Rural Service Delivery in India

Document Sample
Rural Service Delivery in India Powered By Docstoc
					Delivering Basic Services through Local Governments in Rural

                               Dr. Meenakshisundaram
          Visiting Professor-Rural Development & Decentralized Governance
                         National Institute of Advanced Studies
                               Bangalore 560 012, India

1.     Introduction:
1.1    Efficient delivery of key public services in disadvantaged rural areas has been a
major problem worldwide. In India, key public services are generally failing rural areas
and where they are delivered, the quality is low. Most Indian States are characterized by
regional disparities in development and social indicators, with rain-fed, forest and waste
lands where the rural poor are concentrated, ending up on the losing side. The source of
the problem is not as much the lack of funds and programmes, but rather poor
performance and expenditure management of many of these programmes.

1.2    Dissatisfied with centralized approaches to delivering local public services, India
has recently adopted the strategy of decentralization to rural governments to improve
rural service delivery. The 73rd Constitutional Amendment of 1993 and the subsequent
State legislations have created three tiers of democratically elected sub-State rural local
self governments. Elections are held regularly, with most States having completed two
election cycles. Functions, functionaries and funds are being progressively, but slowly,
devolved on these local governments.

1.3    For a country of the size of India, decentralization to the sub-State level makes
immense sense. Even though, India’s rural decentralization is to increase the voice of
neglected areas and communities and to improve the match between diverse local
preferences and public services by bringing government closer to the people, the progress
so far has not been easy. Vested interests, in particular, those of State bureaucracies and

State and Central politicians have many a times erected obstacles in the way of effective,
representative and responsive rural governments.

1.4    One of the key issues in the design and implementation of rural decentralization in
India is articulating clearly the roles of different levels of government in the provision of
key public services. According to the Constitution, districts, block and villages have
responsibilities for primary and secondary education, primary health, water and sanitation,
rural infrastructure, agriculture, watershed management, rural development, etc. within
their jurisdiction. State legislations in Kerala and Karnataka, which are among the leading
States in decentralization, have attempted with varying degrees of clarity, to evolve funds
and powers on the rural local governments for efficient service delivery. Have these
attempts been successful or does a large gap still exist between de jure promises and de
facto realities?   What should the local governments be doing and which institutional
arrangement can work better for delivery of key services even in these progressive States?
In this paper we propose to examine these questions with special reference to two specific
sectors, namely Primary Heath and Drinking Water Supply.

1.5    This paper is in five sections. The next section that follows this introduction
briefly explains the evolution of Indian federalism and also gives a glimpse of the two
States covered by our study. The third section summarizes the present scenario in the
health and water supply sectors across these States, while the fourth delineates what
needs to be done in each one of these sectors. The final section summarizes the steps to
be taken for effective service delivery through local governments in India.

2.     Indian Federalism:
2.1    India the seventh largest country in the world by area and the second largest by
       population covers an area of 3.29 million square kilometers with about 15,200
       kilometers long land frontier and a coast-line of about 6,100 kilometers. Her 28
       States and 7 Union Territories have a population of about 1027 million (as per the
       2001 census). India got independence from the British rule on August 15, 1947

      and is now a sovereign democratic, socialist, secular republic, which has a written
      Constitution that came into force on January 26, 1950.

2.2   Village communities common to most agrarian economies have been in existence
      in India for over centuries. They were called “Panchayats”-council of 5 persons,
      one in every village.    Under the British rule in India the autonomy of the
      panchayats gradually disappeared owing to the establishment of local civil and
      criminal courts, revenue and police organizations, the increase in communication
      etc. Though an attempt was made to revive the panchayats at the time of enacting
      the Indian Constitution, it could not materialize. While the Central and State
      Governments were established by the Constitution in 1950, the local governments
      could get their Constitutional status only in 1993, through the Constitution 73rd
      Amendment Act, which recognized the panchayats as units of local self-

