfrule), reservation for women, and participatory governance. The Indian States have devolved political, administrative and fiscal authority to local Panchayats that provide an important context for understanding the ways in which decentralisation can affect informal institutions governing the quality and reach of poverty alleviation programmes. Understanding decentralization Decentralisation is a theme discussed in relation to a wide range of related subjects such as public sector reform, democracy, political reform, participation, empowerment, rural development, fiscal and economic development, accountability and capacity building (Smoke, 2003). iii Although it has been described as one of the fashions of our time (Manor 2006: 283), iv there is still a lack of clarity about its exact meaning. The reason why decentralisation came to be a much talked-about subject stems partly from the fact that it has been adopted by people belonging to different political persuasions across the Left-Right ideology divide. Bardhan tells us that this includes free-market economists who tend to emphasise the benefits of reducing the power of the overextended or predatory state to social thinkers who are both anti-market and anti-centralised state, advocating assignment of control to local self-governing communities. (Bardhan 2002: 185) v Thus decentralisation is a fluid and flexible discourse that can be utilised by different ideological interests (Mohan and Stokkes 2000:250). While the discourse on decentralisation evolved in the context of the reform of public administration or for making development and governance participatory and close to the people in the rest of the world, Gandhi s advocacy of a decentralised order provided an additional source of legitimacy for such initiatives in India and a certain degree of sentimentality in that sense. Decentralization refers to transfer of decision making power and assignment of accountability and responsibility for results. It also includes delegation of appropriate authority to individuals or units at all levels of an organization even those are far from centre of power. The meaning of decentralization is also associated with a reduced role of central government in efficient service delivery. According to Louis A. Allen, Decentralization refers to tire systematic effort to delegate to the lowest levels all authority except that which can only be exercised at central points. Newman, summer and Wairen define, Decentralization is simply a matter of dividing up the managerial work and assigning specific duties to the various executive skills. Therefore, decentralization is concerned with the decentralization of decision-making authority to the lower levels in managerial and supervisory hierarchy. Decentralisation is generally understood as the transfer of powers from central government to lower levels in a political-administrative and territorial hierarchy (Crook and Manor 1998; Agrawal and Ribot 1999) vi Mawhood (1983) and Smith (1985) defines decentralisation as any act by which central government formally cedes powers to actors and institutions at lower levels in a political administrative and territorial hierarchy vii. According to Rondinelli and Cheema (1984) decentralisation is the transfer of responsibility for planning, management and resource 3

4 utilisation and allocation from the central government to (a) field units of central government ministries or agencies; (b) subordinate units or levels of government; (c) semi-autonomous public authorities or corporations; (d) wide regional or functional authorities. Decentralisation is understood as the re- structuring of authority so that there is a system of co-responsibility between institutions of governance at the central, regional, and local levels according to the principles of subsidiarity thus increasing the overall quality and effectiveness of the system of governance, while increasing the authority and capabilities of sub-national levels viii. To Hans Bjorn Olsen (2007), decentralization is the transfer of authority and responsibility for public functions from the central government to intermediate and local governments or quasiindependent government organizations and/or the private sector ix. Simply, decentralization has also been defined as the assignment, transfer or delegation of political, administrative and fiscal responsibilities to lower levels of government. A study by UNDP finds that,... Decentralization, or decentralizing governance, refers to the restructuring or reorganization of authority so that there is a system of co-responsibility between institutions of governance at the central, regional and local levels according to the principle of subsidiarity, thus increasing the overall quality and effectiveness of the system of governance, while increasing the authority and capacities of sub-national levels. Decentralization could also be expected to contribute to key elements of good governance, such as increasing people's opportunities for participation in economic, social and political decisions; assisting in developing people's capacities; and enhancing government responsiveness, transparency and accountability x. Another United Nations research finds out that,... Decentralization stimulates the search for program and policy innovation, first of all because it is, per se, an innovative practice of governance. Second, because through its implementation, local governments are required to assume new and broader responsibilities in order to provide public