The Idea of Process of Public Policy Making in India

Three years after independence India became a Republic in 1950 by adopting a Constitution which emphasise worldly principles for civilised society. According to economists Jean Drèze and Amartya Sen “India was the first non-Western country – and also the first poor country in the world – to commit itself to a resolutely democratic way of governance.”

It has been over 66 years after Independence yet the core structure of ways and means which attributes to the process of public policy making has not been fixed despite the fact that the Constitution of India lays-down broad framework for such processes. This is true both at Union government level as well as State/UT government level. In India, the key decision makers involved directly in the process of public policy making are: (i) political representatives/elected representatives; (ii) bureaucrats and technocrats; and (iii) the constitutional bodies/agencies. At functional level, all these three are at silos as far as the public policy decision making is concerned! But constitutionally they are not.

Unlike the factor of Time which dynamically unfolds almost constantly among the forces, the process to make public policy have not been changed in the last six decades at least,  for two reasons: the understanding and commitment of the political and elected representatives about the constitutional process of public policy making has been by and large unmoved from the time of colonial rule. Secondly, the chaotic structure of the  executives/bureaucratic set ups for administrative power to engage with the core business of public policy making has been moved away from what is emphasized in the Indian Constitution and continues to practice the wild of its own course to make policies which produce outcomes that are neither here nor there.

In other words, the voices of people have been suppressed by these two groups and thus, the twin objective of true democratic governance system embedded in transparency and accountability has been undermined in the process of public policy decision making. However, it has been rightly seen that the performance of the constitutional bodies/agencies performed relatively better than the two other functionaries of the governance system. However, the supply side problems in the constitutional bodies/agencies are yet to be fixed to further its constitutional commitments for effectiveness.

What constitutes the present structure of process of public policy making in India at Union government level? The idea of change proposal comes from top leadership. Typically two types of people are engaged in it. The first one is the bureaucrats who along with few technocrats devise the broad framework for public policy making in a given area. Though, there are Official Guidelines (prepared and approved by bureaucrats themselves with the help of elected representatives!) issued by the Cabinet Secretariat for preparing a public policy in the Union government. Once the bureaucrats do their role as administrative process in terms of conceptualising the idea for policy change proposed and prepare the material in a particular format and share it with other line government agencies which include the Union/State government Ministries/Departments for their comments/views, if any, and once received modify them into a structure which suits both or find middle path! Thereafter, the draft policy is send to the elected representatives for consideration, debate and approval. The matter ends there, and often the draft policy goes back and forth between the bureaucrats and the elected representatives for all kinds of reasons which are unknown to the people of the country because it’s “Secret”.

Any country which has adopted strong committed liberal democratic form of governance unlikely to follow these shoddy systems for public policy making. Moreover, why liberal democracy like India not embarrassing the democratisation of public policy decision making? Being a vibrant liberal democracy why only it relies on consensus building method alone? Why not take the process of public policy making to the people at large? These are the vital questions which need to be emphasised for improving the quality of public policy making. Given the massive policy paralysis that took badly on the functions of Parliament in recent years, some perceptive foundation is being made in India to think-through seriously about the democratisation of process of public policy decision making. There are two interesting analyses which are pertinent and noteworthy:

·         Quite interestingly, Shishir Priyadarshi had studied the Indian agriculture sector in view of WTO negotiations on various aspects of trade policies. Her main tool for analysis was how far the Democratization of Decision-Making Process involved in the negotiations. She examined the manner in which the negotiating proposal was finalized, the consultations that were undertaken and the actual decision-making process that led to the submission of the proposal. In her study she carefully studied the key stakeholders involved/not involved in the process: (farmer, civil society, academic institutions & think tanks, state governments, industry, etc. This would be a classic case for taking the idea of public policy process of decision making further in India.

·         According to Arun Maira “Obtaining consensus is a big challenge in all democracies, as the US's recent experience attests. It is even more difficult in India. However, the challenge cannot be avoided. Therefore, participants in policymaking in India must learn and apply techniques of faster, consultative decision-making.” He further, argues rightly so that in the case of India, “Policy reform… requires more attention to the building of the process by which the ongoing involvement of stakeholders, mobilisation of resources and actions, and monitoring of process is done, than to the content of a single policy announcement.”

These are all very insightful debate and needs to be carried forward with more constructive focus as far as the democratization of public policy decision making is concerned.

B.Chandrasekaran

Kudumbashree: Pride of Kerala

Photo Source: Hindu Business Line

Kudumbashree, an innovative mission for poverty eradication through women’s empowerment, is one of the most successful programmes being implemented by the state of Kerala.  Kerala, a tiny state lying in the south-west part of India, has been home to many development experiments. Kudumbashree is one such experiment. Its mission is empowerment of women through collectivisation i.e. organising them into self-help groups and encouraging their entrepreneurial and other activities. The purpose of the mission is to ensure the transformation of women from being passive recipients of public assistance to being active leaders in development initiatives.