2.3   The Gramsabha (i.e. the Village Council) is the basic unit of the system. It
      consists of all persons registered as voters (i.e. persons above the age of 18 years)
      of that village. The gramsabha exercises general supervision over the gram
      panchayat (GP) which is the elected body at the lowest level. As per the
      Constitution, States with a population exceeding two million will have to
      constitute an elected three-tier system of panchayatiraj Institutions (PRIs) – at the
      district (Zilla Panchayat), taluk (Taluk Panchayat) and village (Gram Panchayat)

2.4   A key provision of the Constitution 73rd Amendment relates to the assignment of
      functions and powers to the PRIs. Since this has to be done without disturbing the
      existing federal structure of the Constitution, the amendment stipulates that the
      State legislatures may endow the PRIs with such powers and authorities as may
      be necessary to enable them to function as institutions of self-government. The
      States may also provide for devolution of powers and responsibilities for
      preparation of plans and implementation of schemes for economic development

      and social justice on the 29 subjects listed in the 11th schedule of the Constitution
      (See Annexure I). The devolution of functions and powers to the PRIs hence
      varies from State to State depending upon their commitments and ideologies. As
      of now, Kerala, Karnataka, Sikkim and West Bengal are acknowledged as the
      most progressive States in effective decentralization.

2.5   The decentralized system in Karnataka, a south western State in peninsular India
      was conceived long before the Constitution Amendment. It was conceived by a
      visionary but worldly politician Shri Abdul Nazeer Saab, who was their Rural
      Development Minister in 1983. The system which was actually put in place in
      1987 provided for only two levels of elected bodies – the lower covering a
      population of about 10,000 and called ‘Mandal Panchayat’ and the higher at the
      district level called ‘Zilla Parishad’. Wide ranging functions were entrusted to
      these local Governments, with adequate powers and finances. This model ran a
      full course of 5 years and was replaced, albeit after a break, by the next generation
      of three tier panchayats to fall in line with the Constitution Amendment.

2.6   The panchayats in the neighbouring State of Kerala did not have any such legacy
      and started on a clean slate as per the Constitution Amendment. Unlike in other
      States of India, GPs in Kerala are large in terms of their geographical area and
      population which has made them economically viable. In fact 2/3rd of the GPs
      have a population exceeding 20,000 and an area well over 10 square kilometers.
      Compared to the other Indian States, decentralization in Kerala has gone far ahead.
      From 1996-97 onwards the local governments in Kerala have been given
      mandatory functions in local level planning and development. Also, 30 – 40 % of
      the State plan funds had been transferred to them for formulation and
      implementation of development plans at the local level, with people’s
      participation, in the areas assigned to them.

3.     Current Scenario

3.1    Health:

3.1.1 Provision of health care facilities through Primary Health Centres/Community
       Health Centres (PHC/CHC) and hospitals and disease control through health
       education are the two major components in the delivery of primary health.
       Though primary health is a subject that could be entrusted to the local
       governments under the 11th schedule of the Constitution, (See Annexure 1), the
       Central Government has been implementing a number of externally funded
       programmes for health and family welfare as well as for disease control. These
       programmes are invariably carried out through vertical formations without the
       involvement of the PRIs, even in Kerala and Karnataka, where the subjects they
       cover squarely fall within the domain of the functions transferred to the PRIs.

3.1.2 The GPs in Karnataka virtually play no role in the primary health sector except
       for participating, along with the health departments officials, in campaigns like
       Pulse Polio immunization. Some GPs have contributed to the infrastructure and
       amenities in the sub-centres/PHCs like provision of water, electricity and toilets
       besides carrying out minor repairs. They also draw the attention of the health
       department bureaucracy in times of epidemics and have participated in the
       treatment of water sources when requested by the departments. The GPs do not
       have any power to set right anomalies, discrepancies, irregularities or non-
       availability of services either at the sub-centre level or at the PHC level. Their
       knowledge is quite minimal on general health and health promotion.

