Need to Strengthen Panchayati Raj: Insights from Kerala’s Mass Contact Programme

The Kerala CM’s Mass Contact Programme for redressing grievances and rooting out corruption has won international recognition. In this context, the article seeks to evaluate present-day popular models of grievance redressal and explore the role of Panchayati Raj in addressing people’s concerns.


It is only a few months since the Chief Minister of Kerala, Oommen Chandy, won the United Nations’ Public Service Award for ‘Preventing and Combating Corruption in the Public Service’ for his 2011-12 Mass Contact Programme. According to records of the Kerala Government, the CM visited all districts of the state, imbibed lessons by listening to people’s grievances, collected 5.45 lakh petitions and managed to resolve 2.97 lakh of these within a short duration. A similar exercise was carried out in 2013 as well. The UNDP appreciated the initiative, hailing it as exemplary in strengthening democracy. At the same time, one needs to evaluate whether the initiative, while it brings the politicians closer to the voters, is the best way to approach grievance redressal.


 



Mass Contact Programme 2012: A Broad Picture

Source: Boundless Access: Kerala’s Tryst with Governance, Department of Information & Public Relations, Government of Kerala, March 2012, p.32

 

Inadequacy of Mass Contact Programme as a Grievance Redressal Mechanism

The table above shows that during the 2011-12 Mass Contact Programme almost 20 per cent of total households - that is one in every five households- in Idukki, Kottayam, Pathanamthitta and Wayanad districts presented their cases before the Chief Minister. If so many people have to depend on certain high-ranking individuals to address their grievances, it makes one ponder upon the extent of progress of democracy in this country. With the ‘Right of Citizens for Time Bound Delivery of Goods and Services and Redressal of their Grievances Bill, 2011’ still pending in the Parliament, people have no choice but to depend on a few individuals to address their problems. The situation thus throws light on the incapacity of institutions of local self government to address people’s problems.

Need to Strengthen Panchayati Raj Institutions

In the year that lakhs of people participated in the Mass Contact Programme to seek redressal of their grievances, Kerala ranked first in Panchayat Devolution Index (2011-12). In this context, it seems ironic that Rajiv Gandhi envisioned Panchyati Raj as a systemic solution for ‘responsive administration’, replacing managerial solutions like grievance redressal mechanisms. At the beginning of his tenure as the Prime Minister, Rajiv Gandhi was actually in favour of such managerial solutions like the one that the then District Collector of Ahmednagar in Maharashtra had introduced. The Collector had brought in a system, similar to that of the Kerala CM’s, wherein he used to meet the general public in the open under a tree and attempt to provide immediate disposal of their problems. Despite his earlier support to such initiatives, Rajiv Gandhi later accepted in the Parliament that, “At that time...we were looking to a simplification of procedure, grievance- redressal machinery, single-window clearances, computerisation and courtesy as the answers to the problems. As we went along, we discovered that a managerial solution would not do. What was needed was a systemic solution.” Despite it being two decades after  Panchyati Raj was introduced as a systemic solution, it is grievance redressal programmes like the  Oommen Chandy’s that have managed to more effectively address people’s concerns, than institutions of local self government . 

Referring to a case that was brought before him which could actually have been settled at the panchayat level, the Kerala CM said, “How is it that a complaint that could have been tackled by a local governing body reached the chief minister’s hand? ...

Alas, an issue that could have easily been solved didn’t go the way it should have.” If this is the situation in the state with one of the strongest Panchayati Raj systems in the country, it is hard to imagine how deplorable the condition in other states would be. We would not have needed Mass Contact Programmes if there were empowered Panchayati Raj Institutions in place, with adequate powers devolved to them. Therefore, it is high time we ponder over the effectiveness of Panchayati Raj Institutions and take initiatives to empower them so as to facilitate effective delivery of services to the common man.

 

*This is a revised version of the paper published by the author in eSocial Sciences on 12 July, 2013.

Amrutha Jose Pampackal

 

Deconstructing Domestic Spending & International Assistance to End Poverty

1.2 billion people in the world today live beneath the international poverty line on less than US$1.25 a day. Out of the 507 million people living in this extreme poverty in South Asia, 400 million are Indians.

Development Initiatives is think tank that believes that we can end this extreme poverty by 2030. To do that we have to:

·Target aid at the poorest,

·Mobilise all available resources and

·Get the maximum value out of every dollar.

Their report entitled Investments to End Poverty maps all resources coming in and going out of developing economies. If we can better understand what resources, domestic and international are available to us, then we can better decide when and how to deploy them in order for it to have the greatest impact.

Judith Randel, Executive Director Development Initiatives says, “If we are serious about ending poverty we have to move from a vision to a time-tabled reality.” On the domestic front, economic growth will play a critical role in reducing poverty but, according to Randel, the data shows that even current patterns of growth will not be enough.

Despite recent slowdowns, since 1991 the Indian economy has grown exponentially. The World Bank even moved India to a “lower middle income” country from a “low income” one in 2007.  But, no matter where the poverty line is placed, this continues to be a country of rampant poverty and vast inequities. And this dichotomy is in accordance with global trends in poverty.

