CHAPTER -1 Introduction - Shodhgangashodhganga.inflibnet.ac.in/bitstream/10603/46110/15...two wrung...
Transcript of CHAPTER -1 Introduction - Shodhgangashodhganga.inflibnet.ac.in/bitstream/10603/46110/15...two wrung...
1
CHAPTER -1
Introduction
Over the past two decades, ‘governance’ has come to be seen as a core development
problem for developing State like India. There is a widespread concern stimulated by
increasing g inequality along-with growth that has created an impression of weakening
of public policy system and questions are raised about a legitimate administrative
authority to make it effective, accountable public authority.
Globalisation, liberalisation and market reform has been much acclaimed as instrument of
growth and prosperity. This process of reform and emergence of ‘new economy’
paradigm has on one hand contributed to make India a model of “roaring capitalist
success”1, at the same time the growing inequity and poor performance on human
development index has led to sharp questions being raised on roll- back of State and the
credibility of governance and policies. Globalisation and market liberalization has done
little to lift the rural areas. The rising inequity and failure of State in reaching out to
benefit poor has been echoed by many studies.2
1 Foreign Affairs, July-August 2006, Vol. 85, No.4.
This is highlighted in most telling
manner in following words “…business-centric view of India suppresses more facts than
it reveals. Recent accounts of the alleged rise of India barely mention the fact that the
country’s $728 per capita gross domestic product is just slightly higher than that of sub-
2 For detail discussion see, Basu, Kaushik(2010), Beyond the Invisible Hand: Groundwork for a New Economics, New Delhi: Penguin; Bhaduri, Amit(2009), The Face You were Afraid to See: Essays on the Indian Economy, New Delhi: Penguin; Kabra, Kamal Nayan(2008), High Growth, Rising Inequalities, Worsening Poverty: India’s Development Experience, Delhi: Book for Change.
2
Saharan Africa and that, as the 2005 United Nations Human Development Report it, even
if it sustains higher growth rates, India will not catch up with high income countries….
Nor is India very fast on the report’s Human Development Index, where it ranks 127, just
two wrung above Myanmar and more than 70 below Cuba and Mexico. Despite recent
reduction in poverty levels, nearly 380 million people live on less than a dollar a day.”3
In such an environment of growing dissatisfaction over State’s performance and failure in
reaching out to the poor, the response from Indian State has been to create a much larger
role for its public policy and service delivery system by introduction of National Rural
Employment Guarantee Act, 2005{the name changed as Mahatma Gandhi Rural
Employment Guarantee Act (MGNREGA) since an amendment made to the Act in
October,2009}
4. This was the first ever legislation passed by Indian Parliament to confer
legal rights on people to get public service delivered and this has made it unique in
history of public policy mechanism as for the first time it introduced the concept of legal
obligation of State to provide public service in form of employment within a time bound
manner(limited to 100 days per willing household). Prime Minister Manmohan Singh in
his address mentioned the Act as “…a path breaking legislation. It is a landmark in the
economic history of our people in the regime of rights enjoyed by our people and in our
efforts for social equity and justice.”5
3 Mishra, Pankaj, “The Myth of New India”, in The New York Times, July 26, 2006.
Highlighting the significance of role of public
policy mechanism in implementing the Act the PM said, “We need to translate the legal
4 In present thesis the word NREGA or MGNREGA are used for the same Act and the word NREGS or MGNREGS is used for the same scheme that have been formulated in the Act. 5 Manmohan Singh’s speech in Rajya Sabha Debates on ‘The National Rural Employment Guarantee Bill, 2005’, August 24, 2005, p.285
3
commitment of the Act into an effective Programme of Action that delivers the benefits as
guaranteed.”6
Not only legal entitlements for getting service from state was mandated for the first time
with MGNREGA but also the Act provided various other provisions like mandatory role
of Panchayati Raj Institutions (PRIs) in planning and execution, in built mechanism of
transparency, accountability and social audit in delivery mechanism. All these concepts
are very new for the classical Weberian model institutions involved in public policy
delivery.
The status of public policy successful implementation has not been very promising in
developing countries and more so in India. In the same year when MGNREGA was
introduced in Parliament the World Bank Report(Development Policy Review)7
6PM Address to State Ministers of Rural Development, 27 September 2005,
came out
with a detail report on status of implementation of public policy in India and raised its
concern in following words “India’s sterling economic performance has been
accompanied by a curious inversion. In past decades people would fret about economic
performance, but marvel at India’s institutional strengths in the public sector—a vibrant
democracy, an extraordinarily talented top-tier bureaucracy (the “steel frame” of the
Indian Administrative Service), and a set of organizations that could provide law and
order, revenue collection, and a modicum of services in a sprawling poor country. Today,
these concerns are almost inverted: it is easy to be optimistic about India’s economic
prospects, but there is growing concern that the basic institutions, organizations, and
http://pib.nic.in/newsite/ erelease.aspx? relid=12270, downloaded on October 12, 2012. 7 World Bank, Development Policy Review (2006), India Inclusive Growth and Service delivery: Building on India’s Success.
4
structures for public sector action are failing—especially for those at the bottom.
Statements of the need for institutional reform come from inside and outside of
government, from the left and right of the political spectrum, and from the top to the
bottom.”8
How public policy and service delivery system has responded to the mandated provisions
and spirit of MGNREGA is a key question in understanding the nature and capacity of
institutions in responding to the aspirations of its people in governance milieu.
This is important to create an analytical and practical framework for using resources more
effectively for making public policy work for poor people as Devrajan and Shah put aptly
in following words, “Society and governments at all levels should learn from their
innovations by systematically evaluating and disseminating information about what
works and what does not. Only then can the innovations be scaled up to improve the lives
of the quarter of a billion poor people in India.”9
Public policy: A Theoretical and Analytical framework
Defining Public Policy
Different kinds of goods and services are indispensable for maintaining, promoting
and improving the quality of lives of people. In its simplest sense, ‘policy’ refers to a
broad statement that reflects future goals and aspirations and provides guidelines for
carrying out those goals. Initially, the views about public policy was limited to laws and
rules framed and implemented by the government thus we find Woodrow Wilson, who is
:
8 Ibid. p 1. 9 Devaranjan Shantayanan and Shekhar Shah(2004), “Making Services Work for India’s Poor”, EPW, Vol.39, No.-9, February 28, 2004, p.907.
5
arguably the father of modern public administration, contends, “public policy is the laws
and regulations which are made by legislative statesmen and implemented by public
administration personnel”10. This view is largely state centric where formulation and
implementation of public policy is related to laws and regulation, however, in the modern
era of the “administrative state” (Waldo, 1948)11, there has been great expansion of role of
the state and the government. It is no longer limited only to formal legal structure but
there are various institutions and civil society actor that play great role in shaping and
formulation of public policy again the concept of modern state as a welfare state has led
to wide range of functions that require not only rule making but various policy decisions
in form of instructions, government orders, policy briefs, reports, etc. Thus it is clear that
decision making is just not limited to political arena and thus we find Paul Appleby
points out that decision-making doesn’t merely belong to politics and “public
administration means decision making”12
.
