Dogo Rangsang Research Journal www.drsrjournal.

com
ISSN : 2347-7180 Vol-10 Issue-06 No. 8 June 2020

Idea of Decentralization
Rajani kant Pandey
Assistant Professor
Department of Political Science
Ram Dayalu Singh College
Muzaffarpur

Introduction:

Decentralisation is widely lauded as a key component of democracy, good

1
governance and development. Decentralisation is a process of deconcentration,
delegation and devolution. Although these terms are seems similar but they are
different in meaning. It is relevant to clear the difference among them. The term
deconcentration, in which political, administrative and fiscal responsibilities are
transferred to lower units within central line ministries or agencies (Crook and
Manor, 1998: 6–7; Rondinelli et al., 1989; Meenakshisundaram, 1999: 55; emphasis
added),while delegation, in which responsibilities are transferred to organisations
that are ‘outside the regular bureaucratic structure and are only indirectly controlled
by the central government,’ (Meenakshisundaram, 1999: 55; emphasis added),and
devolution, in which sub-national units of government are either created or
strengthened in terms of political, administrative and fiscal power (Blair, 2000; Crook
and Manor, 1998: 6–7; Rondinelli et al., 1989).

Types of decentralisation
There are four dominating decentralisation in existing literature. These are political,
administrative and fiscal decentralisation.

Political decentralisation transfers policy and legislative powers from central

government to autonomous, lower-level assemblies and local councils that have been
democratically elected by their constituencies. Such decentralisation is called political
decentralisation. It is essential for strengthen the political participation of local level.

1
During the period from 1995 to 2005, 135 of 511 development policy operations approved by the World Bank
listed at least one condition with a decentralisation theme (Kaiser 2006). While though Kaiser not mention
democracy.
2
World Bank. (2000) ‘Overview of Rural Decentralization in India. Volume I’. Unpublished report. World Bank.

P a g e | 14 UGC Care Group I Journal Copyright ⓒ 2020 Authors

 Dogo Rangsang Research Journal www.drsrjournal.com
ISSN : 2347-7180 Vol-10 Issue-06 No. 8 June 2020

Administrative decentralisation places planning and implementation

responsibility in the hands of locally situated civil servants and these local civil
servants are under the jurisdiction of elected local governments. Administrative
decentralisation is useful to achieve the goal of good governance.
Fiscal decentralisation accords substantial revenue and expenditure authority to
intermediate and local governments. Fiscal decentralisation is necessary for the
developing countries like India. Regional parity and Centre-State relation is based
upon fiscal decentralisation.
Divestment or market decentralisation transfers public functions from
government to voluntary, private, or non-governmental institutions through
contracting out partial service provision or administration functions, deregulation or
full privatisation. This has been emerged basically with neoliberal agenda.

Decentralisation3 as essentials, comfort and compulsion:

As stated earlier the goal of decentralisation are democracy, good governance and
development, these are basically internal and external forces through which this
process occur. For example democracy is about participation of people in a political
system. Participation is the essential of democracy. The process of decentralisation is
an instrument for strengthening the grassroots democracy. Decentralisation is
essential and core character of democratic set up.

With the emergence of global governance institutions the idea of good governance is
spreading. The good in governance is involvement of local actors in the process of
governance with their own voices. For ensuring accountability and social auditing
with regional development is the comfort part of decentralisation.

Development is the core issue of present day world throughout the disciplines.
Development itself contested and dynamic concept. It is departed from development
as economic growth to development as human development. The goal of
development is achieve through involvement and participation of local actors.
Decentralisation is becoming an instrument of development. Indian constitution has

3
Author assumptions for analyze decentralization.

P a g e | 15 UGC Care Group I Journal Copyright ⓒ 2020 Authors

 Dogo Rangsang Research Journal www.drsrjournal.com
ISSN : 2347-7180 Vol-10 Issue-06 No. 8 June 2020

ensured decentralisation as mechanism of participation and development. 73rd and

74th Amendments further strengthen the process of decentralisation.

