a study on the demand side of accountability in the urban...

Chapter - 4

ண்பதத்தான் ஓரா ைறெசய்யா மன்னவன்

ண்பதத்தான் தாேன ெக ம்

The inaccessible, unconsulting and unjust king sinks law in the

548

appointed by an order to a particular epartment shall communicate to him (i.e. the king) the real nature f that work and the income and expenditure (both) in detail and in e aggregate.

rthashastra – 2.9.19

எ

த

status and estimation, and perishes by himself. Thirukkural -

Therefore, he who isdoth A

93

Chapter – 4: Methodology, Survey, Validity, Reliability

This Chapter is presented in four sections. Section I deals with Sampling method, Section

itations. Section III discusses the demographic

he respondents; and Section IV deals with validity and reliability aspects of the

– II with the Survey methodology and lim

profile of t

survey.

Section I – Sampling method

Coverage

The Study has been carried out in the City of Chennai for the area under the Chennai

ion. Since the study focus was on accountability related matters, the basic sample

f Chennai City could be covered by the study.

tudy.

Corporat

criterion is citizenship. Hence any citizen o

Accordingly the samples were selected based on certain criteria specific to the s

Criteria

The criteria for the sample selection were:

on

understand the issues would be excluded from

the interview

• At least one male and one female will be interviewed in every ward

• As far as possible by making the sample criteria simple, various representative

d.

• The study has to cover all the areas coming under Chennai Corporati

• All categories of citizens need to be covered

• Only persons who will not be able to

citizenry to be covere

94

Stratified Random Sampling

above proposition, the sampling plan was made developed on “Stratified Based on the

Random Sampling” approach. The stratification primarily was geographical, secondary

was gender and at the third level - literacy. However, stress was more on the first two

criteria.

Sample size

The base for the sampling plan was 2001 Census. According to this Census, Chennai city

ad a population of 43,43,645 and considering an annual growth of 2% (based on overall

e for the study was arrived at 663.

63 was broken up first into the 10 zones and then to each of the wards

pulation. The base for

this ward wise ratio was the 20

Planned sam

h

decadal (1991-2001) growth rate of 21.5% as per 2001 Census) population of the city over

the previous year the 2009 population was estimated at 50,89,272. With tolerance of 5%

and confidence level of 99%, the sample siz

This sample of 6

based on the ratio of the Male and Female – literate and illiterate po

01 Census.

ple

Accordingly le size was arrived at as shown in Table 4-1.

ble 4-1: Ward/Zone Wise SamplWA D ZONE Sample

size ML

FL

MI FI

the samp

Ta e R WARD NAME

1 Kodungaiyur (West)

I

8 4 3 1 02 Kodungaiyur (East) 8 4 3 1 0

3 Dr.Radhakrishnan Nag(North)

ar 7 3 2 1 1

4 Cherian Nagar (North) 3 1 1 0 15 Jeeva Nagar (North) 6 3 2 1 06 Cherian Nagar (South) 3 1 1 0 17 Jeeva Nagar (South) 3 1 1 0 18 Korukupet 6 2 2 1 1

95

WARD WARD NAME ZONE Sample size

M L

F L

MI FI

9 2 1 1 0 0Mottai Thottam

10 Kumaraswamy Nagar (South) 5 2 2 1 0

11 Dr.Radhakrishnan Nagar (South) 5 2 1 1 1

12 Kumaraswamy Nagar (North) 3 1 1 0 1

13 Dr. Vijayaraghavalu

6 Nagar 3 4 1 1 1 114 Tondiarpet

II

6 2 2 1 115 Sanjeevarayanpet 2 1 1 0 016 Grace Garden 4 2 1 0 117 Ma Po Si Nagar 4 2 1 0 118 Royapuram 2 1 1 0 019 Singara Garden 2 1 1 0 020 Narayanappa Garden 2 1 1 0 021 Old Washermenpet 3 1 1 0 122 Meenakshiammanpet 5 2 1 1 123 Kondithope 2 1 1 0 024 Seven Wells (North) 2 1 1 0 025 Amman Koil 2 1 1 0 026 Muthialpet 3 2 1 0 027 Vallal Seethakadhi Nagar 4 1 1 1 128 Katchaleeswarar Nagar 5 2 1 1 129 Seven Wells (South) 2 1 1 0 030 Sowcarpet 2 1 1 0 031 Basin Bridge 57 5 2 1 1 132 Vysarpadi (South)

III

5 2 2 1 033 6 2 2 1 1Vysarpadi (North) 34 Perambur (North) 6 3 2 1 035 Perambur (East) 4 2 1 0 136 Elango Nagar 6 3 2 1 037 Perambur (South) 4 2 2 0 038 Thiru-Vi-Ka Nagar 5 2 2 1 039 Wadia Nagar 5 2 2 1 0

40 Dr.Sathiyavanimuthu Nagar 6 3 2 1 0

41 Pulianthope 3 1 1 0 142 Dr.Besant Nagar 4 1 1 1 143 Peddunaickenpet 2 1 1 0 044 Perumal Koil Garden 2 1 1 0 045 Thattankulam 3 1 1 0 146 2 1 1 0 0Choolai 47 Park Town 2 1 1 0 048 Elephant Gate 3 1 1 0 1

96


M L

F L

MI FI

49 70 2 1 1 0 0Edapalayam 50 Agaram (North)

IV

7 3 3 0 151 Chembium 7 3 3 1 052 3 2 1 0 0Siruvallur

53 Nagamaniammaiyar Nagar (North) 3 2 1 0 0

54 5 2 2 0 1Agaram (South)

55 ai Gurusamy

5 2 2 0 1ViduthalNagar (South)

56 Ayanavaram 5 2 2 0 1

57 Naganmaniammayar

uth) Nagar (So 2 1 1 0 058 Panneerselvam Nagar 6 2 2 1 1

59 Maraimalai Adigal Nagar (North) 2 1 1 0 0

60 Maraimalai Adigal Nagar (South) 6 2 2 1 1

61 Purasawalkam 2 2 0 0 062 Kolathur 12 5 4 1 263 Villivakkam (North) 76 11 5 4 1 164 Villivakkam (South)

V

1 0 5 4 1 065 Virugambakkam (North) 1 0 5 4 1 066 Anna Nagar (West) 7 3 3 1 067 Anna Nagar (Central) 5 2 2 0 168 Anna Nagar (East) 6 2 2 1 169 Shenoy Nagar 4 2 1 0 170 Kilpauk (North) 4 2 2 0 071 Gangadeeswarar Koil 2 1 1 0 072 Kilpauk (South) 6 2 2 1 173 Aminjikarai (East) 4 2 2 0 074 Aminjikarai (Central) 7 3 3 1 075 Aminjikarai (West) 8 4 3 1 076 Periyar Nagar (North) 3 2 1 0 077 Periyar Nagar (South) 3 2 1 0 078 Nungambakkam 83 4 2 2 0 079 Adikesavapuram

VI

4 2 1 0 180 Nehru Nagar 5 2 1 1 181 Chintadripet 4 3 1 0 082 Komaleeswaranpet 2 1 1 0 083 Balasubramaniam Nagar 3 1 1 1 084 Thiruvotteeswaranpet 3 1 1 1 085 Dr.Natesan Nagar 2 1 1 0 086 Chepauk 3 1 1 1 087 Zam Bazaar 2 1 1 0 088 Umarupulavar Nagar 3 1 1 1 0

97


M L

F L

MI FI

89 Thiruvallikeni 2 1 1 0 090 2 1 1 0 0Marina 91 Krishnampet 4 1 1 1 192 Bharathi Nagar 3 1 1 1 093 Azad Nagar (North) 2 1 1 0 094 Bharathidasan Nagar 4 1 1 1 195 Azad Nagar (South) 2 1 1 0 096 Vivekanandapuram 52 2 1 1 0 0

97 Anjukam Ammaiyar Nagar

VII

5 2 2 0 198 Kosapet 2 1 1 0 099 Pattalam 3 1 1 0 1100 Anbhazhagan Nagar 2 1 1 0 0101 Perumalpet 2 1 1 0 0102 Kannappar Nagar 2 1 1 0 0103 Dr.Ambedkar Nagar 2 1 1 0 0104 Chetpet 4 2 1 0 1105 Egmore 3 1 1 1 0106 Pudupet 4 2 1 1 0107 Ko-Si-Mani Nagar 5 2 2 0 1108 Nakkeerar Nagar 5 2 2 0 1109 Thousand Lights 3 2 1 0 0110 Azhagiri Nagar 2 1 1 0 0111 Amir Mahal 3 2 1 0 0112 Royapettah 2 1 1 0 0113 53 4 2 2 0 0Teynampet 114 Sathiyamoorthi Nagar