services for all. The assumption of new responsibilities through decentralization often requires improved planning, budgeting and management techniques and practices; the adoption of new tools; and the development of improved human resources to operate the decentralized programmes. xi Forms of Decentralisation Theorists of decentralisation have given four forms of decentralisation: deconcentration, delegation, devolution and privatization. i) Deconcentration refers to the process of administrative decentralisation whereby the central government designs a structure that enables its agents to work close to the local people in field units of central government. The deconcentration of the administrative system thus involves setting up region or district offices of the central ministries and other state agencies followed by delegation of work and authority from the centre to these local representations of central authorities. Deconcentration can take different forms (Siedentopf 1985, 30); a) Mere shifting of workload from a central government ministry to its offices outside the national capital. The local staffs do not possess the authority to make decisions on their own or to carry them out. b) Transfer of some decision-making authority to a system of field administration, allowing it some latitude to plan, to make routine decisions and adjust the implementation of central directives to local conditions, within guidelines set by the central ministry, c) Establishment of subordinate levels of government to perform local functions but under the technical supervision and control 4

5 of the central ministry. Delegation is a more extensive form of decentralisation and it is through delegation the central governments transfer responsibility for decision-making and administration of public functions to semi-autonomous organisations not wholly controlled by the central government, but ultimately accountable to it. (ii) Delegation, compared to deconcentration, provides greater opportunities to agencies and units to exercise delegated functions and responsibilities. In terms of dimension both deconcentration and delegation can be termed as administrative decentralisation with the central government retaining ultimate authority. (iii) Devolution is a real form of decentralisation which involves the process of transferring decision-making and implementation powers, functions, responsibilities and resources to legally constituted local governments. This system gives local authorities autonomy within clearly demarcated areas of decision making through constitutional rights. According to Rondinelli (1981, 31) devolution has certain characteristics. First, it requires that local government be given autonomy and independence, and be clearly perceived as a separate level over which central authorities exercise little or no control. Second, local units must have clear and legally recognized geographical boundaries over which they exercise authority. Third, local government units must be given corporate status and power to raise sufficient resources to perform specified functions. Fourth, devolution implies that local governments are institutions which provide services that satisfy the needs of local citizens and allow their participation in local affairs. Finally, devolution establishes reciprocal, mutually beneficial and coordinative relationships between central and local governments. (iv) Privatisation a relatively new phenomenon refers to transfer of responsibility for public functions to voluntary organizations or private enterprises. The objective is to mobilise the capacity and initiatives of civil society organizations working for social and economic development. Of the four forms of decentralisation described above, only devolution is considered as genuine form of decentralisation. Devolution provides the largest scope for developing genuine local-level governance based on popular participation. The deconcentration amounts to the least amount of transfer of power to local people while the delegation also does not by itself transfer power to the locals, although the delegated agencies have the scope for involving local people in their decision-making process. Perspectives on Decentralization Vis-à-vis Development Decentralized governance entails the empowering process by ensuring that local people participate in, and benefit from, their own governance institutions and development services. Institutions of decentralization, local governance and, by extension, urban/rural development, must bring policy formulation, service delivery and resource management within the purview of the people. These institutions should enable people, especially the poor and the marginalized, to exercise their choices for human development, the direct linkage between decentralized governance and development concerns empowerment of local populations to plan, implement, manage their development process taking into account their local needs and capacities. It is realized that the three important components of decentralization are: Deconcentration of power, Devolution of power, and Delegation of power help in smooth governance by micro planning, effective implementation and management of programmes. Deconcentration does not 5