Decentralisation and its relation with Democracy, Governance, and Inclusion:

Decentralisation has been at the centre stage of institutional reforms in both the
developed and developing countries. The implementation of the reforms regarding
decentralisation process is essentially changing the basic social relations and brings
the citizen in the governing of the community. The decentralisation aims to enable the
citizens as participant, either directly or indirectly, to be more involved in the
decision making process. Democratic decentralisation as a form of governance thus
expands the participation of historically excluded and subordinated groups in the
business of decision-making processes. With the decentralisation of power, the
institutions became more participatory and inclusive. The inclusion of disadvantaged
sections through decentralised reforms ensured equality of political opportunities.

Decentralisation and Inclusion:

In the discourse of governments and international aid agencies, decentralisation

appears as a solution to several core problems: efficiency deficits, fiscal crises,
4
governance failures, government legitimacy, or even inequity . Further the
institutional reforms through decentralisation have contributed to greater inclusion of
historically excluded groups, minority and poor within the nation-state by increasing
their number in the institutions of local self-government. Social exclusion is the
concern of every government since it involves the denial of access to social
spaces, ownership, and control over resources, denial of opportunities and basic
needs, denial of right to representation and participation in social, economic, and
political participation. The way forward to social exclusion should be the inclusion of
disadvantages and marginalised groups in all the development aspects. The
process of decentralisation, in this connection, is viewed as one of the most
important projects for reorganisation of the life of the society. The decentralisation
aims to enable the citizens, either directly or indirectly, to be more involved in the
decision making process. The implementation of the reforms regarding
decentralisation process is essentially changing the basic social relations and the

4
World Bank, World Development Report, (New York, Oxford University Press 1997).

P a g e | 16 UGC Care Group I Journal Copyright ⓒ 2020 Authors

 Dogo Rangsang Research Journal www.drsrjournal.com
ISSN : 2347-7180 Vol-10 Issue-06 No. 8 June 2020

Place of the citizen in the governing of the community. Therefore, decentralisation in

most of the countries including India, especially in the arena of social policies, was
therefore driven by the idea of reducing social inequalities and correcting allocative
distortions. Hence, the high centralisation, bureaucratism, low accountability and lack
of the inclusion and participation of society in the public policy-making were the
elements attacked by the decentralisation strategy in a democratic context. Advocates
of decentralisation extol its many virtues, including the inclusive growth. Supporters
project that decentralisation will lead to more efficient policymaking and
5
other including Crook and Manor (1998) argue that decentralisation plays an
important role in the democratisation and people participation, public service
performance, poverty alleviation and political and macroeconomic stability.
Decentralisation theorists and policy makers evoke developmentalist arguments
contending that the increased efficiency, equity and inclusion that should arise from
6
decentralisation results in better and more sustainable management .
Decentralisation reform therefore tries to address the different causes of social
exclusion like social inequalities, poverty, corruption, ineffectiveness and poor
governance. As most of the local benefits from decentralisation are believed to come
from increased popular participation, which in turn, leads to increase in democracy,
efficiency and equity7 . The positive outcomes of decentralisation include greater
participation and inclusion. Hence, the decentralisation reforms initiated by
governments of various countries have opened space for civil society and
empowerment, giving citizens opportunities to better participate in the planning and
decision–making processes. The ethnic minorities and other social groups who were
otherwise previously marginalised and excluded are started getting involved in
community affairs and got a better opportunity to influence local development under
this reform policy. Brady, Schlozman and Verba (1999) also opines that since the
government is nearby and more accessible, citizens will feel like they can make a
difference and have an impact on decisions process, leading to greater political
efficacy and trust. More decentralisation would lead to creation of inclusive,
responsible and accountable governance which in turns lead to empowerment and

5
Charles Teibout,
A Pure Theory of Local Expenditures, Journal of Political Economy, vol. 64, 1956, 416-424.
6
AM Larson and J.C. Ribot, Democratic decentralisation through a natural resource lens: An Introduction,
European Journal of Development Research, vol. 16(1), 2004, 1-25.
7
J.C. Ribot, African Decentralization: Local Actors, Power and Accountability, Democracy, Governance and
Human Rights Working Paper No.8, Geneva, UNRISD and IDRC 2002.

