Keywords : Decentralizat ion, Decentralization in India, Decentralizat ion and Poverty reduction
Introduction
Decentralizat ion can be interpreted as a political process citizenry therein. Afar, these basic principles, democratic
wherein the responsibilities in relation to public admin is- legislation entails wide set of norms, customs and rules
trative and utilization of public resources are reassigned through which citizen could exercise effective control
to lower level governmental bodies or non-governmental over the appointed public officials. The effective control
bodies, such as Non-Govern mental Organizat ions are laid through independent judiciary, free press, trans-
(NGOs) or private sectors from Central government au- parency in system operations and freedom of association
thority (Manor, 1998). and speech (R. Luckham, 2000)
Consequently, reassigning of such powers will provide
the acquired bodies to make decision in regards to allo- Causes For Decentralization
cation and distribution of public resources, elevate the In relative context discussed by (Besley, 1997) who
power to implement policies and programs, afford au- thrown an ideas for poverty reduction through techno-
thority to spend public revenue. Technically these three cratic and institutional was the base for conceptual de-
powers are classified as political, ad min istrative and fis- sign made for the purpose study. The study conducted,
cal decentralization (World-Bank, 2000). Critically, emphasized on exploring and targeting programs that
democratic decentralization indicates more than delega- hinders the poor and individuals from backward society
tion of power, to the authority down the line. Thereby fro m getting resources that is of greatest need. The study
the citizens residing within the system are provided with was not intact in portraying basic amenit ies need but the
the rights elect their public officials through election, political power and admin istrative incompetence, which
grievance meetings and by other democratic means are hinders to weaker section of individuals due to cor-
(Blair, 2000). Thus, Democrat ic decentralization can be ruption. Poverty reduction thereby requires developing
defined as a mean ingful authority developed for local institutions, change in political structure from the unit
governance which is accountable and accessible by the level, imp roved governance and attitude change towards
poor and people of backward society (Grote, 2000). De- it offers better legal framework and serves people in the
centralization has its imp licat ion in above stated ap- society therein. Thereby political, ad min istrative and
proaches; decentralization undeniably facilitates effec- fiscal decentralization is scrutinized and thus the frame
tive technocratic programs and better administration also work is designed.
Delimitati on of con-
stituencies the re-
sponsibility of gov-
ernment, not S EC
All the states in India dispatches its duly assigned duties DECENTRALIZATION AND POVERTY RED UC-
and responsibilities of central government through Chief TION
Minister at state level, District Planning Co mmittees and In context to poverty reduction through decentralizat ion,
District Rural Development at district level, Zilla Indian government is giving myriad amount of resources
Parishads at district level, At Sub-district level it is and benefits to empower poor and vulnerable groups in
Mandal, Taluka and Janpad Parishads, and At Village society. Despite of great variation among culture, it can
level: Gram Panchayats andGram Sabhas. be typically enumerated the roles of government towards
poor especially in rural areas; Provision for public goods
like education and healthcare, Provision for d ivisible
goods such as irrigation and agricultural, enforcement of b) Absenteeism, corruption and other forms of poor
law that are regulating economic inputs such as labor, performance means that the government is spending
land and capital, Finally protection of rights of individu- social welfare resources which yield no benefits;
als, organizat ion, association and entitlement. c) Widespread perception of corruption promotes feel-
ings of distrust towards government, thereby un-
Though decentralization concept on poverty elimination dermining the potential for collaboration between
sounds enchanting, there is lot more problematic situa- the state and civil society organizat ions;
tion for imp lementing required system wh ich ensures d) Finally, a culture of corruption emerges within the
public resources delivered effectively and efficiently. In public sector; encouraging officials further rent
addition misallocation or corruption are play ing a domi- seeking behavior and poor accountability (Manor J. ,
nant role indeed in India. Decentralization also possesses 2001).
problems associated with coordinating with central gov- Decentralizat ion when seen in lights of political, ad min-
ernment of India (Sen, 1996). Hereby poor accountabil- istrative and fiscal spheres individually, the effect is less
ity and bad governance can directly hit the interest of the than threshold limit, i.e. they doesnt support in poverty
poor and marginal groups resigning in the society. To elimination. On cu mulating above three factors and its
illustrate with an practical examp le association with poverty reduction, it indicates fairly
acceptable value according to study conducted by
a) Rent seeking behavior on the part of the police, (Grote, 2000).
government officials, etc. can deprive the poor of re-
sources they would ideally receive were the corrup-
tion not taking place;
Table 2 - Number & Percentage of Population below poverty line by states 2011-12
(Tendulkar Methodology)
Rural Urban Total
Table 3 - Percentage and Number of Poor Estimated by Tendulkar method, usi ng Mixed Reference Period (MRP)
Decentralization Effect On Poverty Reduc- flect the collective value of life expectancy, Education
tion In India With Respect To Other Coun- standard and stand of living of Individual therein the
system, whose relationship with respect to Political,
tries
Admin istrative and Fiscal decentralizat ion is depicted
Hu man Development Index (HDI) movement can be
highly significant in study conducted by (Sacchidananda
considered as the resultant effect of decentralizat ion for
Mukherjee, 2014) whose relationship is depicted in Fig-
most of the studies been conducted. The HDI result re-
ure2.