Etymologically, the term “policy” comes to us from Greek, Sanskrit, and Latin
languages. The Greek and Sanskrit root polis (city-state) and pur (city) evolved into the
Latin politia (State) and later, into the Middle English policie, which referred to the
conduct of public affairs or the administration of Government. The etymological origins
of policy are the same for two other important words: police and politics. This is one of
10 Wilson, Woodrow (1941), "The Study of Administration", Political Science Quarterly, vol. LVI (December 1941), pp. 481-506 11 See Waldo, Dwight (1984 reprint edition), The Administrative State: A Study of the Political Theory of American Public Administration, reprint edition, New York: Holmes & Meier. 12 Appleby, Paul (1994), Policy and Administration, Alabama: University of Alabama Press, p.27.
6
reason why many of the modern languages, for example German and Russian, have only
one word (politik, politika) to refer both to policy and politics.13
As one reviews literature on public policy one may find many definitions and
explanations of the concept of the word ‘policy’. Anderson defines policy to be
regarded as “a relative stable purposive course of action followed by an actor or set of
actors in dealing with a problem or matter of concern.”
14 Thus, according to Anderson,
when a government takes a decision or chooses a course of action in order to solve a
social problem and adopts a specific strategy for its planning and implementation, it is
known as public policy. Hill defines ‘policy’ as ‘the product of political influence,
determining and setting limits to what the state does’15. In realm of academic literature
many policy analysts have related the study of public policy as study of process16. As
aptly put by Rose in following words, “policy making is best conveyed by describing it
as a process, rather than as a single, once-for-all act”17. Similarly, Gilliat argues that
policy decisions are not “something confined to one level of organization at the top, or at
one stage at the outset, but rather something fluid and ever changing.”18 Dye define
policy as “Whatever governments choose to do or not to do.”19
13 Dunn, William N. (1981), Policy Analysis: An Introduction, New Jersey: Prentice Hall, p.7.
According to Brooks,
“Public Policy is the broad framework of ideas and values within which decisions are
taken and actions, or inaction, is pursued by governments in relation to some issue or
14 Anderson,James E.(2006) , Public Policymaking: An Introduction, 6th edition, Boston: Houghton Mifflin, p. 6. 15 Hill, Michael (ed.),(1993) The Policy Process : A Reader, London: Harvester Wheatsheaf. p.47 16 For detail see, Jenkins, W. I.(1978), Policy Analysis: A Political and Organizational Perspective, Oxford : Martin Robertson; Rose, Richard (1976), The Dynamics of Public Policy, London: Sage Publications Ltd. 17 Rose, Richard (ed.), (1969), Policy Making in Britain: A Reader in Government, Macmillan and Co. Ltd, p.xi. 18 Gilliat, Stephen (1984), “Public Policy Analysis and Conceptual Conservatism,” Policy and Politics, Vol.12, No.4,p.345. 19 Dye, T.R.(1972), Understanding Public Policy, New Jersey: Prentice Hall, Englewood cliff, p.18.
7
problem.”20 According to Daneke and Stesiss ‘Public policy’ is “A broad guide to
present and future decisions, selected in light of given conditions from a number of
alternative; the actual decision or set of decisions designed to carry out the chosen
course of actions; a projected program consisting of desired objectives(goal) and the
means of achieving them.”21 Hanekom argues that policy is an indication of “a goal, a
specific purpose, a programme of action that has been decided upon. Public policy is
therefore a formally articulated goal that the legislator intends pursuing with society or a
societal group.”22
Public policy as an academic field of study emerged during the post World War II era and
the concept of policy sciences was introduced in 1951 by Harold Lasswell in his paper
“The Policy Orientation”.
Models of Public Policy
23
20 Brooks, S.(1989), Public Policy in Canada: An Introduction, Toranto: MeClelland and Steward Inc, p.16.
The horrific experiences of World War II and advent of
Nuclear Weapon with growing concern of National Security in United States had created
a growing concern in academic field about irrationality of man and future of mankind.
This was an era when in field of politics there was an urge towards nurturing more
rationality and thus need to restructure political decisions and policy with greater role of
knowledge and information. Lasswell’s stated purpose in advocating the notion of a
‘policy science’ framework is that it sets the stage for a comprehensive, integrated
21 Danke, G.A and Steiss, A.W.(1978), ‘Planning and Policy Analysis for Public Administration’, in Sutherland, J.W.(ed.), Management Handbook for Public Administrators, New York: Van Nostrand and Reinhold Company. 22 Hanekom, S.X.(1987), Public policy: Framework and Instrument for Action, Halfway House: Southern House Publishers, p.7. 23 Lasswell, H.D.(1951), “The Policy Orientation” in Lerner, D. And Lasswell, H.D. (eds.), The Policy Science, California: Stanford University Press.
8
understanding concerned with the knowledge of and in the policy making process for the
public and civic order. According to Lasswell, knowledge of the decision process implies
systematic, empirical studies of how policies are made and put into effect. A
commitment to empirical criteria for analysis commits policy studies to the ‘discipline’ of
careful observation, while his emphasis on the decision process underlines the difference
between the policy sciences and other intellectual pursuits.24 According to Lasswell, “By
focusing on the making and execution of policy, one identifies a relatively unique frame
of reference, and utilizes many traditional contributions to political science,
jurisprudence, and related disciplines. However... in the interest of realism... it is
essential to give full deference to the study of official and nonofficial processes.”25
24 See for details, McGovern, P., & Yacobucci, Peter (2008), ‘Lasswellian Policy Sciences and the Bounding of Democracy’, Paper posted on Theory, Policy, and Society, online available at
Therefore, decision-making processes are studied not only at the public level, but at the
civic level as well, assuring that policy sciences are able to distinguish between
functionally and conventionally relevant phenomena. Just as the policy sciences attempt
to account for all the relevant phenomena that help to explain policy decisions, so too do
they attempt to gain functional knowledge in the decision making process of policy
formation. The study of the policy decisions within Lasswell’s frame- work is not limited
to the mere explanation of decision making processes: knowledge of the policy making
process is to be used in the decision making process itself. Such an active ‘practitioner’
approach to decision making is consonant with Lasswell’s overall approach to politics
and policymaking. In his earlier work on policy entitled The Future of Political
www.cddc.vt.edu/tps/e-prints/Lasswell.PDF (accessed 3 April, 2013). 25Ibid.
9
Science26, Lasswell asserts that it is directly within the scope of political science and its
scientists to identify the factors that impede the realization of policy goals and where
necessary, provide the civic leadershipto negotiate such obstacles and aid in the
implementation of policy programs.27 Lasswell’s provides an inter-disciplinary approach
to the understanding, description, and practice of the decision making process within
public policy. Analysing the approach of Lasswell in depth we find Mcgovern and Peter
make following important observation- “Lasswell commits his policy sciences framework
to the following attributes: contextuality (the idea that decisions are part of a larger social
process); problem orientation (Lasswell’s recognition that policy scientists should
approach policy making as a rational, purposeful process); and diversity(methods
employed by the policy scientist are not of a limited, narrow range). Contextuality, for
both Lasswell and those wishing to utilize his framework, is of primary importance. For
Lasswell, contextuality is an inescapable theme for the policy scientist.” 28 “To be
professionally concerned with public policy is to be preoccupied with the aggregate, and
to search for ways discovering and clarifying the past, present, and future repercussions
of collective action (or in- action) for the human condition. In a world of science-based
technology every group and individual is interdependent with every other participant, and
the degree of interdependence fluctuates through time at the national, transnational, and
subnational level” (Lasswell 1971: 14).29
The rational approach to study of public policy as enunciated by Lasswell in great, was
rejected in a classic work of Charles E. Lindblom, the leading proponent of the second
26 Lasswell, H.D.(1963), The Future of Political Science, New York: Atherton Press. 27 Ibid. 28 Mcgovern and Peter, op.cit, p.7. 29 As cited in Mcgovern and Peter, op.cit, p. 7.