6 involve any transfer of authority to the lower tiers of government (Litvack et al. 1998:4) and is therefore the weakest of all forms. Delegation transfers responsibility to local governments or to semi-autonomous organisations that are not subjected to day-to-day control by a higher tier, but are answerable to it since the real power vests with it in the ultimate analysis. Devolution is reflective of genuine decentralisation in that it provides the most direct link with democracy, ensures popular participation and seeks to achieve empowerment of the local citizenry (John and Chathukulam 2003) Participation and decentralisation are considered to have a complementary relationship in that a good decentralisation scheme requires participation of some kind to ensure that the local government is responsive to local needs. Likewise decentralisation can throw up greater space for participation by bringing the government closer to the people at a level at which the costs of participation are considerably less. Hence, participation is seen both as a means to and as a successful goal of democratic decentralisation (Livtack and Seddon 1999:17). However these components lead to significant improvement in the welfare of people at local level. Also, altogether it leads to enhancement of human development ultimately. As a key to human development, responsive decentralized governance is to ensure that the voices and concerns of the poor, especially women, help guide its design, implementation and monitoring. For development and governance to be fully responsive and representational, people and institutions must be empowered at every level of governance. Interfacing decentralization and development Today, there is wider acceptance that the qualities of decentralization depend on the perspective of development from which it is viewed. There is general consensus about the potential role of democratic decentralization with respect to local development particularly poverty reduction. Hence, in the discourse of development, decentralisation appears as a solution to several core problems of underdevelopment symptom such as efficiency deficits, fiscal crises, governance failures, government legitimacy, or even inequity (World Bank 1997, 32; World Bank 2000, 33). Decentralization offers valuable benefits such as improved human rights, political choice, and government accountability that are essentials of development. Bad governance entrenches corruption, mismanagement, and public service inefficiency, while at the same time, undermining the capacity to eradicate poverty and destitution. Democratic decentralization efficiently address a large number of key issues such as the severe limitations of centralized planning and management; the over-concentration of power, authority, and resources at the centre; the weak contact between government and local people, including civil society and the private sector; the lack of equity in the allocation of resources; the insufficient representation of various political, religious, ethnic and tribal groups in the decision making process; the inadequate exchange of information and the inefficiency of service delivery modalities. Decentralisation is expected to bring the process of decision-making closer to the people. In that way it contributes to the deepening of democracy (Gaventa 2006) xii. Decentralisation reforms can spur the generation of new spaces for the development of civil society and the expansion of the citizenship idea (Avritzer, 2002) xiii. This will lead to the deepening and thickening of democracy at the local level in the following way: Decentralisation and Social Inclusion The institutional reforms through decentralisation have contributed to the empowerment of local leaders, greater inclusion of formerly excluded groups, minority and poor within the nation-state 6

7 by increasing their number in the institutions of local self-government. In India, social exclusion has been the concern of every government since it involves the denial of access to social spaces, ownership, and control over resources, denial of opportunities and basic needs, denial of right to representation and participation in social, economic, and political participation. The only way forward to social exclusion should be the inclusion of disadvantages and marginalised groups in all the development aspects. The process of decentralisation, in this connection, is viewed as one of the most important projects for reorganisation of the life of the society. The decentralisation aims to enable the citizens, either directly or indirectly, to be more involved in the decision making process. The implementation of the reforms regarding decentralisation process is essentially changing the basic social relations and the place of the citizen in the governing of the community. Therefore, decentralisation in most of the countries including India, especially in the arena of social policies, was therefore driven by the idea of reducing social inequalities and correcting allocative distortions. Advocates of decentralisation extol its many virtues, including the inclusive growth. Supporters project that decentralisation will lead to more efficient policymaking (Tiebout1956: 34) and other including Crook and Manor (1998: 35) argue that decentralisation plays an important role in the democratisation and people participation, public service performance, poverty alleviation and political and macroeconomic stability. Decentralisation theorists and policy makers evoke development arguments contending that the increased efficiency, equity and inclusion that should arise from decentralisation results in better and more sustainable management (Larson and Ribot 2004: 36). Decentralisation reform therefore tries to address the different causes of