3.1.3 The role of the Taluk Panchayat (TP) has also been restricted to infrastructure and
       procurement. Even here, the officials of the health department play a leading role
       and make use of the TP only when required. The discussions in the TP sub-
       committee rarely cover important health issues or the management of resources
       and personnel. The situation is similar at the Zilla Panchayat (ZP) level also
       where the discussions are usually about provision of infrastructure and

       procurement. All the key activities in the delivery of primary health lie with the
       State department and the ZPs are involved at best in the construction of buildings
       through the ZP Engineering Division. The purchase of medicines has also been
       centralized through the Karnataka State Drug Logistics Society set up at the State
       level. However, in times of dire necessity the ZP does chip in with left over funds
       to meet emergency medical requirements.

3.1.4 When compared to the rest of India, urban-rural difference in the health status is
       much less in Kearala because of the wide spread availability of health facilities
       through public and private institutions in rural Kerala. With a good network of
       PHCs and sub-centres, the rural parts of Kerala have been provided with a high
       degree of health care.      The Kerala Panchayat Act (KPA) has assigned the
       management of PHCs and their sub-centres, the dispensaries and the child welfare
       centers and maternity homes to the GPs.           Vector control, immunization,
       implementation of family welfare activities, executing strategies and programmes
       for disease prevention and control as well as management of environmental
       hygiene are other functions that have been entrusted to the GPs under KPA.
       Doctors and health workers in these institutions are expected to work under the
       supervision of the GPs, even though they belong to the State Health Department
       from whom they draw their salaries.       The GPs sometimes employ staff on
       temporary basis against vacancies if the Public Service Commission or the local
       employment exchange could not offer them any candidates. They also make
       purchase of medical equipments, furniture, etc. subject to State Stores Purchase
       Rules.   Medicines and medical supplies are usually provided by the State
       department except for the purchase and supply of ayurvedic and homeopathic
       medicines which can be done by the GPs. The panchayats are also empowered to
       undertake construction works, repair and maintenance of buildings of the
       institutions assigned to them and purchase of medicines if urgently required,
       subject to availability of funds.

3.1.5 Spraying for mosquitoes is done in the villages, sometimes at the initiative of the
       GPs and sometimes at the direction of the State department. The cost of spraying
       is usually borne by the GPs. Other disease control activities are generally taken up
       by the PRIs, at the instance of the State department. All the personnel in the
       hospital/PHCs are State Government employees and their technical control rests
       with the department. Postings and transfers of health staff are made by the
       department. Very often lapses and delays by the department result in the non-
       availability of necessary staff in the institutions supervised by the panchayats.
       The training for the doctors and health staff is conducted by the department which
       is also responsible for monitoring and performance review of the medical

3.2    Drinking Water Supply:

3.2.1 Like primary health, drinking water is also a subject that can be entrusted to the
       local governments under the 11th Schedule of the Constitution. Here again, the
       Government of India has been funding substantially for execution of programmes.
       However, the guidelines for the implementation of rural water supply
       programmes under the national drinking water mission leave the selection of
       implementing agency to the State Governments. While in some States, the rural
       development and/or the Panchayatiraj Departments implement these programmes
       through the PRIs, in some other States, the implementation is directly undertaken
       through parastatals or by public health engineering departments. In some of these
       programmes, operation and maintenance (O&M) and management of the scheme
       are with the concerned community/user group/village water and sanitation

3.2.2 The normal sources of drinking water in Karnataka villages are open wells, Mini
       Water Supply Schemes (MWS), Piped Water Supply Schemes (PWS) and Bore
       Wells with Hand Pumps (BWH). In most villages, drinking water is available
       within a reasonable distance and people belonging to all categories have equal
       access to drinking water. Availability of drinking water is usually affected by

       improper quality of power supply, which causes serious problems of maintenance
       and costs. The maintenance of MWS and PWS are with the GPs and that of the
       BWH with the TPs. Even though the responsibility for maintenance of BWH has
       also been transferred to GPs just about a year ago, the engineering support for
       repairs of BWH still comes from the TPs. The user charges for water are to be
       levied and collected by the GPs.      However, in most GPs the water tariff is
       extremely low and the recovery is also not satisfactory.        The water supply
       schemes are maintained by the GPs through the watermen appointed for the