10
theory of policy decision making—the incremental approach. In his most famous article,
“The Science of ‘Muddling Through”, published in Public Administration Review
(1959)30. Lindblom took a hard look at the rational models of the decisional processes of
government. He rejected the notion that most decisions are made by rational (total
information) processes. For him the policy-making process is dependent upon small
incremental decisions that tend to be made in response to short-term political conditions.
He observes, “Making policy is at best a very rough process. Neither social scientists, nor
politicians, nor public administrators yet know enough about the social world to avoid
repeated error in predicting the consequences of policy moves. A wise policy-maker
consequently expects that his policies will achieve only part of what he hopes and at the
same time will produce unanticipated consequences he would have preferred to avoid.
If he proceeds through a succession of incremental changes, he avoids serious lasting
mistakes in several ways.”31
30 Lindblom, Charles(1959), ‘the Science of Muddling Through’, Public Administration Review, Vol.19, no-2, pp.79-88.
Lindblom’s thesis essentially held that decision making was
controlled infinitely more by events and circumstances than by the will of those in policy-
making positions. Disjointed incrementalism as a policy course was in reality the only
truly feasible route, since incrementalism “concentrated the policymaker’s analysis on
familiar, better-known experiences, sharply reduced the number of different alternative
policies to be explored, and sharply reduced the number and complexity of factors to be
analyzed.” Moreover, Lindblom argued that incrementalism was more consistent with the
pluralistic nature of American democracy where individuals are free to combine to pursue
common interests, whose contention “often can assure a more comprehensive regard for
the values of the whole society than any attempt at intellectual comprehensiveness.”
31 Ibid.
11
Dror finds Lindblom’s ‘incrementalist model’ of decision making conservative and is
suitable only in those situation where policies are satisfactory, and problems are quite
stable over time. Further, he observes that the approach justifies the status quo and ignore
the possibility of fundamental change.32 The incrementalist approach to policy making is
indecisive. As Lane puts it: “its deductive power is constrained by the difficulty in
specifying what an increment is whilst its degree of confirmation is reduced by the
typical occurrence of shift points in policy making which defy the interpretation of the
incrementalist equation as stable linear growth models.”33 Lindblom’s main focus has
been to identify the constraints that shape decision making in the modern policy process.
As he suggests, “Hence anyone who wants to understand what goes wrong in the effort to
use government to promote human well-being needs to comprehend how power relations
shape and misshape public policies and to probe how power relations might be
restructured to produce better policies.”34
Through time and evolution, Lasswell introduced stages or policy cycle model in the
public policy realm, identifying seven stages; intelligence, promotion, prescription,
invocation, application, termination and appraisal.
35
32 Dror, Yehezkel (1964), ‘Muddling Through – ‘Science’ or ‘Inertia’?’, Public Administration Review, Vol.
Until the mid-1980s, the most
influential framework for understanding the policy process particularly among American
scholars was this “stages heuristic,” or what Nakamura (1987) termed the “textbook
24, No. 3, , pp. 153-157. 33 Lane, Jane-Erik (2000), The Public Sector, 3rd edition, London: Sage, p. 75. 34 Lindblom, Charles and Woodhouse, E.J.(1993), The Policy Making Process, 3rd edition, Englewood Cliff: Prentice Hall, p. 76. 35 Lasswell, H.D. (1956), The Decision Process: Seven Categories of Functional Analysis, College Park: University of Maryland.
12
approach.”36 In public policy study after Lasswell, this approach has been propounded in
works of Jones (1970), Anderson (1975), and Brewer and deLeon (1983). 37 According to
stage heuristic theorists, the policy process is divided into a series of stages usually
agenda setting, policy formulation and legitimation, implementation, and evaluation—
and discussed some of the factors affecting the process within each stage. The stages
heuristic served a useful purpose in the 1970s and early 1980s by dividing the very
complex policy process into discrete stages and by stimulating some excellent research
within specific stages like agenda setting and policy implementation. The stage heuristic
or policy cycle model has been under criticised for not being a really causal theory since
it never identifies a set of causal drivers that govern the policy process within and across
stages. Referring Nakamura(1987) and other critics other like (Hjern and Hull 1982),
Sabataier suggests that the proposed sequence of stages in policy cycle model is often
descriptively inaccurate.38 For example, evaluations of existing programs affect agenda
setting, and policy formulation/legitimation occurs as bureaucrats attempt to implement
vague legislation. According to Sabatier, “…the stages heuristic has a very legalistic, top-
down bias in which the focus is typically on the passage and implementation of a major
piece of legislation.”39
36 Nakamura, T.R.(1987), ‘The Textbook Policy Process and Implementation Research’,
This focus neglects the interaction of the implementation and
evaluation of numerous pieces of legislation none of them preeminent within a given
policy domain. Thus in this model the assumption that there is a single policy cycle
Review of Policy Research, , vol. 7, issue 1, pp.142-154 37 See for details of these works, JONES, C. (1970), An Introduction to the Study of Public Policy, Belmont, Wadsworth; Anderson, James, E. (1975), Public Policy Making, London: Thomas Nelson and Sons Limited; and Brewer, G. and P. DeLeon( 1983), The Foundations of Policy Analysis, Brooks/Cole: Pacific Grove. 38 For detail analysis see, Sabatier , Paul A.(2007), ‘The Need for Better Theories’, in Sabatier , Paul A, (ed.), Theories of the Policy Process, Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press, pp.3-20 39 Ibid.,p.-7
13
focused on a major piece of legislation oversimplifies the usual process of multiple, inter-
acting cycles involving numerous policy proposals and statutes at multiple levels of
government.
David Easton(1953) who pioneered the systems approach to study of political science
provided a framework for study of policy by arguing that “it is the authoritative values of
allocation for the whole society.”40 Easton’s ‘political system’ model views the policy
process as a ‘political system’ responding to the demands arising from its environment.
The ‘political system’ as defined by Easton is composed of those identifiable and
interrelated institutions and activities in a society that make authoritative decisions (or
allocations of values) that are binding on society. He explains that the environment
provides inputs to the decision process/political system in the form of demands and
supports. Inputs into the system are provided through outside interests particularly from
pressure groups, consumer groups and interest groups. These environmental inputs are
converted through the political system into outputs or policies. However, Easton’s model
of systems approach has also been criticised for having its own limitations. In a system
what are values and how one identifies values? According to Easton, values involve not
only tangible matters, such as capital, but also intangible matters (e.g., power, reputation,
and service). Critics of Easton have questioned this suggesting that Easton’s definition of
public policy using the term “values” is inherently ambiguous.41 Renzong Huang
suggests following limitations42
40 Easton, David (1953), The Political System, New York: Knopf.
: First, as a philosophic concept, “values” are the function
and utility of object for subject. At the same time, “values” can be understood as all
41 Huang, Renzong (2002), ‘On the Nature of Public Policy’, Chinese Public Administration Review, Volume 1, No.3/4 ,pp.275-282. 42 Ibid.,p.277.