social exclusion like social inequalities, poverty, corruption, ineffectiveness and poor governance. As most of the local benefits from decentralisation are believed to come from increased popular participation, which in turn, leads to increase in democracy, efficiency and equity (Agarwal and Ribot 1999: 37 and Ribot 2002: 38). The gradual reforms initiated by the governments of India has opened space for civil society and empowerment, giving citizens opportunities to better participate in the planning and decision making processes. The ethnic minorities and other social groups who were otherwise previously marginalised and excluded are started getting involved in community affairs and got a better opportunity to influence local development under this reform policy. Brady, Schlozman and Verba (1999: 39) also opines that since the government is nearby and more accessible, citizens will feel like they can make a difference and have an impact on decisions process, leading to greater political efficacy and trust. More decentralisation would lead to creation of inclusive, responsible and accountable governance which in turns lead to empowerment and inclusion of disadvantaged sections of society xiv. Decentralisation and Responsiveness A decentralized government that is knowledgeable about, and hence responsive to, the needs of the people is better equipped to implement pro-poor policies and outcomes than one that is politically, physically, and mentally distant from the people. Notwithstanding the immense advantage offered by democratic decentralization, there is need to temper enthusiasm for this mode of governance. For one thing, there is need for a clear acknowledgment of the fact that there is no clear evidence of a linear relationship between and/or among democratic decentralization, local governance and poverty reduction, or between democratic participation and allocative efficiency. In developing countries, it is possible to cite cases of democratic and 7

8 nondemocratic systems the democracies with more or less the same dismal record in the area of poverty reduction. Furthermore, comparative analyses reveal little convincing evidence that decentralization has performed positively at all times and places. Democratic decentralization and governance are not necessarily considered to be pro-poor and are not necessarily intended to reduce poverty or to target the poor. Decentralization does not necessarily improve the political strength of the poor and other excluded groups and it may leave them vulnerable to the control of local elites when the central authorities become less involved Democracy may indeed promote the tyranny of the majority - one that thrives on the exclusion, marginalization and oppression of minorities. To anticipate the negative, anti-poor outcomes of decentralization for the poor, it is essential to consider a range of mechanisms, instruments or institutional modalities during the early stages of reform. These include tying decentralization programmes to service delivery improvement initiatives, and instituting fiscal measures that place high premium on poverty reduction. Decentralisation and Service Delivery When properly designed, decentralization policies and programmes can impact positively on the performance of local governance institutions, service delivery agencies, and ultimately, on local economic growth and poverty eradication efforts. However, for this to happen, it is necessary that the policy instruments be designed in such a way that local governments are: Sufficiently empowered and motivated to identify poverty reduction priorities, and to allocate resources to pro-poor programmes; Well-informed about local preferences, able and willing to provide services in response to the locally expressed preferences, and unrelenting in the search for efficiency and impact in the allocation of resources; Equipped to handle and manage pressures from diverse civil society sources (compared to central agencies, local governments face pressure from councilors and their constituents; the demands construction and/or maintenance of feeder roads, health posts, primary school classrooms, and other facilities that favour the poor, and for investment on large-scale capital development projects such as trunk roads, referral hospitals, and airport terminals); Capable of forging and strengthening institutionalized linkages with beneficiary communities; Skilled at acquiring, retrieving, applying, and updating data and information on local development issues and resources. Fiscal Decentralization The inherent mismatch between the optimal decentralization of public expenditures and the optimal decentralization of public revenue collection is at the heart of the fiscal decentralization policy challenge. It is now generally agreed that few local governments outside large cities can finance their expenditures from their own resources and that they need central support. The specific goal of fiscal decentralization is to confer on local governments greater responsibilities for taxation and for resource allocation. A local government, with the autonomy to make 8