VIII

5 2 2 1 0115 5 2 2 0 1Alwarpet (North) 116 Alwarpet (South) 5 2 2 0 1117 Vadapalani (West) 4 2 2 0 0118 Vadapalani (East) 4 2 2 0 0119 Kalaivanar Nagar 4 2 1 0 1

120 Navalar Nedunchezian Nagar (East) 5 2 2 0 1

121 Navalar Nedunchezian Nagar (West) 5 2 2 0 1

122 Ashok Nagar 4 2 2 0 0123 M.G.R.Nagar 3 2 1 0 0124 Kamaraj Nagar (North) 3 2 1 0 0125 Kamaraj Nagar (South) 4 2 2 0 0126 Thiyagaraya Nagar 3 2 1 0 0127 Rajaji Nagar 3 2 1 0 0128 Virugambakkam (South) 7 3 3 1 0129 72 8 3 3 1 1Saligramam 130 Kodambakkam (North) IX 7 3 3 1 0

98


M L

F L

MI FI

131 Kodambakkam (South) 7 3 3 1 0132 Saidapet (West) 6 3 2 1 0133 rth) 3 2 1 0 0Kumaran Nagar (No134 Kumaran Nagar (South) 4 2 2 0 0135 Saidapet (East) 6 3 2 1 0

136 Kalaignar Karunanidhi Nagar 4 2 1 0 1

137 V.O.C.Nagar 3 2 1 0 0138 G.D. Naidu Nagar (East) 6 3 2 1 0

139 G.D. Naidu Nagar (South) 5 2 2 0 1

140 Guindy (West) 5 2 2 0 1141 Guindy (East) 63 7 3 3 1 0142 Bhemmannapet

X

4 2 2 0 0143 Thiruvalluvar Nagar 2 1 1 0 0144 Madhavaperumal Puram 2 0 1 1 0145 Karaneeswarapuram 3 1 1 0 1146 Santhome 5 2 2 0 1147 Mylapore 2 1 1 0 0148 Avvai Nagar (North) 3 2 1 0 0149 Raja nnamalaipuram A 4 2 2 0 0150 Avvai Nagar (South) 6 2 2 1 1151 Adyar (West) 6 3 3 0 0152 Adyar (East) 4 2 2 0 0153 Velacherry 14 6 5 2 1154 Thriuvanmiyur (West) 6 3 2 1 0155 Thiruvanmiyur (East) 74 13 6 5 1 1

Total 663 663 298 249 58 58

reality 720 persons were surveyed and 663 validated samples have been taken up for the

udy.

In

st

99

Su y Samprve les

Table 4-2: Pl and A al – stical alysi

f

umbers) is given in Table 4-2. Though there were slight deviations in the actual numbers

rveyed, it was observed that the actual survey population was statistically representing

e planned one. The p-value of Chi square test results, for every zone is above 0.05

dicating the acceptance of the samples of each of the zones at 95% level of confidence.

Z No of WARDS

CTUAL (Observed) LA xpected) SQUARE-

V

Survey an ctu Stati An s

ONE

A P N (E CHI-

p- ALUE

OML OFL OMI OFI EML E EMI EFI FL

I 13 26 21 8 8 23 21 7 9 0.8860 II 18 25 19 5 8 28 16 8 8 0.5706 III 18 30 26 8 6 26 25 6 11 0.3087 IV 14 34 28 5 9 30 26 4 12 0.6398 V 3 15 39 3 7 4 36 30 4 10 0.0937VI 18 18 22 8 4 20 18 5 9 0.1888VII 17 25 21 2 5 23 20 10 4 0.0760 VIII 16 34 29 3 6 31 26 3 11 0.4058 IX 12 30 24 6 3 27 23 8 7 0.3672 X 14 33 30 6 5 31 29 9 9 0.4008

Total 155 298 249 58 58 275 234 64 90 O – ObserveE – Expected

F – Female L – Literate

Based on the survey plan given in Table 4-1, the survey was conducted in all the ten zones

(155 wards) of Chennai. There were several practical issues while conducting the survey,

one major issue being the unwillingness of the citizens to respond to the questionnaire.

Efforts were taken to put the major points in Tamil and explain to them, as in many cases

the reluctance was from illiterate women. An attempt was made to stick to the targeted

numbers in each of the wards. The tabulation of the final set of respondents (in terms o

d

M – Male

I – Illiterate

Total Samples surveyed 663 Total Samples planned 663

n

su

th

in

100

Section II: Survey Methodology

earlier, the sampling was done through stratified random sampling method

les – literates and illiterates.

As mentioned

and sample size of 663 was arrived at. The sample size for each ward was based on the

break-up made for males and fema

Survey Map

Fig.4-1 shows the map of the Zones/Wards covered by the Chennai Corporation. The

rvey was held within this area.

nt

su

Survey Instrume

The Survey instrument (questionnaire) that was used for the survey is given in Annex-1 at

the end of this thesis.

Survey process

About 150 respondents covering all the 10 zones were covered by the researcher. The

balance respondents were covered by ten students of Vivekananda College. Based on the

experience of the researcher, structured training was given to the students during June-July

009. Operating procedures were established for ensuring good quality data, as every day

were scrutinized and in case of any discrepancies they were corrected in

2

the survey forms

the next few days by contacting the respondents. However there were less than 25 such

cases.

Pilot test survey

A pilot test survey was done with a preliminary questionnaire. A sample of 70 respondents

ey covered the male/female and

was used. This was not a stratified random sample; this was a convenient sample.

However, care was taken to see that the surv

101

literate/illiterate combinations. Some of the major findings (with regard to survey

methodology) were:

• The respondents would not give more than 15 to 20 minutes for the survey. The

survey instrument was accordingly modified;

Tamil to give explanation to the

respondents;

• Arrangement/sequencing of the questions had to be changed as the respondents

would prefer certain warm up questions and then take up serious questions.

Accordingly the instrument was modified.

• The respondents preferred to choose from alternatives rather than answering open

ended questions. Based on the responses from the pilot survey, the instruments

were revised to contain more of structured options, rather than open ended

questions;

• With regard to certain concepts like accountability, transparency, service delivery,

etc. proper examples needed to be given. The surveyors were trained and were

given a sheet containing major points in

102

Figure 4-1: The Zone/Ward Map – Chennai Corporation

103

Section III: Demographic profile of the respondents

The objectives of the study are oriented towards certain decision characteristics of the

citizens of Chennai with regard to accountability related matters and some very select

demographic profile of the respondents have been included due to the relevance of the

same to the study. The summary of demographic profile of the respondents is given in

Tables 4-10 and 4-11 at the end of this chapter.

Summary – Gender based: The Chennai Corporation area is divided into 10 zones (I to

X) with 155 wards under them (Table 4-1). Table 4-3 shows the gender break-up of the

respondents, zone wise.

Table 4-3: Gender Profile of Surveyed Population

Zone No

Male Female Total

Count Row N % Count Row N % Count Row N %

I 34 54.0% 29 46.0% 63 100.0%

II 30 52.6% 27 47.4% 57 100.0%

III 38 54.3% 32 45.7% 70 100.0%

IV 39 51.3% 37 48.7% 76 100.0%

V 46 55.4% 37 44.6% 83 100.0%

VI 30 57.7% 22 42.3% 52 100.0%

VII 27 50.0% 27 50.0% 54 100.0%

VIII 37 52.1% 34 47.9% 71 100.0%

IX 36 57.1% 27 42.9% 63 100.0%

X 39 52.7% 35 47.3% 74 100.0% Total 356 53.7% 307 46.3% 663 100.0%

The overall gender profile of the surveyed population is at 53.7 per cent Male and 46.3 per

cent Female. The sample selection across the zones is very similar and ranges between 50

per cent and 58 per cent for males and between 42 per cent and 50 per cent for females.

There are five aspects of the profile: gender, age, income, occupation and qualification.

These are examined here.

#1: Gender: Out of the total respondents of 663 for the study, 356 were males and 307

females. These constituted respectively 53.7 per cent and 46.3 per cent of the population

104

respectively. This is very near the 2001 census break up of 51.1 per cent and 48.9 per cent

respectively. The p value for the above is 0.603 in a Chi-square test conducted to find out

the male:female ratio, was similar to that of the census 2001 ratio, and the hypothesis was

accepted. Hence, the sample taken for the survey is considered statistically representing

the population proportion.

Table 4-4: Gender Profile of Respondents

Classification Count N

Break-up N %

Male 356 53.7%Female 307 46.3%Total 663 100.0%

Source: Survey

#2: Age: The respondents have been chosen from the age group 19 and above. The basis

was that the respondents should be adults capable of casting their vote in the elections.

Based on the age the respondents were divided into five groups. The representation of

these five groups was: 19 to 24 years (17.5 per cent), 25 to 35 years (33.6 per cent), 36 to

45 years (26.8 per cent), 46 to 55 years (17.0 per cent) and above 55 years (5.0 per cent).