3.2.3 The responsibility for planning and implementation of all drinking water schemes
       in rural areas is with the ZP. The GPs are usually not consulted by the ZPs while
       finalizing water supply schemes. The beneficiary groups set up in several villages
       to implement centrally sponsored schemes through community participation
       sometimes act as parallel bodies, independent of the GPs concerned. The GPs
       also face shortage of materials for proper maintenance, as the procurement of
       these materials is the responsibility of the ZPs. The public opinion in the villages
       is that the GPs through their watermen are capable of maintaining the schemes,
       provided sufficient funds are available for maintenance.

3.2.4 The thrust and priority in rural water supply in Kerala has been the protection of
       traditional drinking water sources like private wells, ponds and other water
       streams.   The scattered houses and dispersed population settlements have
       historically encouraged the people of Kerala to own individual wells in their
       backyard. However, a State owned parastatal namely the Kerala Water Authority
       (KWA) is designated as the sole agency in the State for executing all water supply
       schemes as well as distribution and maintenance of these schemes. Even though a
       decision was taken to transfer about one thousand rural water supply schemes,
       which cover a single GP to the respective GPs, there has been some reluctance on
       the part of the GPs to take over these schemes from the KWA, in view of the
       refusal of the KWA to transfer the concerned staff and also the funds to the GPs.

3.2.5 Under the KPA, setting up and running of water supply schemes for the village is
       a mandatory function assigned to the GP. Planning and implementation of major
       schemes covering more than one GP in the district is the responsibility of the ZP.
       In practice, a few water supply schemes covering more than one GP within the
       block have been taken up by the TP also. There is thus some overlapping in the
       functions at different levels of PRIs in the matter of drinking water supply. In
       addition, beneficiary groups have been formed in some GPs and execution of
       works has been undertaken by these groups also.         However the beneficiary
       groups wherever they exist or the GPs maintain the assets and also levy and
       collect water charges.

3.2.6 Chlorination of water is done by the beneficiary groups or the GP with the
       assistance of the health personnel. Water samples are collected by the GP or the
       beneficiary groups and tested in the laboratories managed by the KWA or other
       State approved institutions. GP also gives subsidies to families below poverty
       line for digging open wells for drinking water. The beneficiaries for this are
       identified by the GP from the list of poor families, approved by the gramsabha.
       Since the technical personnel engaged in drinking water supply schemes in the
       village, block and district panchayats are from the KWA and their posting and
       transfer is seldom done in time, there is always a dearth of adequate number of
       suitable staff at the disposal of the PRIs for this work. This often stands in the
       way of timely implementation of water supply schemes.

3.2.7 To sum up PRIs in both these States do play a significant role in the delivery of
       drinking water. While in Karnataka, the water supply schemes are taken up by the
       technical officers assigned to the panchayats and then handed over to the
       community/GP for O&M, in Kerala, the beneficiary groups and the GP play a key
       role not only in O&M, but also in the execution of schemes. The situation in the
       health sector is, however, dismal in both the States, as both the State Governments
       and the elected representatives appear to believe that the PRIs have no role in

      primary health delivery except perhaps in occasional campaigns for disease

4     What needs to be done?

4.1   Existence of positive correlation between community participation and delivery of
      services is well recognized. Decentralization gives space for wider and deeper
      participation of citizens at the local levels.       PRIs can promote inclusive
      democratic processes, as they have a strong influence over the community. Public
      health is very much dependent on community belief and practices that have
      become a custom over time. As behavioural changes cannot take place without
      the support of the community, using PRIs can be very fruitful in ensuring positive
      health behaviour in the society.