9 independent fiscal decisions, should be considered as a necessary pre-condition for fiscal decentralization. This autonomy involves the power to levy taxation, explore independent revenue sources, and to decide on expenditure priorities. The alternative is to prolong the dependence on the center for grants, subventions, and other forms of transfers, and by so doing, striking at the heart of local self-government. Decentralization and Management of Natural Resources Over the last decade there has been increasing recognition that many environmental problems are grounded in institutional failure and poor governance, and that decentralized and democratic governance is a pre-requisite for sustainable development and poverty reduction. Poor governance also creates an environment inimical to efficient investment in human and material resources, and undermines the formulation and implementation of policies and laws that could accelerate the process of economic growth and development. From a wider perspective, decentralization is of great interest to environmentalists because it can reshape the institutional infrastructure on which future local natural resource management will depend; while the use and management of natural resources are of interest to those advocating decentralization and local democracy because they are sources of revenue and power, and therefore of potential legitimacy for new local government authorities. Environmental governance is about how societies deal with environmental problems; the interactions between formal and informal institutions and actors in society, and their influence on the identification and framing of environmental problems; and the ways in which environmental issues reach the political agenda, policies are formulated and programmes implemented, at both global and local levels. By analysing the different levels of governance mechanisms and understanding the links between them, environmental governance aims to provide a general framework that different actors at each level can use to improve their skills in environmental management. Environmental governance entails a substantial degree of decentralization of resource management functions to local NGOs and community-based organizations, and other local actors with interest in environmental issues. It challenges the traditional environmental conservation practices that exclusively favour land privatization. Through the devolution of environmental powers to local stakeholders, local environmental governance is also supposed to be socially redistributive and environmentally benign and sustainable. Thus, as an integral part of the wider notion of local governance or democratic governance, the concept of local environmental governance defines the capacity of local stakeholders (particularly freely elected authorities) to manage local people s relationships with their physical environment in accordance with the principles of participation, transparency, efficiency, equity and accountability. This is in opposition to previous models of environmental governance based on the process whereby the state asserts its property rights and control over resources to the exclusion of other interests. Decentralized governance on the subject of environment is based on the following premises: Sustainable development initiatives occur at the local level; 9

10 Good governance is based on the identification of individuals and institutions that should be empowered to make decisions about natural resources and their management; Local governance structures must be strengthened in order to fully assume environmental roles; Communities should not only share the benefits arising from the use of natural resources, but also participate in decisions regarding their management; Local stakeholders need to be individually and collectively empowered in order to adequately address sustainability issues. Decentralization and Political Stability A much smaller thread in the decentralization literature, but one that is relevant to some of the world s most difficult policy problems, examines political instability. By devolving power and resources to lower levels of government, could decentralization relieve political tensions and reduce the risk of violence or secession? These sorts of questions are most relevant for heterogeneous countries with strong sub-national (typically ethnic, regional or religious) identities. When such groups form a minority of the national population but a majority in some areas, a highly centralized government can exacerbate grievances and lead to demands for violence or secession by coherent groups who feel themselves excluded from power. Decentralization, it is argued, can relieve these tensions by handing control over sub-national governments and resources to local leaders throughout the country, who in some regions will be leaders of the aggrieved group(s). Proponents of decentralization - Diamond, Linz and Lipset 1995, Hechter 2000, Horowitz 1991 argue for a two-fold beneficial effect. First, decentralized governments can implement policies better suited to the local needs and preferences of a heterogeneous population (e.g. education, broadcasting, etc. in minority languages), thus addressing the substance of minority groups grievances. And second, by meeting the demands of those willing to settle for limited autonomy, the national government can peel away layers of political support from leaders who promote violence or secession. Where a complex set of complaints and demands meets a wall of centralization, calls for radical action are much more likely to prosper than where such demands meet a flexible, accommodative state. Put another way, monolithic central government is more likely to promote even if inadvertently the rise of firebrand leaders within minority groups who promote rebellion against the state. A multi tiered decentralized system will promote the rise of a