14
objects having utility for subjects. Interests are all the resources and conditions which are
necessary for the survival, development, freedom, and happiness of people. As a matter
of fact, the values “for the whole society” are public interests. Since being offered by
neoliberal philosopher John Rawls in the1970s, the thought that individual interests are
prior to public interests has deeply influenced modern government’s public policy.
Economist Kenneth Joseph Arrow’s “theorem of impossibility” contends it to be
impossible to cultivate a unanimous social choice or to construct hierarchical
arrangement of social interests. In other words, there is no unitary “public interest.”43
Finally, does public policy only have the function of allocation? Huang argues that
public policy not only needs to allocate values, but also bears the function and mission
of promoting or producing values. In other words, besides the functions of allocating
social values or public interests, public policy has the function of producing,
exchanging, and consuming public interests.
Another limitation of the system approach to policy has been that not all values in society
can be allocated. According to David Easton, values are things that are valuable for
people. Yet, there are too many things that have utility for people, including natural
values like sunshine or rain and human values like power and prestige .Therefore, not all
values in society can be allocated by public policy.
44
John Kingdon (1984) has proposed a the multiple-streams framework.
45
43 Ibid.,p.277.
It views the
policy process as composed of three streams of actors and processes: a problem stream
consisting of data about various problems and the proponents of various problem
44 Ibid.,p.277. 45 Kingdon, John (1984), Agendas, Alternatives, and Public Policies, Boston: Little, Brown.
15
definitions; a policy stream involving the proponents of solutions to policy problems;
and a politics stream consisting of elections and elected officials. In Kingdon’s view,
the streams normally operate independently of each other, except when a “window of
opportunity” permits policy entrepreneurs to couple the various streams. If the
entrepreneurs are successful, the result is major policy change. Mucciaroni (1992)
criticised Kingdon´s model as being indeterminate to provide fully satisfactory
explanations about the attention that some issues receive in the political arena against
others, using two case studies, namely tax reform and deregulation to support his
arguments.46
Sabatier and Jenkins-Smith has proposed the advocacy coalition framework (ACF)
47
that focuses on the interaction of advocacy coalitions—each consisting of actors from a
variety of institutions who share a set of policy beliefs—within a policy subsystem.
Policy change is a function of both competition within the subsystem and events
outside the subsystem. The framework spends a lot of time mapping the belief systems
of policy elites and analyzing the conditions under which policy-oriented learning
across coalitions can occur. The three “foundation” stones of the framework are the
following48
46 Mucciaroni, G. (1992), ‘The Garbage Can Model and the Study of Policy Making: A Critique’,
: First, A macro-level assumption that the broader socioeconomic and
political factors affect the behaviour of the policy making specialists within the policy
subsystem. Secondly, a micro-level model a socio-psychological approach to individual
behaviour. Third, a meso-level belief that “advocacy coalitions” are to solution to the
Polity24(1), pp. 459-482. 47 For detail see, Sabatier, Paul, and Hank Jenkins-Smith (eds.) (1993), Policy Change and Learning: An Advocacy Coalition Approach, Boulder, CO: Westview Press. 48 Sabatier, P.A. and Weible, C.M.(2007), ‘The Advocacy Coalition Framework’, in Sabatier, P.A. (ed.), Theories of the Policy Process, 2nd ed., Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
16
successful integration of the multiple actors in the policy subsystem. This multiplicity
of actors can be described as a number of interest groups, which share common policy
beliefs and values, and who support certain interests, which interests are served by a
policy change or not. Thus, they form alliances and/or compete in the policy subsystem,
utilizing the available resources. The role of the policy broker, who is a form of a
mediator, is of particular importance, since he is trying to achieve compromise, in light
of the conflicting beliefs, interests and positions of the coalesced parties.
Baumgartner and Jones has proposed the punctuated-equilibrium (PE) framework49
and it is argued that policymaking in the United States is characterized by long periods
of incremental change punctuated by brief periods of major policy change. More
precisely, the objective of this framework is to “capture this tendency of political
systems to drift incrementally most of the time, only to be roused to major action when
collective attention became galvanized around an issue”.50 Furthermore, the role of
institutions in this interchange of stability and crisis is pointed out by other theorists,
who note that the periods of instability and major policy change that perturb the long
periods of incremental change (considered as stability periods), significantly affect the
institutional arrangements, while the new institutions create the basis for a new period
of stability.51
49 Baumgartner, F. and Jones, B. D. (1993), Agendas and Instability in American Politics, Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 50 Baumgartner, F.R., Green-Pedersen, C., and Jones, B.D. (2006), ‘Comparative studies of policy agendas’, Journal of European Public Policy, Volume13, Issue 7, pp. 959-974. 51 True, J.L., Jones, B.D. And Baumgartner, F.R. (2007), ‘Punctuated Equilibrium Theory: Explaining stability and change in policy making’, Sabatier, P.A. (ed.),Theories of the Policy Process, 2nd ed. Westview Press.
17
The main elements of the punctuated equilibrium framework as proposed by its
exponents are:
•Policy monopoly (policy subsystem, dominated by a single interest and definable
institutional structure responsible for policymaking in an issue area).
•Policy image (empirical information and emotive appeals; driver or change).
•Institutional policy venues (drivers of change; differentiated according to the context .
Parag proposed the Policy Process Networks (PPN) framework52
52 Parag, Y. (2006), ‘A system perspective for policy analysis and understanding: the policy process Networks’, The Systemist, 28(2), pp.212-224.
that is based on the
combination of systems thinking (especially the concepts of dynamic process and
interdependencies), Policy Cycle and Policy Networks perspectives. The benefits of
this combination lie on the combined neutralization of the individual drawbacks of
each perspective. More precisely, she argues that the policy process involves several
different networks -the Policy Process Networks (PPN), and that each stage of any
policy process is governed by a specific network – the Stage Network. “This network
structure and characteristics are shaped by the institutions and the procedures that
govern the stage and by the interactions between actors who have interest in the
18
specific stage and who have access to relevant decision making fora”.53
1. Policy process is disaggregated to its sequence stages
The main
steps of the framework as proposed are following:
2. For each policy stage the following actions are taken:
a. the essential resources are identified
b. the set of outcomes is detected
c. the network is identified and examined
d. the outcomes are explained by the unique stage’s network characteristics
e. the network characteristics are viewed and explained in the context of the
other stages networks.
On the basis of above discussions and proposed models it is clear that the most well
established approach for Policy analysis is the “stagist” approach. This approach have
been very well enunciated in Hogwood and Gunn who identify the following stages54
Deciding to decide
:
Deciding how to decide
Issue definition
Forecasting
Setting objectives and priorities
Options analysis
Policy implementation, monitoring and control
Evaluation and review
Policy maintenance, succession and termination
53 Ibid., p.213. 54 Hogwood B.W., and Gunn L.A. (1984), Policy Analysis for the Real World. Oxford University Press, p.4.