Since no particular analysis was based on the age profile of the respondents (by design) no

particular categorization has been made.

Table 4-5 : Age Profile of Respondents

Classification Count N Break-up

N %

19 to 25 years 116 17.5%

26 to 35 years 223 33.6%

36 to 45 years 178 26.8%

46 to 55 years 113 17.0%

About 55 years 33 5.0%

Total 663 100.0%

105

# 3: Income: 31 per cent of the respondents did not have any income. This includes

persons who are unemployed, retired persons without any pension, students, housewives,

etc. Only 8.3 per cent of the respondents earned less than Rs.5,000 per month. The persons

who earned between Rs.5,000 and Rs.10,000 per month, and Rs.10,000 to Rs.15,000 per

month represented 17.6 per cent and 19.9 per cent respectively of the respondents.

Rs.15,000 to Rs.25,000 income earners were at 13.6 per cent and those who earned above

Rs.25,000 per month represented 9.2 per cent of the respondents.

Table 4-6: Income Profile of Respondents

Classification Count N Break-up %

No Income 208 31.4%

Less than Rs.5,000 55 8.3%

Rs.5,000 to 10,000 117 17.6%

Rs.10,000 to 15,000 132 19.9%

Rs.15,000 to 25,000 90 13.6%

Above Rs.25,000 61 9.2%

Total 663 100.0%

#4: Occupation: The employment profile of the sample shows that 7.7 per cent were from

the public and government sectors, 46.3 per cent from the private sector, 14.5 per cent

were self- employed, while the balance 31.5 per cent are represented by the unemployed.

The unemployed percentage correlates well with the non-earning category (discussed

under the income). However a detailed analysis of the data showed that the actual

percentage of the jobless is only 0.5 per cent of the respondents. The others under the

unemployed category were: students, retirees, housewives, etc.

106

Table 4-7: Occupation profile of Respondents

Classification Count N

Break-up %

Public Sector 51 7.7%

Private Sector 307 46.3%

Self Employed 96 14.5%

Unemployed 209 31.5%

Total 663 100.0%

#5: Qualification: Education profile of the respondents shows that 17.5 per cent of the

persons were uneducated. This category included a few persons who had not been to

school at all; those who could not continue even their primary education. 23.7 per cent had

been to school and have completed their primary or secondary education and could not

continue further. 40.1 per cent represented graduates, while 18.7 per cent was represented

by post-graduates and above and included those who were professionally qualified like

doctors and those with doctoral degrees.

Table 4-8 : Education profile of Respondents

Classification Count N Break-up %

Uneducated 116 17.5%

School 157 23.7%

Graduate 266 40.1%

PG & Above 124 18.7%

Total 663 100.0%

Limitations

The limitations in the survey could arise due to the following factors:

• Lack of understanding of the concept of governance and accountability by the

respondents;

107

• The background of the respondents varied from illiterate to PhD holders and

persons without any regular income to those who earn over Rs.25,000 a month.

This wide variation could have resulted in differences in interpretation;

• In general, there is very little awareness about various initiatives of the corporation

and what it does, across the citizens; and hence conveying the objectives of the

survey itself was found difficult

• Though many cooperated, it was very difficult to find persons who were willing to

share their ideas and spare adequate time to respond to the survey questionnaire.

Section IV: Validity and Reliability In order to validate the findings of this research, as a part of structured methodology

discussed in this chapter, validity of the research instrument and its reliability were also

tested.

VALIDITY: A test or scale is said to be valid if it measures what it purports to measure.

Validity can also be thought of as utility. A test does not possess “all-purpose” validity. A

test which is highly valid for one purpose or type of subject, may not be valid in yet

another situation. Since invalid test cannot serve any useful purpose, a researcher must

present some evidence, which provides confidence that a test measures precise

characteristics for which it was designed.

RELIABILITY: A test or scale is said to be reliable if it consistently yields the same

results when repeated measurements of a property are taken (of the same entities under

same conditions) i.e. the reliable tests are stable in whatever they measure and yield

comparable scores upon repeated administrations.

Methodology: The validity and reliability of the survey and the survey instrument was

tested by conducting retest procedures. A sample of 50 respondents selected at five (5) of

the ten (10) zones was made on a random basis. Out of these respondents 25 were re-

interviewed by the same (original) interviewer and 25 by a different interviewer. Also in

order to address the content validity, the services of experts were sought to rate the

questionnaire in a scale of 1 to 10.

108

109

Validity and reliability tests

In order to establish scientifically the reliability and validity of the research instrument and

the strength of the survey results, an evaluation was conducted to the extent possible. The

following validity and reliability tests were made:

• Validity

o Translation validity

Face

Content

Construct

o Criterion related validity

Concurrent

Convergent

• Reliability

o Inter-rater

o Test-retest

The details of the tests, the results and the interpretations thereon are given in Table-4-9.

Table: 4-9: Summary of validity and Reliability Tests Parameter Definition Test Variables Test result Inference Remarks 1. VALIDITY

1.1 Translation Validity 1.1.1 Face Validity Whether ‘on the face’ it

seems like good translation of the construct.

There is no particular test in this regard.

There are three constructs in this research: 1. ATA components

are related to each other (3 components).

2. EVLN components validation (4 components).

3. Preparedness of the citizens (2 factors).

The three components are highly correlated. The 4 components records all the possible options of citizens. The citizens knowledge and willingness to participate fairly bring out the real situation.

Hence it is inferred that there is the presence of the ‘face’ validity of the instrument and the survey, as they are able to address all the aspects of the constructs taken up for the research.

1.1.2 Content Validity The operationalization against the content domain is examined

This has been done based on the feedback of a panel of SIX experts

The variables were divided into five groups: A-T-A elements, Voice/Exit, Preparedness of citizens, Performance of the Corporation and general feedback of the citizens.

Table-4.12 gives the result of the Tabulation.

Content validity can be taken to be achieved to the extent of 80.3%, based on the average score given by the experts.

The scoring for the core aspects of ATA components and Voice-Exit components have been consistently high and uniform.

1.1.3 Construct Validity The extent to which the test may be able to measure a theoretical construct or trait.

This is measured along with reliability, discussed in point 2 below.

High degree of achievement of construct validity established.

Inter-correlation of important sections, and Cronbach’s alpha have all been high. Refer tables in Chapters 5 and 6.

1.2 Criterion-related Validity 1.2.1 Predictive Validity Ability to predict something

it should theoretically be able to predict

Not considered Not considered Not considered Not considered There is no constructs that are of predictable nature, though some

110

Parameter Definition Test Variables Test result Inference Remarks relationships can be predictable, based on accountability and performance correlations.

1.2.2 Concurrent Validity Ability to distinguish between groups that it should theoretically able to distinguish between.

The negative responses to ATA component have been highly correlated.

The three main Accountability, Transparency, Action-ability variables- No responses.

Since the positive responses (yes) are highly correlated to each other (see below) – the negatives (no) are also highly correlated.

Concurrent validity established.

1.2.3 Convergent Validity

Degree to which operationalization is similar to (converges on) other operations that it theoretically should be similar to.

Correlation between ATA components and performance.

The three main Accountability, Transparency, Action-ability variables – Yes responses.

Positives are highly correlated. Refer Table 6.4; Accountability-Transparency; and Transparency – Action-ability correlated significantly at 0.01 level and Action-ability and Accountability at 0.05 level.

Convergent validity established.

Refer chapter – 6 for detailed discussions.

1.2.4 Discriminant Validity

The degree to which the operationalization is not similar to (diverges from) other opeationalizations that it theoretically should be not similar to.

Not considered Not considered Not considered Not considered The test is not trying to specifically discriminate any respondent groups

2. RELIABILITY 2.1 Inter-rater Reliability The degree to which

different raters give consistent estimates of the same phenomenon.

Kappa coefficients for yes/no questions and Kendall’s coefficient for rating and ranking questions.

Yes/No variables 100; Ranking and Rating variables 72;

A. Original raters repeated:

Yes/No variables: Success %: 94% Kappa:0.86913 Extent of matching: V Good Ranking/rating variables:

Inter-rater Reliability established

25 cases done by different set of persons. Refer to Annex – 2 and Annex - 3

111

112

Parameter Definition Test Variables Test result Inference Remarks Kendall: 0.095812 Extent of matching: V Good B. New raters

replacing the old: Yes/No variables: Success %: 94% Kappa:0.90606 Extent of matching: V Good Ranking/rating variables: Kendall: 0.96076 Extent of matching: V Good

2.2 Test-retest Reliability Used to assess the consistency of a measure from one time to another.

Kappa coefficients for yes/no questions and Kendall’s coefficient for rating and ranking questions.

Yes/No variables 100; Ranking and Rating variables 72;

Yes/No variables: Success %: 93% Kappa:0.89328 Extent of matching: V Good Ranking/rating variables: Kendall: 0.096255 Extent of matching: V Good

Test-retest Reliability established

50 persons were retested. Refer Annex -4

2.3 Parallel Form Reliability

Used to assess the consistency of the results of two tests constructed in the same way from the same content domain.