4.2   As is well known, primary health is influenced more by good public health than
      by good medical or clinical care. Water, sanitation, nutrition and health education
      are central to the maintenance of good health and should therefore take
      precedence over clinical care. Heavy capital investments are made in hospital bed
      and equipment, but with high levels of absenteeism of staff, patient occupancy is
      low. If some of the government staff do provide good service, it is more through
      a sense of professional responsibility and personal integrity rather than through
      any incentive structure implicit in institutional arrangements. In such a scenario,
      State should concentrate more on public health than in providing health care. A
      natural corollary to this proposition is to provide public health through public
      funding which should be legitimately devolved on the panchayats so that they can
      carry out their mandate in that sector. The panchayats must be given adequate
      capacity to handle public health, in terms of training, options of accessing
      capacity and relaxation of rules so that local capacities can grow.

4.3   On the medical and clinical care, a system of allowing patients to choose their
      health provider should be put in place. The panchayats may even be given funds
      to access private doctor services if need be. For instance, a private doctor can be

      engaged on contract by a group of panchayats, the doctor can have an
      arrangement to visit each panchayat on an appointed day and collect a small
      additional fee from each patient depending upon the ailment. (In fact, a similar
      system is available for cows and buffaloes under the operation flood programme
      in India!).

4.4   Launching of the Rural Health Mission by the Government of India recently is an
      excellent opportunity to empower the local governments to manage, control and
      be accountable for public health services at various levels. The village health and
      sanitation committee, which can be made a standing committee of the GP, can
      guide all health activities at the village level and be responsible for developing a
      village health plan in consultation with the GramSabha. The GramSabha can
      monitor functioning of the health centre; availability of health workers; medicines
      and equipments; coverage of immunization; disease prevention and cure;
      identification of beneficiary for schemes; as well as people’s contribution and
      participation. It can provide an enabling environment by extending support to the
      health worker in terms of providing residence, ensuring safety and taking up
      relevant issues with the higher tiers in the health hierarchy.

4.5   Responsibility of implementing health programme should be shared by the State
      with the PRIs, with a mandate for increasing the share of PRIs as their capacities
      grow. In the multilevel federalism in India, it is imperative to clearly define the
      role of the panchayats at the village, block and district levels. Overlapping of
      functions among the three tiers, which may be inevitable to some extent, can
      cause difficulties because of poor mutual consultations and weak coordination of
      their activities in the same subject. Funds and functionaries need to be devolved
      upon each tier with clear responsibility and accountability. Activity mapping
      could be a good way of apportioning responsibilities.            For instance, in the
      Reproductive Child and Maternal Health (RC&MH) programme, the GramSabha
      should identify pregnant women and infants in the age group of 0 to 12 months.
      The GP should ensure the visit of auxiliary nurse-cum-midwife (ANM) and

      facilitate her visit by arranging mobility and stay in the villages where required.
      ANMs would identify pregnant women and infants for antenatal care and
      postnatal care and immunization respectively and would deliver these services on
      specified dates announced prior to the visit.        GPs would make necessary
      arrangement for delivery of these services in the village in the presence of the
      other members of the community. It shall be the duty of the TP to ensure that the
      services provided are available in the PHC/CHC on specific dates and required
      material input are available for delivery of services. The ZP will ensure that the
      technical staff as well as equipments and medicines are in position and necessary
      budget provision is made available to the TPs/GPs to carry out their respective

4.6   In the water supply sector, the State Government should sanction and release the
      funds to the ZP, who in turn should identify whether the water supply scheme can
      be got implemented by the TP or the GP. The TP/GP will take the lead to
      constitute beneficiary groups or the village water and sanitation committees to
      formulate and implement the programme. These groups will be responsible for
      the execution of schemes through community participation, by arranging
      community contribution towards capital costs, procuring construction material
      and goods, selecting contractors for construction activities, supervising
      construction activities, commissioning and taking over completed water supply
      work, collecting levies and managing O & M of the water supply works. The role
      of the TP/GP should be to supervise the entire process and ensure that the
      beneficiary groups implement the programme in the best interests of the
      communities and remain accountable to the Gramsabhas.