P a g e | 17 UGC Care Group I Journal Copyright ⓒ 2020 Authors

 Dogo Rangsang Research Journal www.drsrjournal.com
ISSN : 2347-7180 Vol-10 Issue-06 No. 8 June 2020

inclusion of disadvantaged sections of society. One can conclude from the above
analysis that there is a causal relationship between decentralisation and social
inclusion. Decentralisation reforms if implemented properly encourage the citizens
who are on the margins of society to participate effectively in the local decision
making and power structures. This leads to the important policy conclusion that
decentralisation reforms should go together with the implementation of other
policies and be part of a larger plan to empower the excluded and reduce disparities in
society.

Decentralisation in India

Decentralisation is being widely recognized in all developing countries as a vital

strategy for ensuring grass-root level democracy and participatory development.
India has repeatedly experimented with decentralisation in the colonial, post-colonial
and post independence period. The first initiative of decentralisation in the country
dates back to the year 1882 when Ripon Resolution was enacted. Since then a
considerable number of decentralization initiatives have been taken by different
governments in various forms. The launch of Community Development Programme
and National Extension Service in 1952/53 is the first initiatives of the government in
post independence era. This was followed by the appointment of various committees
and commissions (Balwantrai Mehta Committee (1957), K. Santhanam Committee
1963, Ashok Mehta Committee 1978, GVK Rao Committee 1985, L.M. Singhvi
Committee 1987) to reforms the decentralised structure of government at the local
level. The avowed objectives of these reform initiatives had been building as well as
strengthening the capacity of local level organisations particularly of Local
Government Institutions and in the process to create scopes and opportunities for the
participation of community people in the management of local affairs. With the
enactment of 73rd and 74th Constitutional Amendment Acts in the early-1990s, the
process of decentralisation has further increased in all areas of social and public
policy.

This was primarily a result of the political democratisation and liberalisation

reforms, but also can be construed as part of a longer trend towards decentralisation.
This reform towards democratic decentralisation has been driven by the need to
deepen the process of democracy by giving citizens a greater say in matters which

P a g e | 18 UGC Care Group I Journal Copyright ⓒ 2020 Authors

 Dogo Rangsang Research Journal www.drsrjournal.com
ISSN : 2347-7180 Vol-10 Issue-06 No. 8 June 2020

impact more on their daily lives. This has been referred to as bringing government to
the doorsteps ‘of the people or promoting grass roots’ democracy. In contrast to
previous decentralisation efforts these attempts were conceived in the context of
people‘s participation and empowerment of local bodies. Thus one may find here a
difference in objectives of decentralisation move of colonial period and post
independence period. The ultimate objective of the colonial regimes was to
consolidate the colonial power rather than decentralisation of power and hence the
decentralisation efforts taken and implemented during the British colonial rule had
been piecemeal, narrow and restrictive in nature. The motive behind the
decentralisation reforms after independence is to strengthen and enhanced
community participation in decision-making, enabled local communities to
determine their local leadership through democratic elections, provide
institutionalised structural arrangements for participatory development planning.
Further the models adopted in the 1990s differ considerably with respect to the
composition of local government institutions and to the powers and resources that
they should control.

The local government of present day are more inclusive, democratic and
participatory in nature and enjoy more powers and functions. There are at present
about 241547 local governments (3723 urban local bodies and 237824 rural local
bodies) in India. The local governments are known as panchayats in rural areas and
municipalities in urban areas. The Constitutional Amendment (73rd &74th) Acts have
accorded the constitutional status to the rural and urban local bodies and clearly
define the powers and responsibilities of the local bodies. Except few, in most of the
states the panchayats have three-tier system: Gram panchayats at village level,
Panchayat Samities at block level and Zilla Parishad at district level. And all the
states have three-tier municipal bodies viz. Municipal Corporation in big cities and
towns; Municipal Councils in small cities and towns and Nagar Panchayats in rural-
urban transition areas. Besides the creation of uniform three tier local bodies in rural
and urban areas, the constitutional Acts also reserved the 33 per cent of seats for
women, scheduled castes and tribes in panchayats and municipalities. The
constitution of an independent State Election Commission to conduct the regular
election and State Finance Commission for reviewing and augmenting the resources
of local governments are the other important features of Amendment Acts.