different, managerial kind of leader one who seeks to work within the state to their, and their constituents, advantage. Although arguments about decentralization and political instability are often treated as a separate theoretical class, they are at their core a particular application of the accountability argument developed above. In the particular context of a heterogeneous country with spatial concentrations of identity groups, decentralization can drain political tensions if it creates governments more responsive to the demands and interests of these groups. Doing so has the further, knock-on effect of changing the internal dynamics of organization and leadership within minority groups, replacing systemic preferences for charisma and mobilization around grievance with preferences for administration, organization and delivery. This further reduces political instability and lessens the risk of conflict xv. 10

11 Decentralization and accountability The question of public accountability has been treated far extensively in the decentralization literature. The theory of decentralization and public accountability go back to Mill 1993, 1895, 61, Montesquieu, 1989, 1748, Rousseau 1978, 1762 and Tocqueville 1994, , who debated the optimal size and conformation of political units that served the interests of their citizens. The modern treatment of this question is perhaps best represented by the widely cited Wallis and Oates (1988, p.5), who argue that decentralization can make government more responsive to local needs by tailoring levels of consumption to the preferences of smaller, more homogeneous groups. The logic behind this argument relies on a powerful comparative static that goes as follows. By devolving power and authority from higher to lower levels of government elected by local constituencies, decentralization fundamentally changes the incentives that local authorities face, and thus their behavior. Under centralization, local authorities are not elected by local citizens but rather selected by higher-level authorities. Immediate accountability for their performance is thus upwards to the center, which has power over their careers, salaries and broader professional prospects (Riker 1964). Accountability does not run downwards to the citizens who consume local public goods and services except at one or more removes, in the sense that central officials are ultimately beholden to national and not local, electorates. Local officials thus face clear, strong incentives to respond to central government priorities and concerns, and weak, muffled incentives to respond to local citizens needs. Decentralization re-orients these incentives; this is its most important effect. Local officials become local officials, whose tenure and career prospects are in the hands of the citizens they serve, who elect them. The effect of decentralization is to dramatically tighten the loop of accountability between those who produce public goods and services and those who consume them. The testing of such claims was amongst the principal concerns of empiricists a generation ago; of which Rondinelli et al. (1983) is one classic and much cited example of many. This generation of studies produced results that were at best mixed, with positive and ambiguous country experiences more than counterbalanced by studies finding that, for example, decentralization has been largely neutralized across most countries by elaborate mechanisms of central supervision and control (Samoff 1990, Slater 1989); where neutralization failed, the small electoral environments that reform created were typically distorted by powerful interests, and accountability to the majority undermined (Smith, 1985). In more recent years the theme has largely fallen from favor, a casualty perhaps of increasing quantification in the field. But it is interesting to note that the smaller number of newer, typically quantitative studies that do examine the issue have found far more positive results. Hence decentralization makes government more responsive to local needs (Alderman 2000, Faguet 2004, Manor 1999), increases citizen satisfaction with local services (World Bank 1995), and helps government target poverty programs better (Galasso and Ravallion, 2005). The history of decentralisaion in India In the process of decentralization and development Panchayati Raj Institutions are important political innovations in India, for the establishment of grass-roots democracy and to ensure the greater people s participations in political system of the country. Panchayati Raj Institutions, the grass root units of local self-government have been considered as an instrument of socioeconomic transformation in rural India. Involvement of people at the grass-roots level is the most important means of bringing about socio-economic development. Panchayati Raj is identified as 11

