|
| Deepening Devolution | | Rationale: | India has a long history of village Panchayats. The framers of the Constitution were aware of this heritage in village panchayat system. Article 40 of the Constitution clearly mentions that "the State shall take steps to organise village panchayats and endow them with such power and authority as may be necessary to enable them to function as units of self-government". The 73rd and 74th Constitution Amendment Acts (CAAs) provided Constitutional status to the Panchayat Raj Institutions (PRIs) and Urban Local Bodies (ULBs). As per the 73rd Amendment, the PRIs are the local-level institutions comprising elected representatives (ERs) entrusted with the responsibility of identifying, formulating, implementing and monitoring the local-level developmental and welfare programmes. The Constitutional provisions expect the state governments to enact necessary legislation not only to create PRIs, but also to endow them with such financial powers and functional responsibilities, as they may deem appropriate. Same is the case of ULBs, which are expected to perform several functions for the overall development of the municipalities. | | | Some of the state governments initiated the process of activity mapping to identify the functions that could be devolved to institutions of local self-governments (LSGs), so that they can perform their expected duties in a fruitful way. However, this exercise was more or less limited to PRIs only. The assignment of 29 functions between district (zilla panchayats), block (intermediary panchayats) and villages (gram panchayats) is not clear. In addition, functions are in turn divided into sub functions (heads), which are not transparent. Although 18 functions have been identified for ULBs, the status of their devolution remains obscure. | | | Schedule 11 states that 29 functions should be devolved at the local level for gram panchayats. However, whereas political decentralisation exist, the decentralisation of responsibilities in the autonomous choice and delivery of local public services, or indeed the necessary administrative decentralisation that should correspond, are far from being realised. The fundamental distinction between deconcentration, delegation and devolution is blurred; and thus the concept of decentralisation used in general also covers line ministries’ command over local public service. Moreover, decentralisation is characterised by vertical (line ministries, principal--agent relations) and horizontal overlapping functions (the proliferation of parallel schemes and implementation bodies). The overlap of functional responsibilities, horizontal and vertical, reduces the accountability of the local elected councillors. Voters and residents do not know who (elected, parallel bodies, line ministries) is responsible for what. Elected councillors feel they can elude responsibility by putting on "others" the blame for poor management and delays. Gram panchayats have no general and coordinated views of the functions that should be performed at the local level and services that should be delivered. | | | There are some states, which have been experimenting in the area of devolution to make LSGs more functional. However, experiences show that there are several hindrances because of the nature of services and their scale of delivery, and that is why devolution has been unable to take place as it has been envisaged. The criteria for decentralisation are not known (question of feasibility and economies of scale). | | | Again there are some issues related to coincidence between local responsibilities and finance. Mandated functions are covered by transfers, but there remain structural deficit at the local level. Implementation of National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme (NREGS) could be one of the examples in most of the states, where the problem of functionaries (engineer) is very common and it is delaying the payments of wages of poor people in rural areas. | | | Another dimension of the problem is related to making the institutions of LSG self-reliant. Almost all the PRIs and ULBs are heavily dependent on the central and state financial assistance and therefore their decisions are being deferred by the upper tiers. LSGs have been unable to collect optimum user charges because of their poor managerial capacity (and of ‘will’ also). | | | Under the present project, which is basically an action research, some experiments would be done in the identified areas to influence policies to deepen devolution for effective delivery of services in a participatory and transparent manner. These experiments would be shared at the state and national levels. Key stakeholders, State Election Commissions (SECs), State Finance Commissions (SFCs) and District Planning Committees (DPCs), would be consulted on a regular basis so that a debate and in turn demand could be generated to deepen the devolution in the institutions of LSGs. | | | | Angul (Orissa) and Madhubani (Bihar) are the project locations. | | | | Project Goal: | •Influencing policies to deepen devolution for effective delivery of services in participatory and transparent manner. | | Project Purpose: | | •Setting minimum standards to bring feasibility in size and scale for effective devolution. | •Enhancing willingness and capacities of state officials and elected representatives towards effective devolution. | | | |