4.7   Capacity building of panchayat functionaries to discharge their roles effectively is
      equally important. Not only members of the panchayat but also the officials
      should be covered for capacity building through designated institutions. Effective
      training modules providing information on public health services at every level,
      knowledge of health issues and gender sensitivity can be centrally prepared and

       locally disseminated through a sustained and intensive training schedule for
       capacity building. The panchayats can also arrange interaction of the service
       providers with the beneficiaries to create an enabling atmosphere for better

4.8    To ensure effective implementation of health care programmes, they need to be
       monitored closely for performance. The Central and State Governments could get
       the PRIs involved in the monitoring process by developing suitable indicators to
       monitor the availability of health staff, availability and usage of resources and
       skills, structure and processes of implementation in addition to outputs/outcomes.
       Competent NGOs can also be involved in monitoring and evaluation of health
       care facilities, through rigorous report card systems.

4.9    A disturbing feature noticed in both the States is the fact that the service providers
       responsible for physical delivery of benefits are not fully accountable to the PRIs.
       While in Karnataka the officers working in these sectors at the district and sub-
       district levels administratively work under the respective panchayats, in Kerala
       these officers remain technically and administratively within the State
       Government hierarchy. The only relationship between these officers and the
       panchayats is that they are ex-officio members of the concerned sub-committees
       of the panchayats and are therefore obliged to attend the meetings of the sub-
       committees. Usually bureaucracy is reluctant to work under elected panchayats.
       A bureaucrat, as a rule, would prefer to work under his own departmental
       superiors located far away and controlling him remotely as against a political boss
       who would also be functioning very much from the same place, if not from the
       same premises.

4.10   The present day coalition governments as well as strong labour unions also
       contribute to the poor accountability of the bureaucrats to the panchayats. In a
       coalition government, portfolios are allocated among the political parties
       constituting the coalition. If the Minister for Health does not share the political

       ideology of the Minister in charge of Panchayati Raj, he would very much like to
       have his officers totally answerable to him rather than to the panchayats. The
       labour unions believe that their bargaining powers would be substantially eroded,
       if decentralization in cadres sets in. The senior officers of the line departments
       also do not wish to work under the panchayats for fear of their own future. Most
       of them generally feel that if the delivery of services in their sector is entirely
       handed over to the PRIs, either they would become redundant or their future
       prospects in service world be jeopardized. The interse seniority between the
       Chief Executive Officer of the ZP/TP and the district/block heads of the key
       service departments like health, or public health engineering is another factor
       which is responsible for the sectoral heads preferring to remain with the State
       Government rather than working under the panchayats.

4.11   It is, therefore, desirable for the PRIs to establish their own cadres in the long run
       through direct recruitment by a Local Service Commission.              Till then the
       politicians and the bureaucracy at the State level should have to be continuously
       educated to exhibit necessary political will and administrative acumen to let the
       local governments exercise full control over their employees, even if they belong
       to the State cadres.

4.12   As noted earlier, several structures and bodies have been in existence for
       delivering sectoral benefits in rural areas prior to the Constitution 73rd amendment.
       In the presumed interest of unity of command, professional integrity, operational
       efficiency and achievement of sectoral targets, departments, boards, authorities
       and corporations in each sector grew into large numbers creating their own
       vertical hierarchy down to the local level. These parastatals continue to exist even
       after the Constitution amendment, without being integrated into the new system.
       (For example, water supply in Kerala is the function assigned to the PRIs whereas
       the Kerala Act on Water Authority does not assign any role to any panchayat in
       that sector.)   A conscious decision has to be taken to annul these parallel

      structures or to bring them under the respective tier of PRIs, by amending the
      relevant sectoral legislations.