Not considered Not considered Not considered Not considered Not applicable

Table 4-10: Summary of Demographic Variables (Count)

Demographic Variables Zone No

I II III IV V VI VII VIII IX X Total Count Count Count Count Count Count Count Count Count Count Count

GENDER Male 34 30 38 39 46 30 27 37 36 39 356 Female 29 27 32 37 37 22 27 34 27 35 307

Subtotal 63 57 70 76 83 52 54 71 63 74 663 AGE 19 to 24 years 12 11 21 14 17 9 5 6 9 12 116

25 to 35 years 25 21 14 25 16 16 30 37 13 26 223 36 to 45 years 16 14 19 12 23 16 10 25 16 27 178 46 to 55 years 7 11 13 15 23 9 6 2 19 8 113 About 55 years 3 0 3 10 4 2 3 1 6 1 33

Subtotal 63 57 70 76 83 52 54 71 63 74 663 MONTHLY INCOME

No Income 16 15 38 28 25 15 13 13 18 27 208 Less than Rs.5,000

9 5 5 8 6 1 3 7 7 4 55

Rs.5,000 to 10,000

19 16 10 7 14 8 18 10 11 4 117

Rs.10,000 to 15,000

15 13 10 15 10 9 13 22 11 14 132

Rs.15,000 to 25,000

4 5 5 11 17 8 5 8 10 17 90

Above Rs.25,000 0 3 2 7 11 11 2 11 6 8 61 Subtotal 63 57 70 76 83 52 54 71 63 74 663

OCCUPATION Public Sector 6 0 3 9 6 8 9 7 3 0 51 Private Sector 37 30 19 28 37 24 29 40 27 36 307 Self Employed 7 11 12 14 10 5 2 10 14 11 96 Unemployed 13 16 36 25 30 15 14 14 19 27 209

Subtotal 63 57 70 76 83 52 54 71 63 74 663 QUALIFICATION Uneducated 16 13 14 14 11 12 8 8 9 11 116

School 17 19 20 18 15 11 11 14 14 18 157 Graduate 23 23 30 18 35 19 27 36 22 33 266 PG&Above 7 2 6 26 22 10 8 13 18 12 124

Subtotal 63 57 70 76 83 52 54 71 63 74 663

113

Table 4-11: Summary of Demographic Variables (Percent)

Demographic Variables Zone No

I II III IV V VI VII VIII IX X Total % % % % % % % % % % %

GENDER Male 54.0% 52.6% 54.3% 51.3% 55.4% 57.7% 50.0% 52.1% 57.1% 52.7% 53.7% Female 46.0% 47.4% 45.7% 48.7% 44.6% 42.3% 50.0% 47.9% 42.9% 47.3% 46.3%

Subtotal 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% AGE 19 to 24 years 19.0% 19.3% 30.0% 18.4% 20.5% 17.3% 9.3% 8.5% 14.3% 16.2% 17.5%

25 to 35 years 39.7% 36.8% 20.0% 32.9% 19.3% 30.8% 55.6% 52.1% 20.6% 35.1% 33.6% 36 to 45 years 25.4% 24.6% 27.1% 15.8% 27.7% 30.8% 18.5% 35.2% 25.4% 36.5% 26.8% 46 to 55 years 11.1% 19.3% 18.6% 19.7% 27.7% 17.3% 11.1% 2.8% 30.2% 10.8% 17.0% About 55 years 4.8% 0.0% 4.3% 13.2% 4.8% 3.8% 5.6% 1.4% 9.5% 1.4% 5.0%

Subtotal 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% MONTHLY INCOME

No Income 25.4% 26.3% 54.3% 36.8% 30.1% 28.8% 24.1% 18.3% 28.6% 36.5% 31.4% Less than Rs.5,000

14.3% 8.8% 7.1% 10.5% 7.2% 1.9% 5.6% 9.9% 11.1% 5.4% 8.3%

Rs.5,000 to 10,000

30.2% 28.1% 14.3% 9.2% 16.9% 15.4% 33.3% 14.1% 17.5% 5.4% 17.6%

Rs.10,000 to 15,000

23.8% 22.8% 14.3% 19.7% 12.0% 17.3% 24.1% 31.0% 17.5% 18.9% 19.9%

Rs.15,000 to 25,000

6.3% 8.8% 7.1% 14.5% 20.5% 15.4% 9.3% 11.3% 15.9% 23.0% 13.6%

Above Rs.25,000 0.0% 5.3% 2.9% 9.2% 13.3% 21.2% 3.7% 15.5% 9.5% 10.8% 9.2% Subtotal 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

OCCUPATION Public Sector 9.5% 0.0% 4.3% 11.8% 7.2% 15.4% 16.7% 9.9% 4.8% 0.0% 7.7% Private Sector 58.7% 52.6% 27.1% 36.8% 44.6% 46.2% 53.7% 56.3% 42.9% 48.6% 46.3% Self Employed 11.1% 19.3% 17.1% 18.4% 12.0% 9.6% 3.7% 14.1% 22.2% 14.9% 14.5% Unemployed 20.6% 28.1% 51.4% 32.9% 36.1% 28.8% 25.9% 19.7% 30.2% 36.5% 31.5%

Subtotal 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% QUALIFICATION Uneducated 25.4% 22.8% 20.0% 18.4% 13.3% 23.1% 14.8% 11.3% 14.3% 14.9% 17.5%

School 27.0% 33.3% 28.6% 23.7% 18.1% 21.2% 20.4% 19.7% 22.2% 24.3% 23.7% Graduate 36.5% 40.4% 42.9% 23.7% 42.2% 36.5% 50.0% 50.7% 34.9% 44.6% 40.1% PG&Above 11.1% 3.5% 8.6% 34.2% 26.5% 19.2% 14.8% 18.3% 28.6% 16.2% 18.7%

Subtotal 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

114

115

Table: 4-12: Validity – Content Validity – Feedback of Experts

Name: S.Sathyamoorthy S.Radhakrishnan Raj Cherubal S.Pitchai S.S.Moogle K.Skandan Designation: Former Deputy

Controller & Audit General of India

Economist & Academician; Trustee

Coordinator Retd. Additional Sec Finance ;

Chief Accounts Officer

Joint Secretary

Organization: Ex-Govt of India and presently Advisor & Consultant

Institute of Economic Education

Janaagraha (Citizen organization on Urban Issues)

Govt of Tamil Nadu

Bangalore City Corporation

Govt of India

Involvement in urban Sector: Auditor in the Public Sector & organized the preparation of National Municipal Accounting Manual

Minimal but not zero; conducts public studies through the Institute

Full time involvement in (urban) public policy issues

Was handling Finance of Chennai Corporation; involved in urban finance of the state of Tamil Nadu

Day to day involvement in Urban reforms and Finance in Bangalore City Corporation

Was in Finance Commission; was involved deeply in Urban Sector

Objective/Construct Question Reference Your Assessment in a Scale of: 1 to 10 (1 Highly Irrelevant - 10 Highly Relevant)

Average

1. Accountability, Transparency and Action-ability are correlated

18 – 22 a – 26 a

8 8 10 8 10 8 8.67 Reasons and support for the above: 19, 20,21, 22 b, 22c, 26 b, 26 c, 26 d, 27, 28

2. Reaction of the people (voice/exit) to various services by the Corporation

25 7 8 10 8 10 7 8.33 Support and validation

through 15 3. Preparedness of the citizens

through knowledge and willingness to participate

Knowledge: 7 a, 11, 12, 24

6 8 10 8 10 5 7.83 Participation: 29 a, 23 a Reasons and support: 16, 7c, 23 b, 29 b, 29 c, 30

4. Performance of the Corporation 13 a, 14 a

6 8 10 7 9 8 8.0 Reasons and support: 13b, 14 b, 14 c,

5. General feedback from the citizens

17, 31, 32 6 8 8 7 7 8 7.33

Average 6.6 8.0 9.6 7.6 9.2 7.2 8.03

Chapter - 5

ைணனலம் ஆக்கம் த உம் விைனநலம்

ேவண்டிய எல்லாம் த ம்

The efficacy of support will yield (only) wealth; but the efficacy of action will yield all that is desired. Thirukkural – 651

He should establish (each) department with many heads and without permanency (of tenure of office). Arthashastra – 2.9.31

116

Chapter – 5: Analysis of Survey Findings

This Chapter is presented in five sections. Section I deals with the framework for analysis.

Section II discusses on the general perspectives on the analysis taken up for the study,

Section III on the ATA Model (Accountability, Transparency, Action-ability), Section IV on

the EVLN Model (Exit, Voice, Loyalty, Neglect), and Section V on the accountability

preparedness of the citizens. The analysis is based on the demand perspectives of

accountability related issues taken up in this research.