|
|
हस्तांतरण की मांग को मोबिलाईज़ करना |
 |
 |
 |
| Mobilising Demand for Devolution | | Rationale: | Since the 73rd and 74th Constitutional Amendment Acts (CAAs) in 1992-93, there have been multiple efforts by government and civil society organisations (CSOs) to implement these two CAAs at the grassroots level. Impetus had been rendered to the devolution of powers and responsibilities through Seven Round Tables of State Ministers of Panchayati Raj, followed by activity mapping and tracking of memorandum of understanding. However, in spite of the continuing efforts, devolution of resources, functions and funds has remained restricted to theory to a great extent. One of the major impediments in effective devolution is the top-down approach that has been adopted in most of the programmes initiated by government. Lack of awareness and demand among the primary stakeholders and inadequate information dissemination up to the grassroots level have further plagued the process. Demand for devolution has remained a latent phenomenon in all the endeavours, limiting the dream for ensuring service delivery at the doorstep of the people. | | | Promotion of democratic governance through ensuring participation of the citizens in the governance process has remained an inseparable part of PRIA’s initiatives. PRIA has more than two decades of experience in working towards ensuring decentralisation of governance through involvement in Comprehensive District Plan (CDP), activity mapping, creating devolution index, conducting Pre- Election Voter Awareness Campaign (PEVAC) and strengthening State Election Commission (SEC). PRIA has further remained among the first organisers for the first ever national consultation on the issue of devolution of public finance. This project is in the similar spirit and continuum to these initiatives to make devolution a reality. | | | The project will be in chord with several present initiatives of PRIA, as vistas of devolution involves and includes activities like bottom-up planning or citizens engagement in development. PRIA has been working with networks of elected representatives (ERs) and CSOs in different states, either directly or through partners. The project intends to initiate its intensive activities in the two states of Bihar and Orissa, where PRIA works directly and simultaneously explore through extensive activities in the states of Uttar Pradesh, Andhra Pradesh, Chhattisgarh, Haryana, Rajasthan, Uttarakhand, Tamil Nadu, Karnataka, Kerala, Gujarat, Maharashtra, Jharkhand, Himachal Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh. One of the important factors that have worked in the selection of states is the status of election. Bihar and Orissa are among those states where election will not happen before two years, and the present system in place will provide a stable platform of ERs to work with. While in the other states, where elections are due, mobilising networks of ERs and devolution-oriented campaigns might produce immediate results through the election. | | | One of the most innovative and unique aspects of the project is that its activities will encompass both rural and urban local government bodies to create a larger public opinion. As devolution is a common factor for ensuring decentralisation, the project envisages working both in municipal and panchayat areas to build, strengthen and facilitate platforms of ERs and CSOs to synergise initiatives towards it. The project aims to build vibrant and empowered democratic local government bodies with adequate power and responsibilities for effective functioning. It intends to build partnership with media at national and state levels for generating public education on the importance of local self-governance, thus creating demand for devolution. Media will also be actively involved for advocacy at the policy level by pressurising national government on issues of devolution. | | | | Project Goal: | •Vibrant and empowered democratic local government bodies with adequate power and responsibilities for effective functioning. | | Project Purpose: | | •Influencing legislature and executive bodies dealing with local self-government bodies. | •Facilitating and strengthening elected representatives networks with internal democratisation for demanding devolution. | •Informed elected representatives including other stakeholders (citizens, media, civil society organisations, political parties and others) demanding devolution for rural and urban local bodies | •Supporting networks to advocate and influence government on issues concerning functional and fiscal devolution | | Project Locations: | | State | District | Block/Municipality | | Orissa | Angul | Puri | | | Dhenkanal | Angul | | | Mayurbhanj | Cuttack | | | Puri | | | | Sambalpur | | | | Koraput | | | | Rayagada | | | | Gajapati | | | | Bolangir | | | | Sundargarh | | | Bihar | Chhapra | Patna | | | Madhubani | Chappra | | | Samastipur | Madhubani | | | Banka | | | | Jamui | | | | Nalanda | | | | Jahanabad | | | | Patna | | | | Muzaffarpur | | | | Bhagalpur | | Andhra Pradesh, Himachal Pradesh, Haryana, Uttar Pradesh, Chhattisgarh, Rajasthan, Uttarakhand, Kerala, Karnataka, Tamil Nadu, Madhya Pradesh, Gujarat, Jharkhand, Maharashtra | Creating pressures for devolution through extensive mode |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