19
Hogwood and Gunn’s approach goes beyond a simple identification of stages to suggest
actions that they think ought to occur. As such, it offers a version of the rational model
of decision making. The advantage of the stage model is that it offers a way of
chopping up, if only for the purpose of analysis, a complex and elaborate process.
Although there are studies that comprise some less or more stages to study public policy
according to the context however one may agree with Theodoulouand Cahn who
suggest that there are commonly agreed upon stages for public policy formulation which
consist of55
:
Stages in policy formulation Explanation 1. Issue identification and
Problem definition During this stage attention is drawn to circumstances that are potential issues requiring attention of policymakers.
2. Setting the agenda The issue has generated enough attention to warrant further action.
3. Policy formulation Steps are suggested as to how the problem could be addressed; which tools and instruments could be used and which institution could be the best place to address the problem.
4. Policy adoption: Alternatives are considered and one is selected That could be used in addressing the issue.
5. Policy implementation
Action to give effect to the chosen alternative Is taken.
6. Policy evaluation The impact of the policy in delivering the
Desired result is examined.
55 Theodoulou, Stella Z., & Cahn, Matthew A. (eds.) (1995),Public policy: The essential readings, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
20
In order to facilitate the understanding of policy processes, this approach divides the
process into a set of phases or steps, from setting the agenda (defining the problem), to
policy design (deciding how to tackle the problem), to implementation, and finally to
evaluation. It is very common to find this stage division in policy process textbooks,
as it offers a clear differentiation of the issue and factors involved in each stage or set of
activities. However, as mentioned earlier some policy scholars have strongly criticised
this approach arguing that, a sequence of stages limits the depth of analysis as stages are
not clear cut in the real world, and it is possible that the proposed stages may overlap or
simply do not have clear boundaries; decisions are taken throughout the process and not
only during policy design as suggested. Despite such criticisms, the stagist approach is
still widely used.
By focusing on policy implementation, the thesis implicitly adopts the “stagist
approach”. Although I agree with its critics, however, the stagist approach helps to easily
identify the issues and activities involved in the discrete parts of the process that
I am interested in observing. The approach may consequently be seen as a useful
analytical tool rather than as a comprehensive causal theoretical model. It is recognised
that policies are still being shaped and redesigned during implementation, even though
the policy “design stage” would have finished long before the “implementation stage”.
Implementation Studies:
The field of implementation studies is a sub-discipline of the wider field of public policy
analysis. It focuses on how policies are put into practice. This stage of the policy process
is easier to identify in political systems that require a level of formality to policy-making.
21
For example, within legislative systems that enact policies after a period of negotiation,
policy implementation starts with the publication of the policy and the definition of
roles of implementing agencies. Hence, agenda-setting and policy design precede
enactment, while policy implementation follows it. Taking into account the view put
forward by Sabatier and Jenkins-Smith(1993)56
The study of implementation is about analysing the interplay of politicians,
administrators and service providers. There are different definitions of the term
“implementation” in the literature; however, far from excluding each other, their core
differences lie mainly in the variables they focus on. Howlett and Ramesh(2003), for
example, define implementation as “the process whereby programmes or policies are
carried out, the translation of plans into practice”.
,implementation is an on-going part of the
policy-making process where decisions are taken and policy is formulated. Policy design
influences implementation and, conversely, during implementation a policy is usually
redesigned; policies are shaped during implementation. In order to understand the
dynamics of the implementation processes, the analysis has to focus on the actual
carrying out of the policy and leave out processes of agenda-setting and policy
choices. A vast literature on the implementation stages shows the relevance of
understanding how policies are translated into actions, as this in turn affects policy
outcomes. In this section, I will focus on the implementation studies literature.
57
56 Sabatier, Paul and Hank Jenkins-Smith, (1993), Policy Change and Learning: An Advocacy Coalition
Approach, Oxford: Westview Press.
O’Toole (2000) understands it as
“what happens between the establishment of a policy and its impact in the world of
57Howlett, M. and M. Ramesh (2003), Studying Public Policy: Policy Cycles and Policy Sub systems, Oxford University Press. p.185.
22
action”.58 These authors focus on processes and actions taking place after a policy has
been enacted. Others, like Mazmanian and Sabatier(1989)59 emphasise the role of
decision-making, first when addressing a problem, then within the implementing
agencies, and finally in the compliance of target groups. Dunsire(1978), proposed
concepts such as pragmatisation examining what happens when policy intentions are
turned into action. De Leon(1999) emphasises the expected versus the achieved approach
and Barrett and Fudge (1981) apply their approach on the interaction and negotiation
processes. 60
The definition I use for implementation draws on elements of the above perspectives to
highlight the most relevant aspects to look at while studying implementation. In this
thesis, implementation is defined as a process that takes place between policy design and
its observed results or impacts. It includes decisions and interactions among different
actors. Implementation cannot be fully understood without looking also at the
influence of policy design processes on implementation and the underlying values and
beliefs of actors associated with the policy itself. In order to facilitate the analysis and
interaction of actors, I identify two levels in the process of implementation: policy
operationalisation and service delivery. Policy operationalisation refers to the negotiation
and determination by government officials and managers of the rules and procedures
to put the policy into action. Service delivery refers to the provision of services,
58 O’Toole, L. J. (2000), Research on policy implementation: Assessment and prospects, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 10(2), pp. 263–288. 59 Mazmanian, D.A., & Sabatier, P. A. (1989), Implementation and public policy. Lanham,MD: University Press of America. 60 See for details, Dunsire, A. (1978), The Execution Process, Volume 1: Implementation in a Bureaucracy, Oxford: Martin Robertson; DeLeon, P.(1999), ‘The missing link revisited: Contemporary implementation research’, Policy Studies Review, 16 (3/4): pp.11–38; and Barrett, S.M. and Fudge, C. (eds.) (1981), Policy and Action: Essays on the Implementation of Public Policy. London: Methuen.
23
including actions by street-level implementers and their interaction with policy
beneficiaries.
Overview of implementation research
Public policy processes have been widely studied, from setting a policy agenda to policy
evaluation. Early studies of public policy were concerned with inputs and outputs; they
focused on the resources needed to achieve predefined goals and did not consider the
influence of bureaucracy and service providers on the effectiveness of a
policy(Parsons1995)61. It was not until the works of Pressman and Wildavsky(1973)that
attention turned specifically to policy implementation. Focusing on the failure of
government in achieving the stated goals of policy they argued to look into what
happened inside the black box, between goals and actual results. They were concerned
about policies failing to achieve their aims and put the blame not on bad design or poor
evaluation, but on those in charge of carrying them out.62 Almost in similar tone,
Hargrove (1975) labelled policy implementation as the “missing link” because it had
been so neglected by policy analysts.63
From the time of this call for a deeper understanding of policy implementation, a vast literature
has been created exploring it. And yet, there is still no consensus among academics or
practitioners about the factors that facilitate or constrain the implementation of public
61 Parsons, Wayne(1995), Public Policy: An Introduction to the Theory and Practice of Policy Analysis, Cheltenham, U.K.: Edward Elgar Publishing, Inc. 62 Pressman, J.L. and Wildavsky, A. (1973), Implementation, (1st ed.), Berkeley: University of California Press. 63 Hargrove, E.C. (1975), The Missing Link: The Study of the Implementation of Social Policy, Washington, DC: Urban Institute.