Section I: Framework for Analysis

The framework for analysis provides the basis for the planned research and also the

methodology for analysis of various issues that come up during the research. Fig.5.1

summarises various components of the framework.

Figure 5-1: Framework for Analysis

The framework given shows four main aspects:

• Research components: the research components consist of three themes taken up for

the research: ATA aspects, the EVLN aspects and the Preparedness aspects. The

analysis of this study basically surrounds these three elements;

117

• Performance: For the purpose of this research two aspects of the performance i.e.

working of the Corporation and service delivery are linked to the research

components. This means that for various aspects discussed, the performance of the

Corporation is taken in to consideration. This is to make the research field oriented

and rigorous;

• The links: Two links between performance and the research criteria have been

provided.

o Comparison link is to enable the comparison of performance and service

delivery aspects to various research variables and hence acts from an inputs

perspective;

o Research Findings link is expected to provide inputs for improving the

accountability related aspects so that there is an impact on the performance of

the Corporation.

With this framework, the entire survey is analysed in the following sections and in the next

chapter.

Section II: General Perspective of the Analysis

This demand side accountability study focuses on three major aspects:

• Aspect #1: Accountability per se based on ATA Model

• Aspect #2: Options for citizens based on EVLN Model

• Aspect #3: Preparedness for accountability based on knowledge base of citizens

Aspect #1: Accountability aspects: These focus on aspects related to accountability and

transparency prevalent in the urban sector. Hence the study is based on the urban population.

The study looks at the demand side of the accountability in the urban sector. This would

indicate that the study is based on the opinions and impressions of the citizens (who actually

demand services from the third tier of governance) on the Corporation of Chennai. Hence the

study looks at some of the key elements of the said three aspects through citizens’

perceptions and opinions about:

• Performance/working

• Service delivery

118

• Accountability

• Transparency

• Action-ability

The ATA Model: Accountability-Transparency-Action-ability model developed during this

research is used as the base for analysis. The above listed items (variables) are collectively

called as “accountability” for the purpose of the study; and sometimes referred to as

‘accountability related’ issues. Each of the above aspects is supported by relevant data and

analysis, subject to the limitations of the survey. All the analyses in this regard are done

through the ATA Model discussed earlier in this study.

Aspect #2: Options for the citizens: Another major area of this research is about the options

available for the citizens in case the services provided by the Corporation are not up to the

mark; and the citizens’ approach towards the same. These options, as per the review of

literature made in this study, are generally referred to as EVLN or Exit-Voice-Loyalty-

Neglect options. This is used as the framework for analysis of options available for the

citizens.

Aspect #3: Preparedness for Accountability: This is a major contribution arising out of the

study and was recognized during the course of this research. Two aspects have emerged as

important in this regard: one, the knowledge of the citizens about the Corporation and its

functions – (external aspect) and two, the preparedness to participate in the programmes of

the Corporation – (internal aspect). Have the citizens really understood the issues relating to

urban accountability, and have they recognized their own role in this regard? is the basic

question with which this research looks at some analysis.

The results of the survey are analysed from these three aspects. All the above aspects are

hypothesized (later in this study) for the purpose of statistically establishing the issues and

relationships between the variables taken up for the study. These provide an update on the

current situation prevailing in the urban sector of the economy. Such an understanding also

could help in generalizing the behavior (of the population) based on the sample taken up for

the research.

119

Section III: Analysis around the ATA Model

Aspect #1: Accountability Aspects through ATA Model

The accountability study examines 5 ingredients (referred to as ‘accountability related

aspects’). These five ingredients can be logically grouped in to two parts:

• performance and service delivery,

• accountability/transparency/action-ability.

Before getting into the details of accountability, two questions on the performance of the

Corporation (the way it works), need to be addressed: Do the citizens feel that the

Corporation is working fine? and Do the citizens feel that there is proper service delivery by

the Corporation?

These two leading questions are examined through the survey and their pattern to various

aspects of accountability is examined in order to link the relationship between performance

and accountability.

Q1: Performance: Do the citizens feel that the Corporation is working fine?

Table 5-1: Working of the Corporation Is the Corporation of Chennai working fine?

Frequency Percent Valid No 410 61.8

Yes 253 38.2 Total 663 100

Source: Survey output

As given in the Table-5-1, 61.8 per cent of the respondents say that the Corporation of

Chennai is not working fine. This clearly indicates that the citizens are not happy with the

performance of the Corporation.

120

Table 5-2: Reasons for Corporation: Not working fine and Working fine

Corporation Not Working fine- Reasons Frequency Percent I. Services issues

a. Drainage/sewerage not maintained 49 12.5 b. Road maintenance not done 105 26.8 c. Garbage cleaning not done 50 12.8

Sub-total I 204 52.0 II. Infrastructure issues

a. Inadequate infra 30 7.7 b. Street light not okay 11 2.8

Sub-total II 41 10.5 III. Management issues

a. Corruption 33 8.4 b. Bad behaviour of employees 15 3.8 c. Bad work culture 33 8.4 d. Rules not followed 12 3.1 e. No Management/Admin 31 7.9 f. Other Reasons 23 5.9

Sub-total III 147 37.5 Total 392 100 Total saying Corporation is Not working fine 410 Percentage giving reasons why? 95.6%

Corporation Working fine – Reasons Frequency Percent I. Services issues a. Proper Drainage maintenance 22 10.6 b. Proper Road Maintenance 42 20.2 c. Proper Garbage cleaning 56 26.9 d. Good Maintenance 41 19.7

Sub-total I 161 77.4 II. Management issues

a. Good Management/Admin 31 14.9 b. Other Positive reasons 16 7.7

Sub-total II 47 22.6 Total 208 100.0 Total saying Corporation is working fine 253 Percentage giving reasons why? 82.2% Total opined 600 90% Total respondents 663 Source: Compiled from the Survey

121

Out of the total respondents (663), about 90 per cent of them have given their opinion about

why they feel that the Corporation is working fine or not. Table 5-2 provides the complete

details in this regard99.

• Out of the 410 person who stated that the Corporation is not working fine, 95.6 per

cent - 392 persons have provided reasons for why they say so. About 52.0 per cent of

the reasons relate to various service delivery aspects, 10.5 per cent deal with

infrastructure aspects and 37.5 per cent deal with management and human resource

related aspects;

• Out of the 253 persons who were in favour of the Corporation, only 82.2 per cent

(208) justified supporting their view. 77.4 per cent of them opined that the services

provided are good and 22.6 per cent attributed their support to management related

reasons. There were no points on the infrastructure aspects.

Q2: Do the citizens feel that there is proper service delivery by the Corporation?

The issue discussed was about the overall opinion or the feeling the citizens have about the

working of the Corporation. Another query was on the ‘service delivery’ aspect. The

objective was to understand about the services delivered by the Corporation and the citizens’

opinion and evaluation of the same.

Table 5-3: Service Delivery by the Corporation

Do you think there is proper delivery of various services by Corporation?


Yes 241 36.3 Total 663 100


The respondents were further stringent in their opinion about the service delivery as 63.7 per

cent opined that there is no proper service delivery by the Corporation. This is 1.9 per cent

less than those opined that the Corporation is working fine. Here, the term service delivery

refers to various services provided by the Corporation from removal of garbage in the street

to services delivered in the Corporation hospitals or schools. 99 The reasons attributed by the respondents were not prompted; the respondents were not asked to choose from a set of reasons. The reasons they attributed for their opinion were taken and grouped as shown in the Table 5.2.