A 2010 study by economist Andy Sumner at the Institute of Development Studies titled “The New Bottom Billion” found that where two decades ago, 93 percent of the world’s poorest lived in low-income countries, today nearly 75% of them (1 billion people), live in middle-income economies.

It would therefore be imprudent to depend on economic growth alone and we need to have a deeper understanding of all the resources at our disposal if we are to make the most effective use of them.

Domestic government spending per poor person is the most important indicator as to whether enough is being done to lift people out of extreme poverty. Most poor people live in countries with very low government spending per capita that is nowhere near enough to end poverty.

Government spending in India per capita, at purchasing power parity was US$864.1 in 2011. On the other hand, China spent nearly US$2000 and Brazil spent over US$2500 during that same year.

 

India still spends only 0.9 percent of gross domestic product on health care, among the lowest in the world, and only 3 percent on education.

Not only does this imply that not enough domestic resources are being spent on lifting people out of poverty in India, it also dictates the kind of international aid India has access to. It is only where government expenditure is higher, that international aid flows are also larger and more diverse.

The report deconstructs the kinds of financial aid being provided so that a country can see what funds are available to it, for what purposes and who controls how they will be used. This is crucial for 2 reasons: First, each donor offers a different package. For e.g., 2/3rds of Italy’s aid stays in Italy while most of Denmark’s aid, goes to the recipient country. Secondly, the bundle that each country receives is also different. Togo and Afghanistan for example appear equally aid dependent but while most of what Togo receives is in the form of debt relief that stays in the donor country, the bulk of Afghanistan’s aid actually reaches Afghanistan as cash, projects and technical help.

Governments that spend more see a greater diversity of funds flow into the country—not just aid, but also lending, remittances and foreign direct investment, because better-run countries are able to spend more and have the capacity to attract other sources of funds.

More mature economies like Brazil and China, where resource use is more effective and efficient, rely on direct investment and lending. Africa, where government spending per person is less than $500, per year depends most on aid which accounts for nearly 70% of the financial resources from abroad.

According to the report, remittances remain the largest resource flow into India; followed at some distance by long terms loan and then FDI.

59% of Overseas Donor Aid (ODA) to India goes to just 3 sectors – infrastructure, health and education. Three –quarters of all aid is in the form of loans and equity investments which is much higher percentage than that of the average recipient. Health is the only sector where other types of aid, cash in grants, in particular prevail. Funding to these sectors is also highly concentrated. International Donor Aid, Japan, the UK and Germany account for most of it.

Though ODA volumes to India have increased over 2000-2011 from US$3.6 billion to US$5.4 billion making India the 3^rd largest recipient of aid in 2011, ODA per poor person has actually decreased.

A slew of recent pro poor legislation have been passed by the Government of India but unless they translate into increased per poor person spending in the country we will be unable to see a sharp decline in poverty. A simultaneous challenge is how to attract greater diversity and flexibility in the kind of aid packages being offered to us.

By Gayatri Verma

 

 

 

 

"Water-Stressed" India

Photo Credit: USAID

The data released by the National Sample Survey Organization has once again brought the focus on the abysmal state of drinking water and sanitation in India. According to the report more than half of rural households in India don’t have toilet infrastructure and drinking water facilities within their homes.  Even the Census 2011 data released last year showed that 36 per cent households still have to fetch water from a source located within 500 metres in rural areas and 100 metres in urban areas.

The UN report on “Progress on Drinking Water and Sanitation-2012” reported that India houses 16 per cent of the world's population as compared to only 4 per cent of its water resources. 45 percent of India's children are stunted and 600,000 children under five years of age die each year largely because of inadequate water supply and poor sanitation.

In this context, UNICEF came up with the report “Water in India: Situation and Prospects” with the aim to contribute to efforts by the Government of India and partners to manage water resources more effectively during implementation of the Twelfth Five Year Plan. According to the report, the total utilizable water in India is higher than the current usage of water. However, because of the spatial variation in distribution of water, 71 per cent of India's water resources are available to only 36 per cent of the area. The current levels of service provision in many locations do not meet the minimum rights, and the monitoring of water supply is done in terms of coverage and not end use. Another reason for water crisis is the increase in population which has resulted in a reduction in per capita average water availability in the country. The national per capita water resource availability has declined considerably over the years and of particular concern is the disparity in water footprints of the rich and the poor.

So what is the way forward? Given these social realities of India, the report argues “that redefinition of needs has to become part of public debate, including how much water should be given free, how much should be at an affordable price, and to whom should this subsidy go?”There is sustained pressure from various quarters of society to transform the role of government from service provider to facilitator so it can provide the requisite level of financial and policy support to communities and community-based institutions. Today one of the biggest challenges for India lies in devising a “sensible mix of decentralized responsibilities and authority to local institutions and also providing large-scale investment to redirect the surplus water to water deficit areas.”