P a g e | 19 UGC Care Group I Journal Copyright ⓒ 2020 Authors

 Dogo Rangsang Research Journal www.drsrjournal.com
ISSN : 2347-7180 Vol-10 Issue-06 No. 8 June 2020

A commitment to the reduction of poverty has been a defining characteristic of the

Indian state, from the time of Independence to the present day. As Kohli (1987: 62)
has argued, the Indian state that emerged after Independence was deeply committed
to ‘industrialisation, economic growth and a modicum of income redistribution.’ In
terms of poverty reduction, this involved an early attempt at improving agricultural
productivity through the implementation of land reforms, agricultural cooperatives
and local self-government (Harriss et al., 1992; Varshney, 1998).

Using the conventional classification of ‘political, administrative and fiscal

decentralisation,’ the World Bank’s three-volume study of Indian decentralisation
(World Bank, 2000a; 2000b; 2000c) ranks India ‘among the best performers’
internationally in terms of political decentralisation, but ‘close to the last’ in terms of
administrative decentralisation. Most States have held at least one round of elections
since 1993. Reservations allowing the participation of women, Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes have been respected (although there is great scope for corruption –
see below). Finally, voter participation has been high. In its study of 53 villages in
Rajasthan and MP, for instance, the World Bank (Alsop et al., 2000) found that voter
turnout in Panchayat elections was well over 90% for all categories (defined in terms
of gender, class and caste). This is significantly higher than the (still high) turn out for
the most recent (1998) round of Lok Sabha elections, which was 61% for women and
65.9% for men (Yadav, 1999).
The World Bank study goes on to argue that although Indian States and the Union
government have been willing to recognise the Panchayats, to hold elections and to
respect stipulations governing reservations for Scheduled Castes (SCs), Scheduled
Tribes (STs) and women, they have been unwilling to vest them with sufficient
‘administrative control over significant functions or fiscal autonomy,’ (World Bank,
2000a: xi). In most States, Panchayats have been handed a wide array of
responsibilities without the necessary fiscal and administrative resources.
The case for democratic decentralisation is also predicated upon the notion that
greater participation in local political affairs will improve the quality and reach of
government services, particularly ones aimed at improving the lives of poor and
politically marginal groups in society (see, for instance, de Souza, 2000). For

P a g e | 20 UGC Care Group I Journal Copyright ⓒ 2020 Authors

 Dogo Rangsang Research Journal www.drsrjournal.com
ISSN : 2347-7180 Vol-10 Issue-06 No. 8 June 2020

proponents of democratic decentralisation, a central challenge of improving the

delivery of public services becomes one of ‘crafting’ (Ostrom, 1990) institutions
which can maximise participation in political life. In the context of poverty
reduction, access to the (myriad) resources and benefits that governments provide is
associated with systems of governance that empower poor and vulnerable groups in
society.

The main aim of political decentralisation is to give citizens or their elected

representatives more power in decision-making and to support the process of
democratisation by giving citizens and their representatives, more influence in the
formulation and implementation of public policies. This is particularly important in a
country like ours, where broad segments of the poor have been marginalised and
excluded with respect to political decision-making. From this perspective,
decentralisation is a tool to improve the legitimacy of the democratic system (Larson
and Ribot 2004).Although democracy is not a necessary part of decentralisation, its
presence can have a significant influence on the perceived legitimacy of
decentralised systems. The democratic decentralisation process enlarged the
democratic potential of local governments, empowered them and helped to emerge as
true self-governing institutions. It facilitates the process of political participation and
arouses the confidence of people of all social sections including the minorities and
socially excluded communities in local democracy and development. Decentralisation
strengthens citizen participation by bringing governments closer to the people they
are intended to serve (Shah 1998)[44]. Advocates of political decentralisation contend
that decisions made with greater participation will be better informed and more
relevant to diverse interests in the society than those made solely by national
political authorities. Political dimensions of decentralisation are therefore
generally concerned with increasing public participation through citizens being
actively engaged in public institutions.

