Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Deepta Chopra (IDS) and Kunal Sen (ESID – University of Manchester) Paper presented at DSA Annual Conference, Birmingham 16 th November 2013.

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "Deepta Chopra (IDS) and Kunal Sen (ESID – University of Manchester) Paper presented at DSA Annual Conference, Birmingham 16 th November 2013."— Presentation transcript:

1 Deepta Chopra (IDS) and Kunal Sen (ESID – University of Manchester) Paper presented at DSA Annual Conference, Birmingham 16 th November 2013

2  Provides 100 days of employment a year  To every rural household that demands work  At state minimum wages  Rights based welfare measure  Livelihoods + asset creation objectives  Budget of 8.91 billion USD (1.3 per cent of total central government spending)  World’s largest social security intervention in terms of household coverage (about 50 million households in )

3  Centrally financed (90%) and monitored through the Ministry of Rural Development  Implemented by State Departments of Rural Development  Involvement of administration at various levels – state, district and block  At village level, implementation happens through Gram Panchayats  Team of technical experts (engineers, accountants, data entry operators, MIS experts) at all levels.

4  Same design; same implementation structures  Varying implementation performance (outcomes) across states and within states (district, block and GP level variation)  (Implementation Performance measured by the proportion of person days generated in each state out of the number of rural poor)

5  Four ‘high implementation’ states: Andhra Pradesh, Tamil Nadu, Rajasthan and Chhatisgarh  Four ‘low implementation’ states: Orissa, Bihar, Maharashtra and Assam

6  The role of the sub national state is critical in explaining variations across states  Two ways in which implementation can be affected: ◦ Capacity for implementation ◦ Political will or commitment towards the Act

7  Desk based literature and statistical analysis  Elite interviewing with sub national and provincial bureaucrats and other state-level personnel  Elite interviewing with political party leaders  Selected field visits to worksites and interactions with front line staff and workers

8  Path dependency  Extractive capacity  Physical and Organisational Competence  Relational Capacity  Territorial reach

9  Existing structures and experience in similar programmes can signal existing capacity to implement employment programmes RajasthanAssamAndhra Pradesh Bihar History of implem enting PWPs Long and established history of PWPs Low level of experience in implementing PWPs Long history of PWPs

10  Required for initial investment in administrative capacity  Required for co-financing 10% contribution from states (25% of material costs)  Disbursements from centre (based on MIS) required for implementation RajasthanAssamAndhra Pradesh Bihar State-fiscal capacity Poor state but some reserves Very poor state Rich state with reserves Very poor state Centre – State disbursement Some delays Very delayed Regular with some delays Delayed

11  Good physical and organizational infrastructure implies good state capacity for implementation  Integration possibilities ensure maximising resources and positive spill-overs  Ability of bureaucrats to resist pressures from political and local elites is important, yet complete autonomy may be counter productive too. ‘Inverted U-shaped relation’ between state capacity and bureaucratic autonomy (Fukuyama 2013)

12 RajasthanAssamAndhra Pradesh Bihar Physical infrastructure poorVery poorPoor but improving Very poor Organisational infrastructure – staff deployment Medium (some recruitments) Quite poorGoodPoor Organisational Infrastructure – Human resource development goodpoorVery goodImproving but generally low Inter-agency coordination and integration WeakWeak/ non existent Very weak, especially with PRI and state departments Weak but growing Bureaucratic autonomy HighVery LowMedium - optimal Low

13  Civil society assisting implementation, generating awareness, ensuring accountability; M&E  Capacity to deal with criticism shows constructive engagement for improving the programme and positive learning capacity RajasthanAssamAndhra Pradesh Bihar State – civil society relations Initially strong but civil society marginalised over time Minimum/ no involvement of civil society with state; independent but scattered working Good engagement with some specific actors only, through formalised arrangements of APSSAT Hardly any engagemen t, civil society feels state does not listen/ want them involved State’s response to criticism PoorNot much criticism ResponsivePoor

14  Capacity of the state to provide information to the poorest and most marginalised is critical for generating demand and fulfilling the rights based ethos of the MGNREGA RajasthanAssamAndhra Pradesh Bihar Awareness provision PoorVery poorVery good, mainly through social audits poor

15  Locus of Initiative  Degree of analytical rigour  Mobilisation of support  Application of credible sanctions  Continuity of effort  Political feedback and legitimacy

16  The extent to which sub national actors take initiative over MGNREGA indicates their willingness to adapt/ change/ use RajasthanAssamAndhra Pradesh Bihar Degree of initiative Low – central orders followed Very Low – only orders from centre followed High number and quality of innovations Variable – person dependent

17  Reflects the extent to which MGNREGA is taken seriously  Can be seen from the analytical steps taken to resolve problems, preparation for implementation, changes in administrative structure, trainings etc RajasthanAssamAndhra Pradesh Bihar Initial preparation GoodVery minimalExtensiveMinimal Changes in admin structure SomeNoneExtensiveMinimal Problem solving Minimal Extensive

18  From within the state governments (politicians/ state structures); within department; from civil society and local power holders (Sarpanches) RajasthanAssamAndhra Pradesh Bihar Within government LowHigh Low Within DoRD staff Low/ Variable LowHigh (mix of forced and voluntary) Variable From civil society Decreasing/ negative Very LowVery low/ negligible Very Low/ negative From local power holders Positive but as negative force Low/ ignored Very Low/ excluded Low/ ignored

19  Recognition of positive actions, punishing negative actions can send strong signals and motivate  The role of social audits in identifying actions is critical RajasthanAssamAndhra Pradesh Bihar Social auditsInitially valued, now shunned Not implemented Yes but state-run/ directed, also weak follow up/ action Some but not many Recognition of positive actions None at state level Yes through promotions Some being developed Negative sanctions None Low, but being developed None

20  Personnel continuity and regular financial resources can be critical for ensuring continuity of initiatives and actions RajasthanAssamAndhra Pradesh Bihar Personnel at state level Low continuity Very low continuity High continuity & hand-overs Low but being maintained (externally) Personnel at sub-state level Low but being improved Very lowLow but being improved Low Financial systems Minimal systems, low continuity Low Continuity Strong systems, good continuity Systems being developed to improve

21  Extent of political competition – higher the competition, more the responsiveness  Perceptions about political feedback from good implementation RajasthanAssamAndhra Pradesh Bihar Political competition High – two strong parties Low – single party dominance Medium, with Congress dominance Medium, with stable government Perceptions about feedback ?HighVery highNot much

22 StateCapacityCommitmentImplementation performance RajasthanMediumLowHigh but decreasing sharply AssamLow Andhra PradeshHigh BiharLowMediumLow

23  Sub national state as a critical actor influencing implementation performance and outcomes – this influence operates through variations in capacity and commitment  Commitment and Capacity are interlinked and feed into each other  Political economy aspects play a major role in the ways in which welfare policies are implemented ◦ Actors ◦ Interests and motivations – commitment ◦ Resources


Download ppt "Deepta Chopra (IDS) and Kunal Sen (ESID – University of Manchester) Paper presented at DSA Annual Conference, Birmingham 16 th November 2013."

Similar presentations


Ads by Google