Improving Local Government & Services
By: Amit Bhushan Date: 10th Sept. 2014
One of ‘the biggest’ challenges faced by the political leaders and workers, when they approach voters, is regards their woes related to ‘local government/municipality/ gramsabha’. So it is mostly near elections when these bodies are supported with ‘funds’ to carry out the herculean ‘task of governance’ which may include- cleaning Nallah, repair of roads, maintaining public parks, removal of debris etc. This does not include extension or substantial cleaning of drainages or extension or structured improvement in supply of ‘drinking water’, since these services do not receive any attention even in elections as ‘local government officers’ have given up making any attempts for amelioration of these services (the reasons could be lack of funds/lack of ideas/lack of capabilities etc. basically different for different locations but ‘not known’). The same is true about the municipal primary schools, primary health care or hospitals and other municipal services.
At least one very clear reason for ‘poor’ services is that the structure of governance of the municipality/local government which is nearly same as that of ‘a state government’. This is despite the fact that the municipality/local government has vastly different set of responsibilities than the ‘state’. The state has role in law and order, prisons, education including higher education, agriculture, industrial development etc. which go beyond ‘individual consumption services’ and have a ‘value to larger society & beyond’. The impact of failure of services offered by state (or national government) goes much beyond the state itself and can be a cause of concern elsewhere as well. The municipal/local government services are mainly ‘individual (or collective amongst a small local population) consumption services’ in nature.
In spite of these differences, the budgeting of municipality/local government is done in almost the same manner as that of state. The income generation unit that ‘collects’ income is segregated from ‘expenditure’ including units responsible to ‘execute works’. What this entails is basically little responsibility on part of ‘expenditure’ unit to ensure that ‘collections’ from the locality are commensurate or as per plan. This inevitably leads to mismatch in budgets as well as expectations (of people from a locality). Under such circumstances, the grants for expansion plans or for support of certain defined projects/ops are diverted to meet existential crisis. The result is collective suffering of the people as services deteriorate and have reached a situation where they are perceived to be beyond repair. This also leaves the Neta in exasperation, who feels more comfortable to arrange ‘funds’ for ‘fixes’ during elections but have little time for ‘structural reforms’ of the local government bodies. This is even as near ‘all’ municipalities are undergoing through the same crisis and therefore if a solution is arranged via ‘suitable restructuring’ for one municipality, then it may be replicated for all. This may meet resistance from some of the larger municipalities but many of the smaller ones or gramsabhas may actually welcome the step, provided the ‘state’ can ensure that services to the ‘not so well off’ or say to areas not lying on the ‘right side’ of the cities/towns will not be negatively impacted and targeted grants from state will be available for maintenance of existing service levels, if required. It will also inculcate a sense of participation and co-ownership amongst ‘citizens of locality’ and service providers. Having more consultations between the ‘local presiding officer’, the elected representative as well as ‘residents’ and ‘service provider/vendors’ will go a long way (though this may not find much favour with elected reps. who feel that their ‘role’ is usurped in such situation by aggressive residents having zilch knowledge or ideas about improving situation). The policy making at municipal level has been more about exercising influence over ‘commissioner’ rather than any ‘growth plans’ or strategy discussions which also needs to be changed. Using technology can be a way forward to initiate baby steps for the change, but it’s more about taking up the cause and being politically ready to step into a minefield.
By: Amit Bhushan Date: 10th Sept. 2014
One of ‘the biggest’ challenges faced by the political leaders and workers, when they approach voters, is regards their woes related to ‘local government/municipality/ gramsabha’. So it is mostly near elections when these bodies are supported with ‘funds’ to carry out the herculean ‘task of governance’ which may include- cleaning Nallah, repair of roads, maintaining public parks, removal of debris etc. This does not include extension or substantial cleaning of drainages or extension or structured improvement in supply of ‘drinking water’, since these services do not receive any attention even in elections as ‘local government officers’ have given up making any attempts for amelioration of these services (the reasons could be lack of funds/lack of ideas/lack of capabilities etc. basically different for different locations but ‘not known’). The same is true about the municipal primary schools, primary health care or hospitals and other municipal services.
At least one very clear reason for ‘poor’ services is that the structure of governance of the municipality/local government which is nearly same as that of ‘a state government’. This is despite the fact that the municipality/local government has vastly different set of responsibilities than the ‘state’. The state has role in law and order, prisons, education including higher education, agriculture, industrial development etc. which go beyond ‘individual consumption services’ and have a ‘value to larger society & beyond’. The impact of failure of services offered by state (or national government) goes much beyond the state itself and can be a cause of concern elsewhere as well. The municipal/local government services are mainly ‘individual (or collective amongst a small local population) consumption services’ in nature.
In spite of these differences, the budgeting of municipality/local government is done in almost the same manner as that of state. The income generation unit that ‘collects’ income is segregated from ‘expenditure’ including units responsible to ‘execute works’. What this entails is basically little responsibility on part of ‘expenditure’ unit to ensure that ‘collections’ from the locality are commensurate or as per plan. This inevitably leads to mismatch in budgets as well as expectations (of people from a locality). Under such circumstances, the grants for expansion plans or for support of certain defined projects/ops are diverted to meet existential crisis. The result is collective suffering of the people as services deteriorate and have reached a situation where they are perceived to be beyond repair. This also leaves the Neta in exasperation, who feels more comfortable to arrange ‘funds’ for ‘fixes’ during elections but have little time for ‘structural reforms’ of the local government bodies. This is even as near ‘all’ municipalities are undergoing through the same crisis and therefore if a solution is arranged via ‘suitable restructuring’ for one municipality, then it may be replicated for all. This may meet resistance from some of the larger municipalities but many of the smaller ones or gramsabhas may actually welcome the step, provided the ‘state’ can ensure that services to the ‘not so well off’ or say to areas not lying on the ‘right side’ of the cities/towns will not be negatively impacted and targeted grants from state will be available for maintenance of existing service levels, if required. It will also inculcate a sense of participation and co-ownership amongst ‘citizens of locality’ and service providers. Having more consultations between the ‘local presiding officer’, the elected representative as well as ‘residents’ and ‘service provider/vendors’ will go a long way (though this may not find much favour with elected reps. who feel that their ‘role’ is usurped in such situation by aggressive residents having zilch knowledge or ideas about improving situation). The policy making at municipal level has been more about exercising influence over ‘commissioner’ rather than any ‘growth plans’ or strategy discussions which also needs to be changed. Using technology can be a way forward to initiate baby steps for the change, but it’s more about taking up the cause and being politically ready to step into a minefield.