The advent of the Independent Regulatory Authorities or IRAs at the state level are new mechanisms which are expected to usher in sweeping fundamental and comprehensive changes in governance in this sector.

India can also explore the prospects and challenges of public-private partnership in water management. There have been a few success stories of PPP model but there are concerns about their ability to deliver services without interfering with the idea of human right to water. Further, the water privatization agenda in the PPP model needs better scrutiny from the water pricing perspective.

New models for community’s self- regulation and capacity building by civil society can impact the overall framework of people-centred development with more political and financial powers for the community to implement water-related projects.

India has an enormous governance deficit when dealing with changing water scenarios. With the overlapping powers and responsibilities of central and state governments, the overall sustainable vision for water development, conservation and management remains missing.

Understanding that there are social differences within communities, water is also a social factor and its access is socially constructed. Therefore overall water coverage data does not give an understanding of who is accessing and who is not. Further disaggregation of data at household and caste\community level will be a better indicator of individual's water access. Also de-linking water from land tenure may be the first step towards looking at water from a much more equitable lens.

Amrutha Jose Pampackal and Hansa Kaul

Census 2011 Data on Slums and Its Policy Implications

The vision of Slum Free India can be achieved only on the foundations of sound plans based on sound data.  Newly released data on slums show that over a third of India’s slum dwellers live in unrecognised slums.  Lack of government recognition, implies entrenched barriers to legal rights and basic services such as water, sanitation, and security of tenure.  The “Primary Census Abstract for Slum”(2011), published on 30th September, 2013 is of interest to policy makers in multiple ways, right from its definition of slums to the data on assets and amenities of slum dwellers. 

The Census 2011 data on slums highlights that out of the 4,041 Statutory Towns, slums were reported in 2,543 Towns (63%). The latest census data is noteworthy as it includes, for the first time, those slums which are not identified or notified by the Government.  Three types of slums have been defined in Census, namely, Notified, Recognized and Identified.  Only 34% of the slums were notified, 29% recognised and 37% identified. As is evident, the largest category is identified slums which implies they are neither recognised nor notified, and hence lack many amenities.

While the introduction of a third category called “identified slums” has definitely led to the inclusion of non-notified and unrecognised slums, the ones that have less than 60-70 households are excluded. Also, while there are 7,935 towns in the country, slums were counted only in the 4,041 statutory towns. As many as 3894 towns were ignored while counting slums. Thus there are shortcomings in the 2011 Census on Slums.  

Gautam Bhan and Arindam Jana of the Indian Institute for Human Settlements (IIHS), Bangalore, point out that the slum data should be approached with caution on three counts:

(i)     Correlation between the definition of ‘slum’ and urban poverty :  Many of the newspaper reports treat slums as a special expression of urban poverty, and hence interpret the increase in amenities and assets in slums as an indicator for improvement of conditions of the urban poor. While the Census identifies only slums with at least 60-70 households, there exist a large number of clusters with lesser number of households and poor living conditions. These smaller and less organised clusters, created by the breaking down of larger slums through multiple cycles of eviction and resettlement, have lesser ability to mobilise political or other patronage to gain access to services. Therefore, it is faulty to conclude that a narrowing “slum” and “non-slum” gap indicates a reduction of urban vulnerability or poverty. 

(ii)   The dimension of quality when estimating access to basic services:  “The all-India figures for access to drinking water, latrines and electricity suggest a closing gap of service access between slum households and their non-slum counterparts.”  For instance, 65% of slum households have access to treated tap water as compared to 61% in other non-slum households. This appears to imply that the delivery mechanism for treated water is better for slums as compared to other households. However, “access to treated tap water” does not imply individual household connections. The census data also suggests that 58% of slum households have a “flush/pour flush latrine” within the household. Yet only 48% have either treated or untreated tap water within the household. The possible gap (of nearly 10% or 1.3 million households) indicates households where a physically built flush latrine may or may not have sufficient water to function effectively. 

(iii)  The question of why so few cities and towns report any slums: For example, only 14.4% of all towns and cities in Jharkhand report having any slums, 34% for Odisha, 28% for Uttar Pradesh, 14% for Assam, and Manipur, at the extreme, reports not a single town or city with a slum. We have already pointed out in the previous section the basis for ignoring 3894 towns while counting slums.  

Relevance of the findings

Since slum dwellers constitute major segment of the urban poor, it is important to know their correct count. Non-availability of authentic statistics on State-wise slum population has lead to faulty planning and under-estimation of financial requirements.

The Rajiv Awas Yojana (RAY) extends benefits to not just the notified and recognised slums but identified slums as well. A robust database on slums and getting a definitive understanding of the magnitude of the problem is critical for implementation of schemes like RAY. While the new census exercise has resulted in the inclusion of more towns, the 60-70 household cut-off and the omission of census towns still results in the exclusion of many slums. These slums might be ignored in the RAY. Unless there is an authentic database to assess the magnitude of the problem, it is not possible to undertake formulation of plans, policies and schemes so that potential beneficiaries are targeted in a meaningful manner. 

 

Amrutha Jose Pampackal