5     Conclusion

5.1   Two of the significant shifts in India, during the 21st century, have been the
      increased attention to the delivery of public services on the one hand and greater
      decentralization of responsibilities for these services on the other.            The
      decentralized local government institutions are eminently suited for service
      delivery as they can ensure equity and / or equitability in the provision of services
      (in view of their nearness to the people), inclusiveness (in view of the assured
      representation available to all sections of the society in the PRIs), accessibility,
      transparency, local participation, accountability and sustainability of services.
      However, several initiatives are required to be taken to make the local
      governments really effective in service delivery. These include:
         ensuring participatory local level planning by the PRIs to identify needs,
          levels of delivery and the enhancements desired by the people in each sector;
         assigning clearly demarcated roles to the PRIs through activity mapping;
         confining centrally sponsored and State schemes to a small number of
          important programmes to achieve declared national and State goals and also
          providing adequate space for the PRIs to participate in these schemes;
         undertaking a well structured process of administrative and fiscal devolution
          that matches the resource availability at each level of the panchayats with
          functions assigned to it;
         providing capacity to the PRIs in the widest sense of the term to perform their
          responsibilities efficiently; and
         putting in place systems of accountability by duly empowering the Gramsabha,
          so that citizens, the ultimate recipients of services, are enabled to hold the
          PRIs accountable for any inadequacies in service delivery.

5.2   Moving from a model of central provision to that of decentralization to local
      governments introduces a new relationship between national and local policy
      makers, while altering several existing relationships such as that between the
      citizens, elected politicians and the local bureaucracy. While the decentralized
      local institutions should be encouraged to take upon themselves the delivery of
      basic services, they need to be empowered suitably for the purpose. As a World
      Bank study rightly concludes the problem of implementing decentralization is as
      important as the design of the system in influencing service delivery outcomes.

    1.   Government of India, 2006. Report of the Expert Group on planning at the
         Grassroots level, Ministry of Panchayatiraj, Government of India, March,
    2.   Government of Karnataka, 2006. Annual Report of the Rural Development &
         Panchayati Raj Departments, 2004-05.
    3.   Government of Kerala, 2006. Service Delivery Project - Document paper and
         status paper on Local Self Governments.
    4.   Institute of Social Sciences, 2001. Consultation paper on “The Working of
         the Constitutional Provisions for Decentralisation – Panchayats”.
    5.   Public Affairs Centre, Bangalore, 2005.        Benchmarking India’s public
         services – A comparision across the States.
    6.   Meenakshisundaram, S.S., 2004. Decentralization in Developing Countries,
         Concept Publishing Company, New Delhi.
    7.   World Bank, 2005. “Decentralisation and Service Delivery”, World Bank
         Policy Research Working Paper 3603.


                                      Annexure I

                             "ELEVENTH SCHEDULE”
                                     (Article 243G)
1.    Agriculture, including agricultural extension.
2.    Land improvement, implementation of land reforms, land consolidation and soil
3.    Major irrigation, water management and watershed development
4.    Animal husbandry, dairying and poultry.
5.    Fisheries.
6.    Social forestry and farm forestry
7.    Minor forest produce.
8.    Small scale industries, including food processing industries.
9.    Khadi village and cottage industries.
10.   Rural housing.
11.   Drinking water.
12.   Fuel and fodder. .
13.   Roads, culverts, bridges, ferries, waterways and other means of communication.
14.   Rural electrification, including distribution of electricity.
15.   Non-conventional energy sources.
16.   Poverty alleviation programme.
17.   Education, including primary and secondary schools.
18.   Technical training and vocational education.
19.   Adult and non-formal education.
20.   Libraries.
21.   Cultural activities.
22.   Markets and fairs.
23.   Health and sanitation, including hospitals, primary health centres and dispensaries.
24.   Family welfare.
25.   Women and child development.
26.   Social welfare, .including welfare of the handicapped and mentally retarded.
27.   Welfare of the weaker sections, and in particular, of the     Scheduled Castes and
      the Scheduled Tribes.
28.   Public distribution system.
29.   Maintenance of community assets.


Shared By: