\n<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
DECENTRALISATION and Decentralisation <\/p>\n \u00a0<\/p>\n <\/span><\/p>\n A central theme <\/p>\n \u00a0<\/p>\n <\/span><\/p>\n Meaning and context:<\/span><\/b><\/p>\n The term \u00d8\u00a0 <\/span><\/span><\/span>Decentralised governance:<\/span><\/u> \u00d8\u00a0 <\/span><\/span><\/span>Political decentralisation:<\/span><\/u> Political \u00d8\u00a0 <\/span><\/span><\/span>Administrative decentralisation:<\/span><\/u> Administrative \u00d8\u00a0 <\/span><\/span><\/span>Fiscal Decentralisation: <\/span><\/u>\u00a0<\/span>Dispersal of financial responsibility is a \u00a7\u00a0 <\/span><\/span><\/span>self-financing or cost recovery through user charges,<\/span><\/p>\n \u00a7\u00a0 <\/span><\/span><\/span>co-financing or co-production arrangements through which the users \u00a7\u00a0 <\/span><\/span><\/span>expansion of local revenues through property or sales taxes, or \u00a7\u00a0 <\/span><\/span><\/span>intergovernmental transfers that shift general revenues from taxes \u00a7\u00a0 <\/span><\/span><\/span>authorization of municipal borrowing and the mobilization of either \u00a7\u00a0 <\/span><\/span><\/span>In many developing countries local governments or administrative <\/p>\n \u00a0<\/p>\n <\/span><\/p>\n PANCHAYATI RAJ IN <\/p>\n \u00a0<\/p>\n <\/span><\/p>\n The panchayat Panchayat Raj <\/p>\n \u00a0<\/p>\n <\/span><\/b><\/p>\n History:<\/span><\/b><\/p>\n British Although, From 1870 that The Royal But, the The Indian <\/p>\n \u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n <\/span><\/u><\/p>\n Post colonial The First Five <\/p>\n \u00a0<\/p>\n <\/span><\/p>\n In 1957, Balwantrai Mehta Committee<\/b> studied the The suggestions <\/p>\n \u00a0<\/p>\n <\/span><\/p>\n One of the prime During 1977, Ashok Mehta committee <\/b>was formed to The Committee the district is Later on G.V.K. <\/p>\n \u00a0<\/p>\n <\/span><\/b><\/p>\n <\/p>\n \u00a0<\/p>\n <\/span><\/b><\/p>\n <\/p>\n \u00a0<\/p>\n <\/span><\/b><\/p>\n The 73rd Constitutional Amendment Act<\/span><\/b><\/p>\n <\/p>\n \u00a0<\/p>\n <\/span><\/b><\/p>\n The idea that <\/p>\n \u00a0<\/p>\n <\/span><\/p>\n Present scenario<\/span><\/b><\/p>\n <\/p>\n \u00a0<\/p>\n <\/span><\/p>\n At present, The Constitution
\nANTHROPOLOGY<\/span><\/b><\/p>\n
\nis the process of dispersing decision-making governance closer to the people
\nand\/or citizen. It includes the dispersal of administration or governance in
\nsectors or areas like engineering, management science, political science,
\npolitical economy, sociology and economics. Decentralization is also possible
\nin the dispersal of population and employment. Law, science and technological
\nadvancements lead to highly decentralized human endeavours. “While frequently
\nleft undefined (Pollitt, 2005), decentralization has also been assigned many
\ndifferent meanings (Reichard & Borgonovi, 2007), varying across countries
\n(Steffensen & Trollegaard, 2000; Pollitt, 2005), languages (Ouedraogo,
\n2003), general contexts (Conyers, 1984), fields of research, and specific
\nscholars and studies.” (Dubois and Fattore 2009). <\/span><\/p>\n
\nin decentralization is the difference between a hierarchy, based on:<\/span><\/p>\n\n
\n unequal-power relationship; and<\/span><\/li>\n
\n relationship between two players of roughly equal power.<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
\ndecentralisation is aided with different and slippery meaning which changes
\naccording to the context in which it is being used. Finding the appropriate
\nsize of political states or other decision-making units, determining their
\noptimal relationship to social capital and to infrastructural capital is a
\nmajor focus of Anthropology. In management science there are studies of the
\nideal size of corporations, and some in anthropology and sociology study the
\nideal size of villages. The most relevant uses with which anthropology is
\ndirectly related include the following:<\/span><\/p>\n
\nDecentralization\u2014the transfer of authority and responsibility for public functions
\nfrom the central government to subordinate or quasi-independent government
\norganizations and\/or the private sector (Sundaram 1994). It is a complex and
\nmultifaceted concept. It embraces a variety of concepts. Different types of
\ndecentralization show different characteristics, policy implications, and
\nconditions for success. Typologies of decentralization have flourished (Dubois
\n& Fattore 2009). For example, political, administrative, fiscal, and market
\ndecentralization are the types of decentralization.<\/span><\/p>\n
\ndecentralization aims to give citizens or their elected representatives more
\npower in public decision-making. It is often associated with pluralistic
\npolitics and representative government, but it can also support democratization
\nby giving citizens, or their representatives, more influence in the formulation
\nand implementation of policies. Advocates of political decentralization assume
\nthat decisions made with greater participation will be better informed and more
\nrelevant to diverse interests in society than those made only by national
\npolitical authorities.<\/span><\/p>\n
\ndecentralization seeks to redistribute authority, responsibility and financial
\nresources for providing public services among different levels of governance.
\nIt is the transfer of responsibility for the planning, financing and management
\nof public functions from the central government or regional governments and its
\nagencies to local governments, semi-autonomous public authorities or
\ncorporations, or area-wide, regional or functional authorities. The three major
\nforms of administrative decentralization — deconcentration, delegation, and
\ndevolution — each have different characteristics.<\/span><\/p>\n
\ncore component of decentralisation. If local governments and private
\norganizations are to carry out decentralized functions effectively, they must
\nhave an adequate level of revenues \u2013 either raised locally or transferred from
\nthe central government\u2013 as well as the authority to make decisions about
\nexpenditures. Fiscal decentralization can take many forms, including<\/span><\/p>\n
\nparticipate in providing services and infrastructure through monetary or labor
\ncontributions;<\/span><\/p>\n
\nindirect charges;<\/span><\/p>\n
\ncollected by the central government to local governments for general or
\nspecific uses; and<\/span><\/p>\n
\nnational or local government resources through loan guarantees.<\/span><\/p>\n
\nunits possess the legal authority to impose taxes, but the tax base is so weak
\nand the dependence on central government subsidies so ingrained that no attempt
\nis made to exercise that authority.<\/span><\/p>\n
\nGOVERNANCE<\/span><\/b><\/p>\n
\nraj is a South Asian political system mainly in
\n“Panchayat” literally means assembly (yat) of five (panch) wise and
\nrespected elders chosen and accepted by the village community. Traditionally,
\nthese assemblies settled disputes between individuals and villages. Modern
\nIndian government has decentralised several administrative functions to the
\nvillage level, empowering elected gram panchayats.<\/span><\/p>\n
\n(Rule of Village Committee) system is a three-tier system in the state with
\nelected bodies at the Village, Taluk and District levels. It ensures greater
\nparticipation of people and more effective implementation of rural development
\nprogrammes. There will be a Grama Panchayat for a village or group of villages,
\na Taluk\/ block level and the Zilla Panchayat at the district level (Mullick
\n& Raaj 2007).<\/span><\/p>\n
\nperiod:<\/span><\/u><\/p>\n
\ntraditional village administration in
\nPanchayat system based principally on Kin and contractual system of authority.
\nBritish rulers never prioritised Panchayat (Matthew 2000).<\/span><\/p>\n
\nViceroy Lord Mayo’s Resolution gave the needed impetus to the development of
\nlocal institutions. It was a landmark in the evolution of colonial policy
\ntowards local government. The real benchmarking of the government policy on
\ndecentralisation can, however, be attributed to Lord Ripon who, in his famous
\nresolution on local self-government on
\ngovernment: (i) administrative efficiency and (ii) political education.<\/span><\/p>\n
\nCommission on Decentralisation (1907) under the chairmanship of C.E.H. Hobhouse
\nrecognised the importance of panchayats at the village level. The commission
\nrecommended that “it is most desirable, alike in the interests of
\ndecentralisation and in order to associate the people with the local tasks of
\nadministration, that an attempt should be made to constitute and develop
\nvillage panchayats for the administration of local village affairs”.<\/span><\/p>\n
\nMontague-Chemsford reforms (1919) brought local self-government as a provincial
\ntransferred subject, under the domain of Indian ministers in the provinces. Due
\nto organisational and fiscal constraints, the reform was unable to make
\npanchayat institutions truly democratic and vibrant.<\/span><\/p>\n
\nNational Congress from the 1920s to 1947, emphasized the issue of all-India
\nSwaraj, and organized movements for
\nunder the leadership of Mahatma Gandhi. The task of preparing any sort of
\nblueprint for the local level was neglected as a result. There was no consensus
\namong the top leaders regarding the status and role to be assigned to the
\ninstitution of rural local self-government; rather there were divergent views
\non the subject (World Bank 2000).<\/span><\/p>\n
\n
\nYear Plan failed to bring about active participation and involvement of the
\npeople in the Plan processes, which included Plan formulation implementation
\nand monitoring. The Second Five Year Plan attempted to cover the entire
\ncountryside with National Extensive Service Blocks through the institutions of
\nBlock Development Officers, Assistant Development Officers, Village Level
\nWorkers, in addition to nominated representatives of village panchayats of that
\narea and some other popular organisations like co-operative societies.<\/span><\/p>\n
\nCommunity Development Projects and the National Extension Service and assessed
\nthe extent to which the movement had succeeded in utilising local initiatives
\nand in creating institutions to ensure continuity in the process of improving
\neconomic and social conditions in rural areas. The Committee held that
\ncommunity development would only be deep and enduring when the community was involved
\nin the planning, decision-making and implementation process (Government of
\nIndia 1957, Kashyap 1989).<\/span><\/p>\n
\nwere for as follows\u00a0 <\/span>:-<\/span><\/p>\n\n
\n local bodies and devolution to them of necessary resources, power and authority,<\/span><\/li>\n
\n decentralisation was at the block\/ samiti level since the area of
\n jurisdiction of the local body should neither be too large nor too small.
\n The block was large enough for efficiency and economy of administration,
\n and small enough for sustaining a sense of involvement in the citizens,<\/span><\/li>\n
\n by too much control by the government or government agencies,<\/span><\/li>\n
\n five years by indirect elections from the village panchayats,<\/span><\/li>\n
\n development of agriculture in all its aspects, the promotion of local
\n industries and others<\/span><\/li>\n
\n road building, etc., and<\/span><\/li>\n
\n Parishad, would play an advisory role.<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
\nareas of concern in this long debate on panchayati raj institutions was fiscal
\ndecentralisation. The K. Santhanam
\nCommittee<\/b> was appointed to look solely at the issue of PRI finance, in
\n1963. The fiscal capacity of PRIs tends to be limited, as rich resources of
\nrevenue are pre-empted by higher levels of government, and issue is still
\ndebated today. The Committee was asked to determine issues related to
\nsanctioning of grants to PRIs by the state government, evolving mutual
\nfinancial relations between the three tiers of PRIs, gifts and donation,
\nhanding over revenue in full or part to PRIs. The Committee recommended the
\nfollowing: –<\/span><\/p>\n\n
\n powers to levy special tax on land revenues and home taxes, etc.,<\/span><\/li>\n
\n too many demands (taxes),<\/span><\/li>\n
\n state level should be mobilised and sent in a consolidated form to various
\n PRIs,<\/span><\/li>\n
\n Corporation should be set up to look into the financial resource of PRIs at
\n all levels, provide loans and financial assistance to these grassroots
\n level governments and also provide non-financial requirements of villages
\n (Rai 2001).<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
\nassess the functioning and weakness of existing panchayat system.<\/span><\/p>\n
\nhad to evolve an effective decentralised system of development for PRIs. They
\nmade the following recommendations: – <\/span><\/p>\n
\na viable administrative unit for which planning, co-ordination and resource
\nallocation are feasible and technical expertise available,<\/span><\/p>\n\n
\n Mandal Panchayat at the base and Zilla Parishad at the top,<\/span><\/li>\n
\n for themselves with the resources available to them,<\/span><\/li>\n
\n of the urban-rural continuum,<\/span><\/li>\n
\n the election to PRIs on the basis of their population,<\/span><\/li>\n
\n in elections,<\/span><\/li>\n
\n committed to accepting that much of the developmental functions at the
\n district level would be played by the panchayats.<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
\nRao Committee (1985) and L.M.Singhvi Committee (1986) strongly suggested for strengthening
\nof Panchayat system.<\/span><\/p>\n
\nproduced the 73rd Amendment (Indian Constitution 1992) was not a response to
\npressure from the grassroots, but to an increasing recognition that the
\ninstitutional initiatives of the preceding decade had not delivered, that the
\nextent of rural poverty was still much too large and thus the existing
\nstructure of government needed to be reformed. It is interesting to note that
\nthis idea evolved from the Centre and the state governments. It was a political
\ndrive to see PRIs as a solution to the governmental crises that
\nexperiencing. The Constitutional (73rd Amendment) Act, passed in 1992 by the
\nNarasimha Rao government, came into force on
\nconstitutional sanction to establish “democracy at the grassroots level as
\nit is at the state level or national level”. Its main features are as
\nfollows:<\/span><\/p>\n\n
\n as a deliberative body to decentralised governance has been envisaged as
\n the foundation of the Panchayati Raj System.<\/span><\/li>\n
\n panchayats at village (Gram Panchayat \u2014 GP), intermediate or block
\n (Panchayat Samiti \u2014 PS) and district (Zilla Parishad \u2014 ZP) levels.<\/span><\/li>\n
\n every level are to be filled by elections from respective territorial
\n constituencies.<\/span><\/li>\n
\n total seats for membership as well as office of chairpersons of each tier
\n have to be reserved for women.<\/span><\/li>\n
\n tribes (SCs and STs) have to be provided at all levels in proportion to
\n their population in the panchayats.<\/span><\/li>\n
\n the regular and smooth elections to panchayats, a State Election
\n Commission has to be constituted in every State and UT.<\/span><\/li>\n
\n of a State Finance Commission in every State\/UT, for every five years, to
\n suggest measures to strengthen finances of PRIs.<\/span><\/li>\n
\n District Planning Committee fDPC} in every district has been accorded
\n constitutional status.<\/span><\/li>\n
\n been given in Eleventh Schedule of the Constitution. Panchayats are
\n expected to play an effective role in planning and implementation of works
\n related to these 29 items.<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
\nthere are about 3 million elected representatives at all levels of the
\npanchayat one-third of which are women. These members represent more than 2.4
\nlakh Gram Panchayats, about 6,000 intermediate level tiers and more than 500
\ndistrict panchayats . Spread over the length and breadth of the country, the
\nnew panchayats cover about 96 per cent of
\nand nearly 99.6 per cent of rural population. This is the largest experiment in
\ndecentralisation of governance in the history of humanity.<\/span><\/p>\n
\nvisualises panchayats as institutions of self-governance. However, giving due
\nconsideration to the federal structure of our polity, most of the financial
\npowers and authorities to be endowed on panchayats have been left at the
\ndiscretion of concerned state legislatures. Consequently, the powers and
\nfunctions vested in PRIs vary from state to state. These provisions combine
\nrepresentative and direct democracy into a synergy and are expected to result
\nin an extension and deepening of democracy in
\nfrom an institution within the culture of
\nstatus.<\/span><\/p>\n