122

Table 5-4: Citizen’s evaluation of the services delivered by the Corporation

Services Delivered

Totally Unsatisfied

Unsatisfied Undecided Satisfied Totally Satisfied

Total Mean Score Rank

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9)

1. Garbage Removal

188 150 37 272 16 663 2.665 4 28% 23% 6% 41% 2% 100% 2. Road maintenance

142 201 59 237 24 663 2.698 3 21% 30% 9% 36% 4% 100% 3. Cleaning of drains

176 196 54 218 19 663 2.560 6 27% 30% 8% 33% 3% 100% 4. Issue of birth/death certificate

96 86 261 203 17 663 2.938 1 14% 13% 39% 31% 3%

100% 5. Corporation Schools

131 147 174 199 12 663 2.719 2 20% 22% 26% 30% 2% 100% 6.Corporation Hospitals

140 161 169 184 9 663 2.640 5 21% 24% 25% 28% 1% 100%

Overall 873 941 754 1313 97 3978

2.703 Unsat <-->

Undec 22% 24% 19% 33% 2%

100% Cronbach's Alpha 0.901 Source: Compiled from Survey Output

The summary of the evaluation of some of the key services delivered by the Corporation is

shown in Table 5-4. The analysis of the same shows that:

• All the respondents (100 per cent) have rated the six important services provided by

the Corporation;

• According to the overall scores (summation of scores for all the six services), it is

found that 46 per cent of the scores related to totally unsatisfied (22 per cent) and

unsatisfied (24 per cent), and is higher than satisfied (33 per cent) and fully satisfied

(2 per cent) totaling to 35 per cent. The 19 per cent of undecided classification has

been taken as neutral. This clearly indicates that the services provided by the

Corporation do not seem to satisfy a major portion of the citizens;

• The satisfied portion of 35 per cent is just less than the 36.3 per cent of the persons

who have said that they feel that the Corporation is delivering proper services (Table

5.8);

• With the help of mean ranking these six services were evaluated, the result being:

o Rank #1: Issue of birth and death certificates

o Rank #2: Corporation Schools

o Rank #3: Road maintenance

123

o Rank #4: Garbage removal

o Rank #5: Corporation Hospital

o Rank #6: Cleaning of drains

• Hence cleaning of the drains seems to be the major issue for the citizens. The recent

introduction of on-line issue of birth and death certificate could have resulted in the

best rating for the same;

• Considering the five point Likert’s scale from Totally Unsatisfied (1) to Fully

Satisfied (5), the overall average score of 2.703 classifies the net result of the analysis

as between 2 and 3 i.e. between Unsatisfactory and Undecided. Out of the six

services, only two have scores above the average indicating an overall level of

dissatisfaction;

• Cronbach’s alpha of 0.901 is high and shows uni-dimensionality of the service factor

and high reliability of the service factor. Table 5-5: Reasons for lack of proper Service Delivery?

Reasons Rank #1 Rank #2 Rank #3 Rank #4 Rank #5 Total Score Rank

1.Lack of leadership

97 97 99 68 58 419 2.745 2 23% 23% 24% 16% 14% 100%

2.Quality of people

86 104 96 82 51 419 2.780 3 21% 25% 23% 20% 12% 100%

3.Political influence

90 84 88 88 69 419 2.909 4 21% 20% 21% 21% 16% 100%

4.Corruption 118 86 65 113 37 419

2.678 1 28% 21% 16% 27% 9% 100%

5.Lack of systems and procedures

28 48 71 68 204 419 3.888 5 7% 11% 17% 16% 49% 100%

Average Score 3.000 4

5

Kendall's W = 0.101 Source: Compiled from Survey Output

The respondents, who said the Corporation was not providing desired level of service

delivery (persons who said ‘No’ – refer Table 5-3), were asked for the reasons for their

opinion. They were also asked to rank the reasons in the order of seriousness according to

them. The results of the responses are given in Table 5-5.

124

• Out of the 422 persons who said ‘No’ in Table 5-3 (indicating that the Corporation

was not providing proper service delivery) 419 (99.3 per cent) ranked various

reasons;

• The mean scores have been taken for the purpose of ranking;

• The rankings are as follows:

o Rank #1: Corruption

o Rank #2: Lack of leadership

o Rank #3: Quality of people

o Rank #4: Political influence

o Rank #5: Lack of systems and procedures

• Corruption seems to be the major issue for the lack of proper service delivery by the

Corporation. Human resource aspects like lack of leadership and inadequate quality

of people are ranked next. However there is quite a gap in the score between the

political influence ranked fourth and the lack of systems and procedures ranked last;

• The average score for all the five taken together is 3.000 and would find a place

between the 4th and 5th ranks, indicating that the overall ranking is quite low;

• A very low Kendall’s W (0.101), indicates a very low concordance or association in

the way the respondents ranked.

Examination of the A-T-A Model

Accountability

Having discussed the working of the Corporation, and also having done an evaluation of its

service delivery, the study looks at the opinion of the citizens on ‘whether the Corporation is

acting in an accountable manner?’ This question is the core of the research. What is the

opinion of the citizens, why do they say so and according to them, who is actually

accountable in the Corporation? are the issues that are examined.

Table 5-6: How Accountable is Chennai Corporation Do you think Chennai Corporation is acting in an

accountable manner towards citizens?


Yes 311 46.9 Total 663 100


125

According to the survey, 53.1 per cent of the citizens feel that the Corporation is not acting in

an accountable manner towards the citizens. Only 46.9 per cent feel that the Corporation is

behaving in an accountable manner. This opinion on the accountability of the Corporation is

different from the citizens’ opinion on: (a) whether the Corporation is working fine (No -

61.8 per cent - Table 5-1) and (b) whether there is proper services delivery (No – 63.7 per

cent - Table 5-3). This indicates that many of the respondents were not happy with the

services provided by the Corporation feel that the Corporation is not acting in an accountable

manner.

Table 5-7: Relationship between Accountability - Working and Service delivery

Do you think chennai corporation is acting in an accountable manner towards citizens?

No Yes Total

Count Column

N % Row N

% Count Column

N % Row N

% Count Column

N % Row N

% According to you, is the Corporation of Chennai working fine?

No 294 83.5% 71.7% 116 37.3% 28.3% 410 61.8% 100.0%

Yes 58 16.5% 22.9% 195 62.7% 77.1% 253 38.2% 100.0%

Total 352 100.0% 53.1% 311 100.0% 46.9% 663 100.0% 100.0%


No 287 81.5% 68.0% 135 43.4% 32.0% 422 63.7% 100.0%

Yes 65 18.5% 27.0% 176 56.6% 73.0% 241 36.3% 100.0%

Total 352 100.0% 53.1% 311 100.0% 46.9% 663 100.0% 100.0%

Source: Compiled from Survey Output

Table 5-7 clearly brings out the relationship between the variables. The analysis shows that:

• Of the 410 respondents who were not satisfied with the working of the Corporation

(by responding ‘No’), 28.3 per cent have said that the Corporation is working in an

accountable manner;

• Of the 422 respondent who said the services delivery of the Corporation was not up to

the mark (by responding ‘No’), 32 per cent have said that the Corporation is working

in an accountable manner;

• Of the 253 respondents who were satisfied with the working of the Corporation (by

saying ‘Yes’), 16.5 per cent of them have opined that the Corporation was not

working in an accountable manner;

126

• Of the 241 respondents who were happy with the service delivery of the people (by

saying ‘Yes’), 18.5 per cent have felt that the Corporation is not acting in an

accountable manner;

• Hence the respondents have been quite independent in their opinion.

The significance of the relationship was found out through statistical analysis, as shown in

Table 5-8.

Table 5-8: Analysis of the relationships: Accountability - Working and Service Delivery

A. Correlation Tests

Working of the

Corporation

Service delivery

Accountability

Working of the Corporation

Phi Coefficient 1 .542** .475** Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 N 663 663 663

Service delivery Phi Coefficient .542** 1 .396** Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 N 663 663 663

Accountability Phi Coefficient .475** .396** 1 Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 N 663 663 663

**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). B. Chi-Square Tests

Do you think chennai corporation is acting in an accountable manner

towards citizens? According to you, is the Corporation of Chennai working fine?

Chi-square 149.500 Df 1 Sig. .000*


Chi-square 103.735Df 1Sig. .000*

*. The Chi-square statistic is significant at the 0.05 level. Source: Compiled from Survey Output

The statistical analyses of the relationships show that both the correlation through the high

Phi coefficient (significant at 0.01 level) and the relationship between the variables through

Chi-square values (significant at 0.05 level), establish the relationship stating that

accountability is strongly related to both working of the Corporation and its service delivery.

The null hypothesis that there is no correlation between the variable (ATA) is rejected with

0.000 p-value.

127

Having established the relationship between the three variables of working, service delivery

and accountability, the study looked at the perception of respondents as to whom they hold to

account in the Corporation. Accountability is always linked to one or a set of persons who

is/are expected to deliver the services and be answerable to the citizens. The respondents

ranked the personnel of the Corporation with regard to whom they hold as accountable. The

results are shown in Table 5-9.

Table 5-9: Who is accountable in the Corporation?

Designation Rank

#1 Rank

#2 Rank

#3 Rank

#4 Total Mean

Score Rank

1. Mayor 167 206 193 88 654

2.309 3 26% 31% 30% 13% 100%

2. Commissioner 202 231 137 84 654

2.157 1 31% 35% 21% 13% 100%

3. Elected representative 238 126 190 100 654

2.232 2 36% 19% 29% 15% 100%

4. Employees of Corporation 47 91 134 382 654

3.301 4 7% 14% 20% 58% 100%

Kendall's W = 0.173 Source: Compiled from Survey output

Most of the respondents (654 out of the 663 respondents) i.e. 98.3 per cent have identified

and ranked the accountable persons. The analysis of the ranking shows that:

• The Commissioner is ranked first, indicating that the operational head is considered

most important;

• The elected representatives are ranked the next, as the person is nearest to the citizens;

• Mayor ranks only the third, possibly due to his role just as a policy maker;

• The respondents have ranked the employees of the Corporation the last.