Democratic decentralisation provided space for the deprived and marginalised social
sections for their collective bargain and to get their due share in local governance and
development process. Decentralisation and democratisation process helps to protect the
interests of the most excluded social groups like scheduled castes, scheduled tribes and
women. The provisions like Gram Sabha (Art.243A), direct election {(Art. 243B

P a g e | 21 UGC Care Group I Journal Copyright ⓒ 2020 Authors

 Dogo Rangsang Research Journal www.drsrjournal.com
ISSN : 2347-7180 Vol-10 Issue-06 No. 8 June 2020

(2)}, reservation of seats (Art. 243D) for SCs, STs and women etc. encourage the poor
and marginalised citizens to participate in the development process and hence central in
social inclusion of deprived classes. The 73rd Amendment mandated that seats be
reserved for SCs, STs, and women as a means of partially correcting long- standing,
social inequalities. A minimum of 1/3 of all seats in local bodies are to be reserved for
women. Seats are to be reserved for SC/STs in proportion to their population in each
constituency—one third of these must be reserved for women. The election of
representatives from local electoral jurisdictions allows citizens to know better their
political representatives and allow elected officials to know better the needs and desires
of their constituents. Elected local governments may also be more accountable to the
community and inclusive of the poor in decision and policy- making. In India, for
example, an astonishing two million rural women have held office on the local and
regional level since 1993. This has been made possible by a constitutional mandate that
reserves one third of all local seats in the panchayat raj system of governance. The
reservation of seats in the local bodies also increases the number of SCs and STs
representatives. The reservation have improved the physical/numerical presence of
women and SC/STs in elected bodies and has been successful in ensuring that they
have an equal voice in PRI deliberations, in particular at the village level. Hence, the
overall increase in opportunities brought about by the decentralisation reforms for
participation in the democratic processes of society and the policy of reservations in
particular has created an enabling environment for the underprivileged and historically
excluded groups of society. Reservations in the legislature, panchayats and
municipalities have provided a space for SCs and STs in the executive and the decision-
making process. The formal reservation policy in the government sector has also
contributed to an improvement in the human development of SCs and STs. The
political decentralisation thus play a important role in addressing the issues of social
exclusion through increased participation of historically excluded groups in local
government to influence policy and decisions regarding pro-poor programmes, and
improved services for the poor and marginalised. It is believed that participatory local
governments are in a better position to assess needs at the local level, monitor and
control development of local communities, and provide more responsive services.

P a g e | 22 UGC Care Group I Journal Copyright ⓒ 2020 Authors

 Dogo Rangsang Research Journal www.drsrjournal.com
ISSN : 2347-7180 Vol-10 Issue-06 No. 8 June 2020

Implications and challenges: Caste, gender, minority and marginal:

The democratic upsurge has forced political actors to pay more attention to the needs
and preferences of the ordinary citizens. The state structure has institutionalised the
political and ideological changes from below in the form of institutional innovations
like decentralisation. Such innovations have given the elite an opportunity to link
social and political change. Facilitating this process was the purposive effort of the
state after Independent to reconcile the gains from economic growth with the
distributive hopes of democracy (hasan, 2000). But the retreat of the state in the
1990s under the influence of neoliberal ideas, cuts in public expenditure and low tax
revenues- all which contribute to stagnation- are likely to reverse this process at the
expense of the poor. Paradoxically the state which seemed autonomous and stable
when Indian capitalism was relatively weak has actually come to face a more serious
crisis with the entrenchment of capitalism. These situations generates conflict
between the economic demands of liberalisation and the political compulsions of
democracy or better say of people their own.
The imperatives of economic liberalisation are identified with an aggravation of
conflict between economic and political interests. Political empowerment of the
people giving the greater attention to the interests of the disprivileged (marginalised
groups- scheduled caste, minority, gender etc), while economic liberalisations hurts
their interests in a material sense. The disparity between liberalization’s economic
agenda supported by middle and upper classes, and the empowerment agenda
beneficial to the vast majority (poor, scheduled caste and tribes, women, etc) is at the
heart of the state’s present crisis to fulfil the promises of equality and justice with the
empowerment of the groups who suffer past injustice and non-voices in present in
socio-political-economic phenomena.

The only way to mediate the conflicting logics of economic and social/political
transition is a more concerted pursuit of social justice to usher in an equitable
redistribution of resources and opportunities. This demands new and imaginative
strategies to surmount the cleavage of deprivation and inequity between classes,
castes, communities, genders and regions. For example regional disparity creates the
ground of migration from rural to urban area and compel to disorder, crime, slums in
cities. Migrant people have no social and human security to satisfy their basic needs.