12 such an instrumental expression of democratic decentralization in India. Decentralization of power to the Panchayat is seen as a means of empowering people and involving them in decision-making process. Local governments being closer to the people can be more responsive to local needs and can make better use of resources. The democratic system in a country can be ensured only if there is mass participation in the governance. Therefore, the system of democratic decentralization popularly known as Panchayati Raj in India which is considered as an instrument to ensure democracy and socio- economic transformation in society. There is sufficient evidence to establish the fact that the institution of local self-government is almost pre-historic, and the conception of local self-government is indigenous to the Indian soil. The existence of local bodies in ancient India is a positive proof of the inherent genius of our people to manage local affairs efficiently and on a decentralised basis. The decentralisation of power in the kingdoms of the Maurya and the Gupta period was unique. However the local government existed during Mughal and British period too though the form of the governance varied. During the formation of the Constitution in post-independence time and thereafter since the inception of planning in India, certain hard choices had to be made between the needs of national security, national unity and economic growth, on the one hand, and the consideration of achieving a measure of distributive justice, on the other, so that the benefits of development accrue to the people at the grass-root level, and also people may participate in the process of planning and development at different territorial levels. However, the Indian rural local self-government become more and more organized and took proper shaped by the time India became independent on 15 august, The task of strengthening Panchayati Raj institutions (PRIs) fell on the Indian Government after independence. It was clear that India a country of villages had to strengthen village panchayat to strengthen democracy. Mahatma Gandhi, who strongly believed in, Grama Swaraj, favoured the transfer of power to the rural masses. According to him, India lives in village and Indians should govern themselves through elected panchayat to become self sufficient. However, Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, who was primarily responsible for the Draft Constitution did not want to give any place to the Panchayati Raj institutions. He spoke clearly and unequivocally condemning the village panchayat and said, What is the village but a sink of localism, a den of ignorance, narrow mindedness and communalism? xvi Mahatma Gandhi severely criticized this and called for immediate attention. It is thus that Panchayat finds a place in the Directive Principles of the State Policy under Article- 40, which envisages that The states shall take steps to organize village panchayat and endow them with such powers and authority as may be necessary to enable them to function as unit of self governments xvii. But this provision under Directive Principle of State Policy was not legally binding on the governments. The first organized effort to tackle the problem of rural India was made through Community Development Programmed (CDP) in 1952 and National Extension Service in Community Development Programmed was first launched on October 2, The programmed aimed at improving the standard of life of the rural people in all spheres by providing an integrated package of services xviii. The objectives were to promote self-help and self-reliance among the rural people, to generate a process of integrated Social, Economic and Cultural change with the aim of transforming social and political life of the villagers. First President, Rajendra Prasad hailed this programmed as The small seed which will grow into a huge and mighty tree. Jawaharlal Nehru while launching this programmed said, Real, solid constructive work which would bring about a great revolution in a peaceful manner and not by breaking heads and yelling. xix However, CDP did 12

13 not yield the expected results because there was no institutional mechanism for the local people to participate in the development work. S.N Mishra has rightly remarks that What was originally conceived as a people s programmed became a government programmed and failed to achieve its objective. xx The basic thrust of the CDPs was to ensure community participation in all activities, which was not ensured at all. And that was the reason that Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru appointed a committee on decentralization popularly known as the Balwant Rai Mehta Committee. Balwant Rai Mehta Committee was the first committee set up in 1957 to look into the problems of democratic decentralization in independent India. The Committee was set up by Central Government in January 1957 to examine the working of the Community Development Programmed and the National Extension Service and to inquire into the question of economy and efficiency and suggest other measures for the reorganization of Community Development Programmed. The committee came out with the suggestion of a three tier system of rural local government popularly known as democratic decentralization scheme. Subsequently, the same began to be called as Panchayati Raj Institutions in popular speeches and literature. The recommendation of Balwant Rai Mehta Committee came into effect on 1 April 1958 xxi. The first states to go for full stream with the scheme of democratic decentralization were Rajasthan and Andhra Pradesh. However, during the III five year plan to focus on rural development attempts were made to constitute three-tier system of PRIs, based on the recommendations of the Balwant Rai Mehta Committee (1957), and with it the idea of planning from below gained some currency. But these ideas did not pick up and were not operationalized, as the PRIs, except in some states, were stagnating or declining, after the initial enthusiasm for their development. So in December, 1977, a Committee on Panchayati Raj, headed by Ashok Mehta was appointed. The Committee considered inadequacy