Key points arising out of the analysis are:

• The stress on the accountability seems to be on the operational aspects - doing

operations properly with support from and monitoring by the operational chief i.e. the

Commissioner;

• This could have been due to the feeling that, if from higher levels the operational

persons are held responsible for their work and made accountable, they would

perform better.

128

The reasons as to why the Corporation (its employees) is (are) not acting in an accountable

manner was examined. The respondents ranked the various reasons underlying the lack of

accountability. Table 5-10 provides the tabulation of the results.

Table 5-10: Reasons for lack of accountability

Reasons for lack of accountability

Rank#1 Rank#2 Rank#3 Rank#4 Rank#5 Rank#6 Rank#7 Total Mean Score

Rank

1. Not bothered about the city or citizens

137 219 105 63 55 31 46 656 2.936 2 21% 33% 16% 10% 8% 5% 7% 100%

2. Bothered about their gains

248 126 97 59 60 40 26 656 2.666 1 38% 19% 15% 9% 9% 6% 4% 100%

3. Not properly instructed/trained

111 86 119 131 84 81 44 656 3.625 3 17% 13% 18% 20% 13% 12% 7% 100%

4. Not committed 82 79 115 138 87 73 82 656

3.939 4 13% 12% 18% 21% 13% 11% 13% 100%

5. They actually do not know what to do

35 63 91 90 148 128 101 656 4.586 5 5% 10% 14% 14% 23% 20% 15% 100%

6. Rules not strict to punish guilty

25 44 76 101 113 188 109 656 4.880 6 4% 7% 12% 15% 17% 29% 17% 100%

7. No public scrutiny of performance

18 39 53 74 109 115 248 656 5.368 7 3% 6% 8% 11% 17% 18% 38% 100%

Kendall's W = 0.216


The analysis of the reasons for lack of accountability, based on mean scores, shows the

following ranking pattern:

• Rank#1: Bothered about their gains

• Rank#2: Not bothered about the city or the citizens

• Rank#3: Not properly instructed or trained

• Rank#4: Not committed

• Rank#5: They actually do not know what to do

• Rank#6: Rules not strict to punish the guilty

• Rank#7: No public scrutiny of performance.

Some key observations in this regard are:

129

• The prioritization shows people centric reasons to be the main issues. The employees

are bothered about themselves (Rank#1) and not bothered about the citizens

(Rank#2);

• Those related to systems – in terms of punishing the guilty (Rank#6) or public

scrutiny (Rank#7) – seem to take a back seat. This augurs well with the low ranking

for systems and procedures (Table 5-10), indicating the consistency in the response.

An evaluation of the accountability relationship with the Corporation and within the

Corporation was examined. Table 5-11 provides an insight into this aspect.

Table 5-11: Accountability relationships with and in Corporation

Accountability Relationships

Very Low

Low Okay Good Very Good

Total Mean Score Rank

1. Do you think there is a system by which the Corporation employees are able to explain their conduct and justify the same

218 291 132 21 1 663

1.938 4 32.9% 43.9% 19.9% 3.2% 0.2% 100.0%

2. To what extent you think you can pose questions on the performance of people

229 232 170 30 2 663

2.011 3 34.5% 35.0% 25.6% 4.5% 0.3% 100.0%

3. To what extent are the mechanism to pass judgement on the conduct of persons who do not perform

215 255 159 30 4 663

2.024 2 32.4% 38.5% 24.0% 4.5% 0.6% 100.0%

4. To what extent you think guilty or wrong doers may face the due consequences

219 229 185 25 5 663

2.027 1 33.0% 34.5% 27.9% 3.8% 0.8% 100.0%

Overall 881 1007 646 106 12 2652 2.000 LOW 33.2% 38.0% 24.4% 4.0% 0.5% 100.0%


The scoring and ranking of various accountability relationships with and in the Corporation

show that:

• All the 663 (100 per cent) of the respondents have given their inputs;

• In the Likert Scale of Very Low (1) to Very Good (5), the average has been only at

2.000 indicating that on an average the assessment of the accountability relationship

is LOW;

• The respondents also feel that:

130

o There is no system by which the employees can explain their conduct and

justify the same – this option is with the least mean score (1.938 – Rank #4 -

weakest);

o The chance that the guilty or the wrong doers may get punished could be

relatively higher than the other alternatives given – with a mean score of

2.027 and Rank #1.

• The statistical analysis of the items show that:

o Cronbach’s alpha is high at 0.866, indicating a high consistency and reliability

in the items;

o ANOVA shows a F value of 4.917 rejecting the null hypothesis and

confirming that there is significant difference in the way the respondents

have scored the relationships;

o Single measure intra class correlation = 0.617, indicting the high uniformity in

the response.

It could be summarized that by properly monitoring and guiding the employees by the

accountable persons in the Corporation, the self-centric attitude of the employees could be

changed to make them more accountable. That is the reason why even as accountable

persons, the employees are ranked the last. The citizens opine that the responsibility for

accountability is at senior levels.

Transparency

Transparency is another key issue that has been taken for study. As discussed in the literature

survey, transparency is considered an integral part of accountability. In fact these two terms

are generally used together, and many a time used interchangeably. While accountability

makes an organization or a person answerable, transparency provides information on the

accountability. Only when there is information about the performance of an

organization/person, and such information is shared with the concerned stakeholders can the

accountability be monitored.

Corporation being an organization of the citizens should have transparent mechanisms for

providing information about its performance. As important stakeholders the citizens have a

right to the information. There are several detailed information about its accountability

available with the Corporation, which could be shared with all the stakeholders, the citizens

131

being the most important of them all. These information relate to the budget, plans, the

progress of various schemes, and so on.

Table 5-12: Transparency – Information about the Corporation

Information about the Schemes and Performance of the Corporation


Yes 182 27.5 Total 663 100

Source: Survey Output

According to 72.5 per cent of the respondents there is no information flow from the

Corporation, indicating that there is lack of transparency. Even the persons who stated that

the Corporation is acting in an accountable (Table 5.6 – 46.9 per cent) manner, have felt that

there is lack of required transparency.

Table 5-13: Relationship between Accountability and Transparency

Accountability

No Yes Total

Count Row N %

Column N % Count

Row N %

Column N % Count

Row N %

Column N %

Transparency No 296 61.5% 84.1% 185 38.5% 59.5% 481 100.0% 72.5%

Yes 56 30.8% 15.9% 126 69.2% 40.5% 182 100.0% 27.5%

Subtotal 352 53.1% 100.0% 311 46.9% 100.0% 663 100.0% 100.0%


The relationship between transparency and accountability is examined further, from Table 5-

13:

• Of the respondents who said there was no proper accountability in the Corporation

(352), 30.8 per cent say that Corporation is transparent;

• Of those who were positive on the accountability (311), 38.5 per cent of them opine

that there is no transparency in the Corporation.

132

Table 5-14: Correlations between Accountability and Transparency

Accountability Transparency

Accountability Phi Coefficient 1 .275**

Sig. (2-tailed) .000 N 663 663

Transparency Phi Coefficeint .275** 1 Sig. (2-tailed) .000 N 663 663

**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). Source: Survey Output

The correlation run between accountability and transparency shows that (Table 5-14) the

correlation is significant at 0.01 level with 0.275 as Phi coefficient. The analysis of

relationship between transparency and the working, service delivery of the Corporation

shows a very highly correlated relationship. Transparency and Working of the Corporation

has a Phi co-efficient of 0.352, and the relationship between Transparency and Service

delivery is also strong with 0.308 Phi co-efficient, indicating significant correlation between

the variables at 0.01 level (Table 5-15).

Table 5-15: Correlations between Transparency, Working and Service delivery

Transparency Working Service

delivery Transparency Phi Coefficient 1 .352** .308**

Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 N 663 663 663

Working Phi Coefficient .352** 1 .542** Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 N 663 663 663

Service delivery

Phi Coefficient .308** .542** 1 Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 N 663 663 663

**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). Source: Survey Output

All the above points examine the relationship of transparency with other aspects of

accountability analysis, Table 5-16 seeks to examine as to why people say the Corporation is

not transparent.

133

Table 5-16: Reasons why people say Corporation is not Transparent

Negative Positive Total Importance

1.Information not available 231 238 469 2 49% 51% 100%

2.No system of informing public 211 258 469 1 45% 55% 100%

3.No info is provided through Media

296 173 469 3 63% 37% 100% 4.I am not aware about any information

305 164 469 4

65% 35% 100% 5.I am not interested in any information

379 90 469 X 81% 19% 100% Source: Compiled from Survey Output

The analysis of the Table 5-16 shows that:

• Out of the 481 people who said that the Corporation is not transparent, 469 (97.5 per

cent) have ranked key reasons in the order of importance;

• People feel that there is no system for informing the public about the matters related

to the Corporation, followed by information is not available (that the Corporation is

not prepared to share);

• Information not being provided through media like TV, new papers etc. is also

another opinion;

• One set of respondents say that they are not aware of any such information made

available;

• 19 per cent of the persons who opted to opine (13.6 per cent of the total surveyed),

have stated that they are ‘not interested in any information’ from the Corporation.