24
policies .Implementation continues to be discussed as the missing link (Robichau and
Lynn 2009)64
When we look at the implementation studies we find that three generations or waves of
implementation studies have been broadly identified and accepted (Fischer etal.2007;
Goggin etal.1990; M.Hill and Hupe 2006; Howlett and Ramesh 2003)
in study of public policy.
65
“Top-down” approaches, also called “rational control models”, see implementation as a
logical sequence or chain of activities. If implementation fails, top-down scholars argue,
it is because the strategy or instruments were wrongly selected, operationalisation was
poor, or there was an inadequate response to problems. For these models, what matters
for effective implementation is command and control, making sure that instructions are
. The first
generation is best illustrated by the works of Pressman and Wildavsky, who stress the
need to scientifically explain why policies were not delivering the expected results. The
relevance of the first generation rests mainly in its effort to simply widen the scope of
policy analysis to the implementation phase. The second generation is dominated by a
debate between the so-called top-down and bottom-up approaches, which take opposite
analytical focuses about the implementation process. The subsequent wave of studies –
the third generation - aims to reconcile these approaches and suggest different analytical
stands.
64 Robichau, R. W. and Lynn Jr., L. E. (2009), ‘The Implementation of Public Policy: Still the Missing Link’, Policy Studies Journal, no.37, pp. 21–36. 65 Fischer, Frank, Miller, Gerald J. and Sidney, Mara S.(eds.)(2007), Handbook of Public Policy Analysis: Theory, Politics and Methods, London: Taylor & Francis Group; Goggin, M.L., A.O’M. Bowman, J.P. Lester, and L.J. O’Toole, Jr.(eds.), (1990), Implementation Theory and Practice: Towards a Third Generation. Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman/ Little,Brown; and Howlett and Ramesh, op.cit.,
25
obeyed throughout the chain (Gunn 1978).66 They place a central role on decisions made
by politicians and see implementation as the follow-up of those decisions by
administrators and service providers. Hill and Hupe(2002) phrase this as the
“implementation follows formulation and decision theorem”.67 Van Meter and Van
Horn(1975),classic authors of this approach, highlight the role of decision-making
processes by those at the top and see implementation as an administrative process.68
(Hood 1976) argues that implementation failure is about poor management and
communication.69
The main criticism of the top-down view is it’s neglect of the influence that actors within
the process have on the effectiveness of implementation. The top-down view disregards
the ideologies, values, beliefs and motivations of implementers. In response, the
“bottom-up” literature focuses on human interaction among actors involved in the
implementation process and those affected by the policy. According to the bottom-up
approach, implementers should be considered in behavioural terms rather than as
elements in lines of command (Elmore 1979).
70 Lipsky’s (1980) work on street-level
bureaucrats is the classic example of the bottom-up approach.71
66 Gunn, LA. (1978), ‘Why is implementation so difficult?’, Management Services in Government, no.33, pp.169-76.
He argues that
bureaucrats in charge of delivering services possess a great deal of discretion in their
actions and behaviour, giving them a degree of power to amend or even change policies.
67 Hill, Michael and Hupe, Peter(2002), Implementing Public Policy: Governance in Theory and Practise, (1st ed), London : Sage, p.-4. 68Meter, Van and Horn, Van (1975), ‘The Policy Implementation Process: A Conceptual Framework,’ Administration & Society, Vol. 6, No. 4, pp.445-487. 69 Hood, C. C. (1976), The Limits of Administration, London: John Wiley & Sons. 70 Elmore, Richard F. (1979), ‘Backward Mapping: Implementation Research and Policy Decisions’, Political Science Quarterly, Vol. 94, No. 4, pp. 601-616. 71 Lipsky, Michael (1980), Street-Level Bureaucracy Dilemmas of the Individual in Public Services, New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
26
Barrett and Fudge (1981) build on this idea and argue that actors operating a policy
inevitably interpret it and modify it, hence making decisions – and, therefore, policy –
during the implementation stage.72 For the bottom-up approach, effective implementation
is therefore determined mainly by the knowledge and experience of people in the front-
line of service delivery.73
The third generation of implementation studies encompasses “hybrid theories” that bring
together elements of both top-down and bottom-up literature in search of a more
comprehensive approach to the subject. This development was led by eminent scholars
like Wildavsky, Sabatier and Elmore, who modified their initial top-down or bottom-up
perspectives. For example, Elmore developed the concept of “forward mapping” to
complement his previous “backward mapping” analysis, where he suggests first taking
into consideration the dynamics of implementers and target groups and then moving up
to policy-makers. Majone and Wildavsky (1978), Browne and Wildavsky (1984),
Bennett and Howlett(1992), Sabatier and Jenkins-Smith (1993) all modified their
understanding of implementation to a learning or evolutionary process, where actors take
their experience of feedback into the process and adapt it to deliver better results.
74
72 Barrett, S. & Fudge, C. (Eds.) (1981), Policy and Action. London: Meuthuen.
Lowi(1972) identifies “policy types”, namely distributive, regulatory and redistributive,
and suggests looking at different factors influencing implementation according to the
73 Parsons(1995), op.cit., p.470. 74 For details on this one may see, Majone, G. and Wildsky, A.(1995), ‘Implementation as evaluation’, in Theodoulu, S.Z and Cahn, M.A., Public Policy: The essential Reading, Englewood Cliff: Prantice Hall; Brown, A. and Wildavsky, A.(1984), ‘Implementation as Exploration’, in Pressman, J.L. and Wildavasky, A. (eds.), Implementation, (3rded.), Berkeley: University of California Press; Bennett, Colin J. and Howlett M. (1992), ‘The lessons of learning: Reconciling theories of policy learning and policy change’, Policy Sciences, Volume 25, Issue 3, pp. 275-294; and Sabatier and Jenkins, op.cit.
27
policy type.75
One of the most recent contributions to the study of implementation takes the concept of
“governance” as a base. Scholars like Hill and Hupe(2002), and Robichau and Lynn
(2009) put forward a model of governance for implementation studies building on
a managerial approach and incorporating elements of political science. The focus is on
governance that refers “to the way in which collective impacts are produced in a social
system”.
The top-down/bottom-up debate was eventually overcome when policy
scholars acknowledged the value of different theories and frameworks in bringing
different perspectives to understanding the implementation process rather than validating
one approach over another.
76 The model identifies multiple levels of action and different variables that
influence performance such as citizen preferences, public choice and policy designs,
public management, service delivery, outputs and outcomes.77
Though much has been written about what makes for effective
implementation, there is still no consensus about what works best under which
circumstances. The different approaches and theories on the issue offer a partial view of
facts - or, as Allison (1971) puts, it, “they offer different lenses to look into policy
processes focusing on some elements while blurring others”.
78
75 Lowi, Theodore J. (1972), ‘Four Systems of Policy, Politics, and Choice’, Public Administration Review, Vol. 32, No. 4., pp. 298-310.