of resources, mainly responsible for failure of PRIs and, therefore, recommended, inter alia, measures for strengthening the financial resources of PRIs. But then again, The Constitutional Amendment Act, 1992, marks a water-shed in the history of local selfgovernment in the country since it gives a constitutional mandate to the state governments to restructure and revamp rural local bodies in accordance with constitutional obligations. The Act provides for (i) the creation of three tier system of PRIs - gram panchayat at the village level, Janapad Panchayat at the block level and Zila Panchayat at the district level, with sufficient powers and functions contained in schedule XI of the Act; (ii) the creation of State Election Commission to ensure free, fair and timely elections after the expiry of every 5 years, and (iii) the creation of State Finance Commission after every 5 years to recommend devolution of financial resources from the state government to local bodies and also suggest measures for strengthening their financial position. Thus, 73rd Constitutional Amendments to the Indian Constitution are the indicators of real revolution of grass root democratic decentralization or rural local self-government in India. After 73rd Amendment, the Eleventh Schedule of the Constitution list 29 items or functions that State Legislatures could devolve to the local governments. In reality, most of the states have made such devolution as for mere ostentation. Some states have not yet fully transferred the power and functions conferred to the local self-governing bodies under the 73rd Act. Arunachal Pradesh has not devolved any functions to the Panchayati Raj institutions. This, in turn, has adversely affected the efficiency and effectiveness of the Panchayat. Evidences on the ground 13

14 This paper focuses on the new role of states and PRIs in promoting inclusion, participation, equity, ownership, and extent and effectiveness of delivery of services in India. Besides, it also identifies the elements that are thought to have undermined the power and autonomy of locallevel governance. Various development initiatives have been taken place in the decentralized governance system in India. One of the important developments is the participation of women s representatives in the panchayats elected after the 73rd. Amendment. It may therefore be evaluated by first examining the evidence of their awareness of panchayati raj institutions and their formal engagement with panchayat processes, such as attending and taking part in meetings. Several studies have surveyed these aspects in the different States. Next, we will examine the specific obstacles and handicaps faced by women which appear to them to hamper their participation. These span a wide range - from the routine exclusion from effective decision making to physical violence against women representatives. There are also structural obstacles relating to the design of panchayati raj institutions, such as the role of the bureaucracy or the provisions for noconfidence motions or the two-child norm. Another type of structural limitation is that relating to the local structures of dominance - including patriarchy, caste and class issuing in exclusion, tokenism and surrogate representation. Despite these obstacles, most women surveyed report a positive enhancement of status within the family and the community, and a heightened commitment to literacy, especially for the girl child. Though the new panchayati raj institutions were not specifically designed with this objective in mind, these are surely among their most heartening achievements. Women s political participation in local self-government With the Amendment per cent reservation was given to women in the local selfgovernment. During the panchayat elections across the country brought over 700,000 women to panchayati raj institutions at all three levels. The statistics (Kaushik 1998) show that, with the exception of a few States, most have met and some have even exceeded the onethird quota for women s reservation at the Gram Panchayat Level. The States which have failed to meet the quota include Assam and Punjab (where only 30 percent of women were elected to the Gram Panchayats); Sikkim (1.48 percent); undivided Uttar Pradesh (25.55 percent), and Chandigarh (20.18 percent). Karnataka has percent women representatives at the Gram Panchayat level, which not only exceeds the requisite quota but is also the highest among all States. The other States, which substantially exceed the 33 percent quota, include Goa, Kerala, Manipur, West Bengal and Daman and Diu. One study of 16 Gram Panchayats in Ganjam district of Orissa claims that the non-political background of the women panches and sarpanches surveyed was an asset in arriving at unbiased decisions on community matters such as the construction of a community hall, the selection of beneficiaries under the widow allowance scheme, water supply and work under the Jawahar Rozgar Yojana. (Panda, 1996:727) A very different picture emerges from another Orissa study of 49 Gram Panchayats, 4 Panchayat Samitis and one Zila Parishad in Angul district. This suggests variations (a) between the three tiers, with greater involvement as we go to the higher levels, and (b) between members and chairpersons. Thus, sarpanches at all three levels were confident of undertaking useful developmental activity, while members were less so. (ISED, 1998: Chapter IV)The evidence from the Garhwal region is more positive, with many Gram Panchayat 14