Kudumbashree was the outcome of the collective experience gained from the many anti-poverty programs of the past. Most of the well intentioned but centrally planned, rigid and individual-oriented anti-poverty programs of the central and state government had failed to bring about the desired results, mainly because they did not have any scope for the involvement of the poor. They viewed the poor as "resourceless" recipients of benefits. Launched by the Government of Kerala in 1998 with a view to  wipe out absolute poverty from the state through concerted community action under the leadership of local self governments, Kudumbashree today  is one of the largest women-empowering projects in the country. The programme has 37 lakh members and covers more than 50% of the households in Kerala. The Kudumbashree initiative has succeeded in addressing the basic needs of the less privileged women and in providing them a more dignified life and a better future. The literal meaning of Kudumbashree is prosperity (shree) of family (Kudumbam). Kudumbashree differs from conventional programmes in that it perceives poverty not just as the lack of money, but also as the deprivation of basic rights. The poor need to find a collective voice to claim these rights. There are two distinguishing characteristics to Kudumbashree which set it apart from the usual SHG model of empowerment. The first one is its universality of reach. From its very inception Kudumbashree has attempted to bring every poor woman in the state within its fold, as a consequence of which today Kudumbashree is present in every village panchayat and municipality, and in nearly every ward, colony and hamlet. The sheer spread is spectacular, and it is only because the local community of women drive the system that it has managed to persevere. The second characteristic is the scope of community interface in local governance. The functioning of Kudumbashree is tied up to the development initiatives of the local government be it for social infrastructure, welfare or right based interventions or for employment generation. From food security to health insurance, from housing to enterprise development, every development experience depends on Kudumbashree to provide the community interface.

The grassroots of Kudumbashree are neighbourhood groups (NHG) that send representatives to the ward level area development societies (ADS). In turn, the ADS sends its representatives to the community development societies (CDS) which completes the unique three tier structure of Kudumbashree. Today, there are 1.94 lakhs NHGs, over 17,000 ADSs and 1061 CDSs in Kudumbashree. In contrast with the previous poverty eradication programmes, there are no specific financial and physical targets set for Kudumbashree. Kudumbashree practices a process approach and not a project approach.

As the mission reaches its 16^th year, Kudumbashree has successfully made deep inroads into various sections of Kerala’s society and today stands as a role model for other states in the country for women empowerment. Through its efforts to engage women in civil society and in development issues and opportunities, Kudumbashree, in association with the local self government units of Kerala, is charting out new meaning and possibilities for local economic development and people centric governance

Anjana John

 

Communitisation of Health Institutions and its Impact

Photo Credit: HIFA 15

National Rural Health Mission (NRHM) is a unique programme that has recognised capacity, knowledge and skill of the communities to plan, implement health policies and monitor public health institutions. Various institutionalised community processes of NRHM such as Accredited Social Health Activists (ASHAs), Village Health Sanitation and Nutrition Committee (VHSNCs), Rogi Kalyan Samiti (RKS) and Community Monitoring provides ownership and responsibility directly to community to actively contribute in the overall aim to seek universal access to equitable, affordable and quality health care which is accountable and at the same time responsive to the needs of the people. A radical policy change in the form of NRHM has actually pushed the idea of people centered planning and decision making or communitisation in health system. How this idea has been actually implemented at ground level in the first phase of NRHM that ended in 2012, is a matter of great concern. Government of India has extended NRHM with same principles, so it is now necessary to understand the implementation of community processes and their impact.

Various evaluations of NRHM in the last couple of years shows mixed results about implementation and impact of various community processes. ASHA program remain the back bone of the community process and works as the primary link between community and public health system. Country has recorded a substantial increase in utilisation of services such as institutional deliveries, immunisation, ANC checkups and family planning but recorded less impact on health seeking behaviour of people. However, an evaluation by Planning Commission reveals that because of inadequate emphasis on skills, training and supportive monitoring, ASHAs are less functional and effective in tasks related to community level counseling, care provisions and community mobilisation work.

As a policy, NRHM has institutionalised roles, responsibilities and power of the community in deciding community level health needs, making health system friendly to the local people and contributing in delivery of quality care by health institutions. RKS constituted in each public health institution involves active participation of community, patient and civil society in assessing need of institutions and making them responsive and accountable to public. Review of RKS reveals that members of RKS are unclear about their role, rights and overall objective. Mostly RKS discuss fund utilisation issue in their meeting. There are very few evidences where RKS are found discussing non-budgetary issues such as improving IPD/OPD cases, outreach work, absence of health personal etc. On the other hand, VHSNC ensure micro health planning, implementation and monitoring at village level. Fifth Common Review Mission (CRM) of NRHM reveals that though VHSNCs are active in spending fund allocated to them, but the village health plan is not yet institutionalised anywhere and there is no clear model or clarity in its role and utility. There is an increase in utilisation of untied funds for VHSNCs but had limited involvement of PRI in health planning process and in the function of VHSNC.