Policy analysis,
76 Hill and Hupe, op.cit., p.13. 77 Robichau, R., & Lynn Jr., L. (2009), ‘The Implementation of Public Policy: Still the Missing Link’, Policy Studies Journal, 37 (1), p.23. 78 Allison, Graham (1971), Essence of Decision: Explaining the Cuban Missile Crisis, Boston: Little, Brown.
28
especially the field of implementation studies, needs more dialogue within itself in order
to construct a better understanding of relevant issues.
For the purpose of this thesis, several of the perspectives described above are adopted for
the study of policy implementation. Processes are observed from the top
(operationalitation level) and from the bottom (service delivery level). Actors at all levels
are considered, from politicians to street-level practitioners. The thesis is also concerned
with the influence of ideas and beliefs on implementation and, therefore, draws on the
ideas of post-modernist theorists. To include more recent and mainstream
approaches, the thesis framework also looks at managerial practices. By analysing the
implementation of MGNREGA that involves public policy with a pro-active service
delivery, the thesis bridges the policy literature with the service delivery literature and
looks into how services are actually provided to the population and in doing so what are
the constrains and challenges faced by the State. The service delivery literature often
includes citizens’ participation as a desirable feature to improve providers’ performance.
Following the literature on participatory democracy, this thesis adds into the analysis the
role of citizens’ participation in policy processes, therefore bringing this dimension to the
study of implementation.
Statement of the Problem:
The above discussions and a review of public policy studies and implementation research
highlights clearly that implementation of a public policy is of utmost importance,
however, as it has been pointed out that the field of implementation studies has only
emerged recently as an academic research field only during 1970s. Thus, there is a still
29
lack of extensive research in this area and as most of the literature and approach have
been developed in western and developed nations there is an imminent need of research
in this field in developing states like India. The problem is best echoed in following
words of kuldeep Mathur(2013), “The disciplines of political science and public
administration in India have not given the attention that policy analysis deserves.”79
Within this context my study on “Analysis of MGNREGS from Policy Perspective: A
study of Selected Districts in Uttar Pradesh” has been done. It has been more than five
years since the MGNREGA have been introduced. The goals of MGNREGA has been
defined in operation guidelines issued by Ministry of Rural Development(MORD) as
following80
a. Strong social safety net for the vulnerable groups by providing a fall-back
employment source, when other employment alternatives are scarce or inadequate.
:
b. Growth engine for sustainable development of an agricultural economy. Through
the process of providing employment on works that address causes of chronic
poverty such as drought, deforestation and soil erosion, the Act seeks to strengthen
the natural resource base of rural livelihood and create durable assets in rural
areas. Effectively implemented, NREGA has the potential to transform the
geography of poverty.
c. Empowerment of rural poor through the processes of a rights-based Law.
d. New ways of doing business, as a model of governance reform anchored on the
principles of transparency and grass root democracy.
79 Mathur, Kuldeep (2013), Public Policy and Politics in India: How Institutions Matter, New Delhi: Oxford University Press, p.1 80 Government of India (2008), MGNREGA Operational Guidelines,3rd edition, New Delhi: Ministry of Rural Development, p.1.
30
The importance of implementation challenge and focus on making effective public policy
delivery mechanism is enunciated itself in clear terms in Goals of MGNREGA. The
critics notwithstanding the implementation of MGNREGA has been acclaimed as one of
the most pioneering legislation and international institutions like ILO have lauded the
programme for providing employment to poor as it "stands to offset the potential shock to
the poor in this time of recession".81 World Bank's Country Director Roberto Zagha
highlighted the importance of the programme by commenting "India is fortunate to have
in place a (NREGA) program that people can fall back on to find work in these hard
times”.82
Since its inception the programme has provided employment for more than seven hudread
crore persondays and asset creation in form 122 lacs work undertaken in the programme
till December 2010(source MORD website). The programme has been inclusive of social
groups as more than fifty percent of employment benefit has been to the group of
Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe. Women Participation in the programme has been also
quite an achievement as National average of women participation in the programme has
been more than forty percent. The introduction of MGNREGA has introduced paradigm
shift for policy implementation by mandating regime of legal rights and entitlements of
people in demanding the service and providing provisions for compensating in case of
failure to deliver the services.
81 ILO(2009), Report . Geneva. 82 Zagha, Roberto(2009), People can fall back on NREGA in these hard times: World Bank, The Economic
Times, June 3, 2009.
31
MGNREGA has been significant to introduce following salient features in concept and
implementation of public policy:
A. Creating a right based regime and legal entitlement for people to demand services.
B. Compensating people in case of failure to provide entitlements in time bound
manner (in form of unemployment allowance, compensation for wages).
C. Provision of dedicated manpower and role definition for various authorities
involved in implementation.
D. Increasing role of Gaon Sabha and PRI in programme delivery by making them
key player in the planning, execution and monitoring of the programme.
E. Creating in-built structure of transparency and proactive disclosure.
F. Creating a provision of Social Audit for ensuring effective accountability in
service delivery.
G. Creating an IT enabled Management Information System(MIS) for monitoring of
the programme.
H. Creating a system of perspective planning, preparation of shelf of work.
I. Creating a pro active grievance redressal mechanism to address the failure of
service delivery in the programme.
J. Creating a system of fund allocation based on outcome and delivery, thus the Act
is designed to offer an incentive structure to the States for providing employment
as ninety percent of the cost for employment provided is borne by the Centre.
There is a concomitant disincentive for not providing employment as the States
32
then bear the double indemnity of unemployment and the cost of unemployment
allowance.
K. With such new concepts and extensive institutional arrangements envisaged in
MGNREGA, the State Governments have been entrusted to deliver the
programme as per legal mandate, however, this elaborate and comprehensive
arrangement requirement have created various challenges for the policy
implementation.
Within this broad framework of achievements, there has been growing concern about the
leakage, denial of rights as mandated in Act and constrains of the programme being
implemented in its spirit. Not only the Comptroller and Auditor General of India(CAG)
has observed the gaps in programme delivery as major issue but also various other
evaluation studies conducted by MORD itself have suggested that implementation
challenges have been yet to overcome despite five years of the programme. There has
been hardly an instance of unemployment allowance or compensation being given for
delay of wages in entire country. Again, in carrying out its policy mandate for
MGNREGA, the policy implementation institutions have to deal with manifold complex
and interrelated challenges. These include in major ways following key issues:
• internal staffing and capacity including supervision and management;
• streamlining processes for effective, efficient, and equitable delivery;
• interacting and coordinating with other institutions, including state institutions;
• interfacing with a variegated, complex and demanding citizenry; and
33
• responding to the complex contemporary challenges that have been shaped by the
provisions transparency and accountability in for of Right to Information and Social
Audit.
There has been questions about State’s capacity to deliver large scale social safety net
programs such as India’s National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (NREGA) because
of difficulty to implement due to governance challenges related to elite capture, leakages,
and corruption. The ability to identify how the governance challenges of policy
implementation can be met requires detailed insights into the actual process of program
implementation, with clear views on the source of leakage and mismanagement, the
sensitivity of public policy to the influence of different actors, local power structures and
informal bureaucratic processes. In view of the national scenario of implementation, Uttar
Pradesh being the largest state in terms of rural populace has been a significant mirror of
success and challenge of policy implementation issues in the programme. Taking
MGNREGA implementation in Uttar Pradesh as a case study, the study would attempt to
evaluate the issues involved in constrains and opportunities created for public policy
system in present times. This thesis uses experience of implementation of MGNREGA in
Uttar Pradesh, to shed light on these issues and related governance challenges. An attempt
is made to identify the specific features of the MGNREGA implementation process that
have changed a paradigm shift in terms of management, planning, project implementation
by decentralisation and bottom-up approach as envisaged in the Act.