P a g e | 23 UGC Care Group I Journal Copyright ⓒ 2020 Authors

 Dogo Rangsang Research Journal www.drsrjournal.com
ISSN : 2347-7180 Vol-10 Issue-06 No. 8 June 2020

Conclusion

Above all, it demands policy intervention to continued emphasis on equity with

decentralisation of decision making and economic resources, and greater public
investment in infrastructure, to ensure a decent living for the most marginal section of
Indian society. It will possible only through the actual decentralisation with good
governance and distributive development with checks and balance of mobility of
people across the regions.

References:

AM Larson and J.C. Ribot, Democratic decentralisation through a natural resource

lens: An Introduction, European Journal of Development Research, vol. 16(1), 2004,
1-25.
Bardhan, Pranab. 1984. The Political Economy of Development in India. New
Delhi: Oxford University Press.
Basu, Kaushik and Sajay Subrahmanyam. 1996. Unravelling the Nation: Sectarian
Conflict and India’sSecular Identity. New York: Penguin.
Bhaduri, Amit and Deepak Nayyar. 1996. The Intelligent Person’s Guide to
Liberalization. New Delhi: Penguin
Charles Teibout, A Pure Theory of Local Expenditures, Journal of Political
Economy, vol. 64, 1956, 416-424.
Crook, R.C. and Manor, J. (1998) Democracy and Decentralisation in South Asia and
West Africa. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Henry Brady, Kay Schlozman and Sidney Verba Prospecting for Participants:
Rational Expectations and the Recruitment of Political Activists, American Political
Science Review, vol. 93 (1), 1999, 153-168.
Haasan, Zoya, S.N.Jha and Rasheeduddin Khan(eds). 1998 The State Political
Processes and Identity Reflections on Modern India. New Delhi: Sage Publications
Hasan, Zoya. 2000. Politics and the State in India. New Delhi: Sage Publications
Harriss, J. (1992) ‘Does the ‘Depressor’ Still Work? Agrarian Structure and
Development in India: A Review of Evidence and Argument,’ Journal of Peasant
Studies 19(2): 189–227.
J.C. Ribot, African Decentralization: Local Actors, Power and Accountability,
Democracy, Governance and Human Rights Working Paper No.8, Geneva,
UNRISD and IDRC 2002.

P a g e | 24 UGC Care Group I Journal Copyright ⓒ 2020 Authors

 Dogo Rangsang Research Journal www.drsrjournal.com
ISSN : 2347-7180 Vol-10 Issue-06 No. 8 June 2020

Kohli, A. (1987) The State and Poverty in India: The Politics of Reform. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Kohli, A. (1987) The State and Poverty in India: The Politics of Reform. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Meenakshisundaram, S.S. (1999) ‘Decentralization in Developing Countries,’ S.N.
Jha and P.C.
Ostrom, E. (1990) Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for
Collective Action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
R.C. Crook and J. Manor, Democracy and Decentralisation in South Asia and West
Africa: Participation, Accountability and Performance (Cambridge, Cambridge
University Press 1998).

P a g e | 25 UGC Care Group I Journal Copyright ⓒ 2020 Authors

 Dogo Rangsang Research Journal www.drsrjournal.com
ISSN : 2347-7180 Vol-10 Issue-06 No. 8 June 2020

Rondinelli, D., McCullough, J. S. and Johnson, R.W. (1989) ‘Analyzing

Decentralization Policies in Developing Countries: a Political Economy
Framework,’ Development and Change 20 (1).

Varshney, A. (1998) Democracy, Development and the Countryside: Urban-Rural

Struggles in India. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

World Bank, World Development Report, (New York, Oxford University Press
1997). –87.

World Bank. (2000a) ‘Overview of Rural Decentralization in India. Volume I’.

Unpublished report. World Bank.

World Bank. (2000b) ‘Overview of Rural Decentralization in India. Volume II:

Approaches to Rural Decentralization in Seven States’. Unpublished report. World
Bank.

World Bank (2000c) ‘Overview of Rural Decentralization in India. Volume III:

Background papers’. Unpublished report. World Bank.

P a g e | 26 UGC Care Group I Journal Copyright ⓒ 2020 Authors