Community monitoring is another institutional mechanism introduced by NRHM to communitise function and accountability of health institutions. The community as well as the Patient Welfare Committees is expected to monitor the performance of the health facilities on various parameters using techniques such as jansunwai.   But this process has given least priority during entire phase of NRHM. The idea was successfully implemented in nine states on pilot basis that resulted in increased utilisation of services and accountability. But unfortunately, no state government except Karnataka took it forward as integral part of health system.

Level of health institution communitisation varies from state to state and hence health care utilisation also differs across states. Fifth CRM conducted in 15 states found that more than 50% of expected in-patients are seen in public sector health institutions of Himachal Pradesh, Sikkim, Goa, Rajasthan, Odisha and Karnataka. It is interesting to observe that in these states communitisation process such as VHSNCs, RKS, PRI participation and institutionalisation of community monitoring are in place and functioning remarkably better. On the contrary, states like Jharkhand, Uttar Pradesh, Gujarat and Chhattisgarh have given less priority to communitisation process and resulted into less turn out in public health institutions. According to 5^th CRM in these state less than 30% of expected in-patients are seeking public sector hospitalisation.

Various evaluations of NRHM reveal that it has not achieved its target and is still much behind from its targets of first phase. However, NRHM has recorded a faster improvement in health service utilisation, quality care and availability of health institutions in its first phase of implementation. Communitisation process involved in it has great role in this improvement as it is revealed through various evaluations. It raises a need of strengthen and mainstreaming such process for future success. Traditional mindset of functioning in public health institutions needs facilitation to accept and imbibe the spirit of community driven system.
 

-Jeet Singh

 

 

Collective Voice and Collective Action through Women Self Help Groups

A silent movement for community driven development is shaping up in many villages of Uttar Pradesh with hundreds of women organised in Self Help Groups (SHGs). A team of seven young researchers from RGICS visited two such villages, namely Sarai Damu and Nebi in Rae Bareilly, to understand the modus operandi of the SHGs organised under Rajiv Gandhi Mahilla Vikas Pariyojana (RGMVP). 

In contrast to many villages in India that tell sad story of poverty, poor sanitation, unclean environment, dysfunctional hand-pumps, helplessness and vulnerable women, what we saw in the two villages of Rae Bareli was remarkably different. Sarai Damu and Nebi are clean villages with basic amenities and strong women who take decision for the family and village.

Key to this positive story is the role of women SHGs in the two villages, implemented by RGMVP. RGMVP is a rights-based organisation which organises poor rural women into community organisations in the form of SHGs, each having ten to twenty women. The program considers “women as the central agents of change”. In the two villages, a three-tier structure is in force, comprising of the SHGs (consisting of 10–20 poor women), Village Organisations (VOs) and Block Organisations (BOs).

Jamvati, an SHG member narrated her initial struggle to join the Self Help Group. Her husband opposed to the idea, because of which she had to borrow money from her friend to become an SHG member. With time, loans from the bank and benefits started to flow in. Now her family insists her on attending village meetings regularly. In her own words: “Pehle jab SHG se judne ki baat ki to pati ne paise dene se mana kar dia. Maine apni saheli se paise udhar maange aur ladhke pariyojana me hissa lia. Samay ke saath bank ka paisa aur faayda aane laga. Ab mere parivaar wale khud mujhe gaanv ki sabha me jaane ko kehte hain. Sab samay ki baat hai!”

The SHG women members informed us about the day to day functioning of the SHGs. The SHGs organise regular meetings to discuss issues ranging from loans, government schemes, issues like sanitation to personal problems. In addition, two meetings every month are conducted at the block level with have two from each SHG. These representatives share information with all the villagers. In these villages women are shapers of socio- economic discourse. With assistance from RGMVP, vocational trainings and information camps are also organised in these villages.

It is clear that the SHGs hold great promise. Apart from financial independence, the model has brought about a change in the social order in these villages. It has enabled women to overcome their fears in approaching higher authorities and the police to voice their rights. As of June 2013, RGMVP has reached out to over 1 million poor households in 252 blocks of 41 districts in the most backward regions of Uttar Pradesh. More villages would be covered by RGMVP. If the SHG models are integrated with political trainings, these empowered women can easily be nurtured as political representatives giving wings to the idea of grassroots democracy.

-Mahima Malik

"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