An attempt would be made to understand the limits of the public policy (for example,
institutional capacity, elite capture in the definition of work and capacity limitations due
to staff shortages and lack of training and capacity) and create scope for the
34
misappropriation/leakage of funds. The insights gained can be used to identify policy
options for reforming the administrative process of right based programme and public
service delivery system.
The key questions that would be addressed are as following:
A. How far the right based programme mandated by an Act has affected the nature of
public policy. Has it changed the governing structures and administrative process? What
kind of capacity constrains been there in public policy delivery mechanism and what
attempts have been made to overcome these constrains?
B. Grass root planning and bottom-up approach is hall-mark of MGNREGA. Has the
arrangements outlined in the Act been followed in giving voice to Gaon Sabha or in turn
to people? How far the decentralisation as aimed in theory as actually worked and what
have been the impediments in the process?
C. How far the implementation has helped in better access of services and
entitlements for vulnerable communities specially it would be analysed to understand the
extent to which gender-specific risks and vulnerabilities are considered in policy design
and implementation.
D. The issue of monitoring of MGNREGA with use of IT, web enabled MIS, Social
Audit, RTI and other innovations have been unique as monitoring- reporting tools,
however, the efficacy and limits of these tools need to be analyzed to understand the key
question of leakage and corruption in a public policy programme.
35
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY:
This study is basically focused on providing an analytical framework to understand the
enhanced role of public policy and challenges in meeting this through processes,
institutions, mechanisms created and outcomes achieved in implementation of
MGNREGA. The approach and strategies applied in this research depend on not only
analyzing the theoretical foundations and need of enlarging scope of delivery of public
policy in governance structure but it also seeks to understand the constrains and
challenges before public policy implementation mechanism in present times. Thus the
study would require an understanding of role of public policy in welfare state and factors
that influence or limit its functionality. How far the external environment in modern
democratic polity with emerging role of Decentralized Governance, Mass-Media, an
active Civil Society and other institutions like Judiciary play a role in affecting various
mechanism evolved by state for policy implementation and service delivery is to be
analysed in the context of the study.
Within this broader external environment the internal setting of programmed design and
implementation issues would be analyzed and it would require the deconstruction of
policy notes, government orders, MIS reports reading of the programme.
To achieve this, “descriptive and analytical” research design shall be carried out. The
descriptive research design helps to describe the current practices and events.
Furthermore, analytical research design enables us to establish relationship between
variables.
36
Research Method:
There are two major methods used while conducting scientific research i.e. qualitative and
quantitative method. The research method applied to conduct this research was mixed
method. Mixed method overcomes the disadvantages of qualitative and quantitative
methods while utilize benefits from the advantages of each. A basic description of a
mixed methodology is simply that it is a methodology with methods that have
comparisons between quantitative and qualitative data. In this study apart from broader
general analytical framework of public policy and MGNREGS the field level
implementation and experience would be analysed in five selected districts(Sonbhadra,
Sitapur, Gorakhpur, Barabanki and Jhansi). The selection of these districts is based on the
geographical diversity, socio-economic condition and financial allocation of the
MGNREGS.
Sources of Data:
Both primary and secondary sources of data shall be collected in order to achieve the real
facts from this research. The data for the study are obtained from various sources
including policy documents, articles, programme evaluation reports, interviews and
observation etc. The particular sources which shall be used for this study are:
a. Primary data:
Primary data are original data gathered by researcher for the research project at hand. The
primary data needed for this study are to be collected through questionnaire survey with
different respondents involved in public policy processes of MGNREGA in selected
districts of UP. Interview of stakeholders like policy makers(Minister/Legislatures/
37
Government officials from Senior level), programme implementing machinery (the
cutting edge of officials involved in service delivery, junior level officials/PRI
representatives), and the service seekers would be conducted in the study process to
gather the primary data in form of their response/opinion and answers.
b. Secondary Data:
Secondary data are often in the form of raw data and published materials. The secondary
data for this study shall be collected from various policy notes, issued government orders,
circulars books, publications, journals and reports on websites and government documents
etc.
Hypotheses:
In this study the following hypotheses are proposed to be tested:
H1 : Public policy and its implementation has emerged as a key governance challenge
. in present times for State.
H2 : Introduction of MGNREGA has redefined public policies formulation by legally
mandating the provisions of entitlements to be extended by the State.
H3 : MGNREGA has created a vast opportunity for public policy implementation and
service delivery to reach out poor and create a proactive role for State in welfare
of people challenging the thesis of roll-back of state in liberalised economy.
H4 : Public policy enactments such as MGNREGA create many challenges in
implementation of the policy by key Institutions leading to gaps in delivery
mechanism.
H5 : Transparency and monitoring regime is essential for effective public policy.
H6 : Experience of MGNREGA would play key role in formulation of legally
mandated public policies in other social sectors like education, food security and
health.
38
Organisation of the study:
The study is organised as follows. The first chapter has been aimed towards highlighting
the theoretical perspectives of the public policy and its implication for the study. An
attempt has been made to outline the various theoretical arguments related to study of a
public policy and its implementation. In the second chapter, the research methodology for
the study has been elaborated in detail. The interaction of case study method and the
qualitative interpretations from the interviews of the stakeholders and other sources of
data is explained to develop the arguments of the study.
The third chapter deals with the enactment of MGNREGA from policy formulation
perspective. The agenda setting and the socio-political environment is discussed. Role of
principal actors, institutions and the civil society in formulation of the policy and the
limitations these institutions in finalising the policy leading it to the enactment of the Act
is discussed.
Finally the concluding chapter resummarises some of the central contents of the
argument. I also make an attempt to comment on the significance of this study for cases
other than MGNREGA. Some specific suggestions related to public policy is made for
improvement and better policy design related to public policies in general and rights
based public policies in particular.
39
Conclusion and limitation of the study:
1. The study shall be significant in explaining the changing role and importance of
public service delivery system in “Governance” of State.
2. This study would highlight the opportunities for development State to evolve
mechanisms for reaching out poor and thus minimize the crisis of legitimacy of
it’s authority.
3. The study would be significant also to highlight the importance of enacting legal
rights for citizens and its challenge in delivery of those services. The lessons of
this study would be extremely important as there is already bill passed for right to
education and an act for food security is introduced. Various State Governments
like Delhi, Madhya Pradesh, Uttar Pradesh have recently passed public service
guarantee bills and in view of growing importance of public service the study
would provide a valuable source of information for policy making and programme
design in delivery of public services.
The limitation of the study is related to its scope in analysing primarily one programme
MGNREGS for public service delivery and looking at the institutions, processes,
mechanism evolved in State of Uttar Pradesh primarily. To minimize the limitation factor
an effort would be made to compare the other legally mandated services evolving and
compare the delivery mechanism of other states in implementation of MGNREGS as
secondary data.