Table 4: State-wise Human Development Index (HDI) Scores and Ranks: 1983 to 2011-12
(Rural & Urban Combined)
State 1983 1988 1993 2000 2004-05 2009-10 2011-12 2011-12 Growth
Obse rve d Expe cte d Pattern
Andhra Pradesh 0.29 0.19 0.22 0.29 0.3 0.29 0.31 0.3 0.05
Arunachal Pradesh 0.12 0.07 0.11 0.17 0.23 0.18 0.12 0.22 -0.43
Assam 0.24 0.12 0.15 0.14 0.23 0.18 0.14 0.18 -0.24
Bihar 0.07 0.02 0.06 0.07 0.05 0.05 0.16 0.06 1.85
Chhattisgarh* 0.13 0.08 0.07 0.16 0.14 0.11 0.18 0.13 0.34
Goa 0.77 0.54 0.7 0.7 0.78 0.8 0.8 0.79 0.02
Gujrat 0.5 0.30 0.36 0.39 0.43 0.46 0.48 0.43 0.11
Haryana 0.56 0.42 0.4 0.49 0.54 0.52 0.49 0.51 -0.04
Himachal Pradesh 0.62 0.46 0.43 0.55 0.61 0.66 0.65 0.62 0.05
Jammu & Kashmir 0.44 0.29 0.32 0.41 0.49 0.44 0.48 0.46 0.04
Jharkhand* 0.07 0.02 0.06 0.08 0.15 0.16 0.22 0.16 0.42
Karnataka 0.42 0.34 0.33 0.38 0.44 0.46 0.42 0.44 -0.04
Madhya Pradesh 0.13 0.08 0.07 0.15 0.18 0.17 0.19 0.18 0.02
Maharashtra 0.5 0.41 0.45 0.51 0.58 0.6 0.63 0.6 0.05
Manipur 0.31 0.21 0.26 0.27 0.26 0.22 0.2 0.23 -0.15
Meghalaya 0.22 0.12 0.23 0.26 0.34 0.26 0.25 0.31 -0.21
Mizoram 0.55 0.45 0.61 0.58 0.53 0.45 0.41 0.51 -0.2
Nagaland 0.27 0.48 0.44 0.47 0.4 0.26 0.26 0.37 -0.3
Odisha 0.19 0.14 0.16 0.18 0.17 0.25 0.26 0.21 0.22
Punjab 0.69 0.52 0.56 0.58 0.64 0.58 0.54 0.59 -0.08
Rajasthan 0.18 0.08 0.16 0.27 0.28 0.24 0.32 0.28 0.14
Sikkim 0.21 0.16 0.22 0.24 0.3 0.38 0.32 0.35 -0.08
Tamil Nadu 0.36 0.35 0.39 0.46 0.59 0.62 0.63 0.63 0
Tripura 0.26 0.21 0.28 0.29 0.29 0.42 0.35 0.37 -0.06
Uttar Pradesh 0.1 0.06 0.07 0.14 0.17 0.17 0.12 0.18 -0.31
Uttarakhand* 0.1 0.06 0.07 0.16 0.25 0.38 0.43 0.33 0.28
West Bengal 0.32 0.32 0.35 0.37 0.46 0.41 0.48 0.44 0.09
structure and weak fiscal policies towards education, 8. Manor, R. C. (1998). Democracy and
health and agriculture are found to be majo r issues. Decentralisation in South Asia and West Africa.
Hence the possibility of attaining effective poverty re- Cambridge: Cambridge University Press , 50-62.
9. Mukarji, N. (1999). Decentralisation and Local
duction can be accomplished by effective governance at
Politics: Read ings in Indian Government and
central and local level and easily reachable - better poli- Politics . London: Sage , pp. 7082. .
cies, subsidies and concession towards poor individuals. 10. R. Luckham, A. M. (2000). Democrat ic Institutions
REFERENCES and Politics in Contexts of Inequality, Poverty, and
1. Bank, W. (2000). World Develop ment Report Conflict: A Conceptual Framework. IDS Working
2000/1: Attacking Poverty. Oxford: Oxford Paper 104. Brighton: Institute of Development
University Press . Studies .
2. Besley, T. (1997). Po lit ical Economy of A llev iating 11. Sacchidananda Mukherjee, D. C. (2014). Three
Poverty: Theory and Institutions. The World Bank, Decades of Hu man Develop ment across Indian
Washington DC . States:Inclusive Growth or Perpetual Disparity? .
3. Blair, H. (2000). Participation and Accountability at National Institute of Public Finance and Policy .
the Periphery: Democrat ic Local Governance in Six 12. Sen, J. D. (1996). India: Economic Develop ment
Countries. World Development , 28(1): 2139. and Social Opportunity. Delhi: Oxford University
4. Go I. (2013). Press Note on Poverty Estimates 2011- Press .
12. Delh i: Nat ional Planning Co mmission. 13. UNITED NATIONS DEVELOPM ENT
5. Grote, J. v. (2000). Does Decentralization Serve the PROGRAMM E. (2016). hdr.undp.org. Retrieved
Poor? . IMF-conference on fiscal decentralization . fro m http://hdr.undp.org/en/composite/HDI
6. Jha, S. N. (1999). Decentralisation and Local 14. World-Ban k. (2000). Overview o f Rural
Politics: Read ings in Indian Government and Decentralization in India. Volume I. Unpublished
Politics . London: Sage , pp. 1344. report. Mumbai: World Bank.
7. Manor, J. (2001). Madhya Pradesh Experiments
with Direct Democracy. Economic and Political
Weekly .