This is quite a shocking revelation. This shows the indifference of a set of

respondents. Table 5-17: Rating the Information is available

Totally

Unsatisfied Unsatisfied Undecided Satisfied Fully

Satisfied Total Mean

Score Rank

1.Accessibility 3 17 46 106 8 180

3.550 1 2% 9% 26% 59% 4% 100%

2.Relevance 2 12 74 78 14 180

3.500 2 1% 7% 41% 43% 8% 100%

3.Quality 6 12 72 70 20 180

3.478 3 3% 7% 40% 39% 11% 100%

Overall 11 41 192 254 42 540

3.509 Undec

<-> Satis

2% 8% 36% 47% 8% 100%


134

In order to get a complete idea about the transparency issues, the opinion of the persons who

say that the Corporation is transparent was also taken. Table 5-17 shows the way such

respondents have evaluated the information available. The main points arising out of the

analysis are:

• Out of the 182 who stated that the Corporation provides transparent information, 180

(98.9%) have evaluated the information characteristics;

• Accessibility, relevance and quality have been rated 1st to 3rd ranks respectively;

• The scores are in the region of 3.5 and the overall average (mean) score is 3.509,

indicating that the overall rating is tending towards satisfaction levels;

• The statistical analysis of the data reveals the following:

o Cronbach’s Alpha = 0.858, indicating the consistency and reliability of the

items;

o In ANOVA, the F score of 1.091 indicates the acceptance of the hypothesis

that there is uniform rating by the respondents with p= 0.337;

o Single measure intra class correlation = 0.669, indicting the high uniformity in

the response.

While most of the respondents feel that the information is not available and there are also

reasons as to why they do not get the information (from ‘not being provided by the

Corporation’ to ‘not interested in getting the information’), the persons who get the

information seem to feel quite satisfied with the information.

Table 5-18: Interested in Info from Corporation

Will you be interested in getting information about their working/Performance of corporation?

Frequency Percent Valid No 252 38

Yes 411 62 Total 663 100


Having analysed the information availability, the research looked at whether the respondents

are really interested in getting the information and if yes, what type of information they

would like to get from the Corporation.

135

Table 5-18 shows that 62 per cent of the respondents have evinced interest in getting

information from the Corporation. This number is considered quite low, as it is felt that at

least those persons who have opined that the Corporation is not transparent (72.5% - Table 5-

07) would demand information from the Corporation. This shows that there is certain amount

of indifference in the attitude of the respondents.

Table 5-19: Analysis of the attitude of respondents on Transparency

Transparency

No Yes Total Count Row N

% Column

N % Count Row

N % Column

N % Count Row N

% Column

N % Will you be interested in getting information about their working/Performance of corporation?

No 220 87.3% 45.7% 32 12.7% 17.6% 252 100.0% 38.0%

Yes 261 63.5% 54.3% 150 36.5% 82.4% 411 100.0% 62.0%

Total 481 72.5% 100.0% 182 27.5% 100.0% 663 100.0% 100.0%


Table 5-19 analyses the attitude of the persons with regard to their idea on transparency and

the information requirements.

• Out of 481 respondents who said that the Corporation was not transparent, 45.7% of

them have opined that they will not be interested in getting information from the

Corporation;

• Out of the 182 respondent who said that the Corporation was transparent 17.6% say

that they will not be interested in getting information from the Corporation;

• In all about 252 respondents (38%) seem to behave in an ‘indifferent way” towards

matters relating to transparency;

• This dichotomy in the behavior of the respondents requires deeper considerations.

In order to complete the discussions on transparency and information requirements of the

respondents, a prioritization of the key information required was done by the respondents.

According to the prioritization, the following information in that order is considered

important:

• Information on the ward works - how the local projects are progressing (taking place

in the respective wards and directly affecting the citizens);

136

• Financial information on how the money has been spent (expenditure related

information);

• Tax collection information (how far the Corporation is able to generate its own

revenues);

• Budget to actual details – indicating the extent of achievement of the budget (plans).

Table 5-20: Key Information required by Citizens

Key information requirements

Rank #1

Rank #2

Rank #3

Rank #4

Total Mean Score

Rank

1.Ward work Status 173 93 101 108

475 2.303 1 36% 20% 21% 23% 100%

2.Financial information (how money has been spent)

131 122 113 109 475 2.421 2

28% 26% 24% 23% 100%

3.Tax collection details

95 154 134 92 475 2.469 3 20% 32% 28% 19% 100%

4.Budget to Actual information

76 106 127 166 475 2.806 4 16% 22% 27% 35% 100%


Table 5-20 gives various details in this regard. 475 respondents (71.6%) have indicated they

would like to have these information. To summarize aspects relating to transparency and in

particular the preferences and attitudes of the citizens in this regard requires a deeper

examination. There are also some aspects relating to ‘indifferent behaviour’ by the citizens

that need to be taken into cognizance in order to understand various issues underlying.

Action-ability

The term action-ability has been derived during the course of the research and discussed

earlier in Chapter 3. According to the conceptual framework in the A-T-A (accountability –

transparency - action-ability) continuum, without proper arrangements for action-ability no

organization can achieve the objectives/benefits of accountability and transparency. This

concept in a basic way is considered in this research.

The action-ability in a Corporation, from the perspective of citizens, commences with the

ease of approachability. This means that for any requirement when a citizen approaches the

137

Corporation, it should be able to respond immediately and take action, based on the

immediate requirements. This, however, is only one aspect of the action-ability of the

Corporation. The respondents were asked as to whether they had approached the Corporation

for any help or for lodging any complaint. The responses are given in Table 5-21. This table

needs consideration along with Table 5-22 on the knowledge about the redressal mechanism

in the Corporation. Table 5-21: Complaints lodged to Corporation

Have you lodged any complaint so far to the Corporation authorities? Frequency Percent

Valid No 635 95.8 Yes 28 4.2 Total 663 100


Table 5-22: Knowledge of Grievance Redressal Do you know that the Corporation has a grievance

redressal mechanism?


Yes 234 35.3 Total 663 100


Only 4.2 per cent of the respondents have ever lodged a complaint to the Corporation

authorities. This seems rather a very low number. While the reasons behind why others have

not lodged complaint need to be studied as much as the experience of those who lodged

complaints requires examination, only 35.3 per cent of the respondents know that the

Corporation has a grievance redressal mechanism. This is a very important issue. This means

that the citizens, even if they have some issues which requires attention by Corporation

(issues where the citizens are bound to suffer), they may not lodge a complaint to the

Corporation. Table 5-23: Why complaints were not lodged

Reasons for not contacting No Yes Total Rank

1. No problems faced 400 263 663

1 60% 40% 100%

2. Not aware whom to contact 498 165 663

4 75% 25% 100%

3.I feel Corporation will not take any action

445 218 663 2

67% 33% 100%

138

Reasons for not contacting No Yes Total Rank

4.Due to corruption I do not feel like contacting

485 178 663 3

73% 27% 100%

Overall 1828 824 2652

69% 31% 100%

Source: Compiled from Survey

Table 5-23 provides an insight into the main reasons as to why people have not lodged

complaints at the Corporation. Each of the respondents were asked to rank various reasons.

• The main reason (40 per cent of respondents) seems to be that many respondents did

not have an opportunity or problem to face. This may not be solely due to the proper

service delivery by Corporation, the complaints are invariably lodged by the landlord

or the house/apartment owner, or by someone else in the family/household/building;

• 33 per cent of the respondents feel that the Corporation will not take any action, and

hence they remained silent;

• Corruption is the reason attributed by 27 per cent of the respondents, for not lodging

complaints;

• 25 per cent of the persons seem to be not aware of whom to contact, in case of any

issues requiring action;

• Overall only 31 per cent of the responses were positive about their experience while

contacting the Corporation. This is considered extremely low, particularly when there

is a grievance redressel mechanism and also a population which seems not to be very

happy about the services delivered by the Corporation.

The analysis of the experiences of the persons who lodged complaints provide us an insight

into the working of the grievance redressal mechanism present in Chennai Corporation. Only

4.2 per cent (28) of the respondents (663) have lodged complaints, and this seems very small;

and possibly is the true reflection of reality.

139

Table 5-24: Analysis of the Complaints Redressal

I. Nature of complaint

Complaint Nos Break-up Drainage problem 10 36% Garbage problem 6 21% Road problem 6 21% Street light problem 3 11% Water supply problem 3 11%

Total 28 100%

II. Complaint Redressal

How handled Nos Break-up No response 3 10% Not solved 9 32% Solved but delayed/improperly 8 29% Solved 8 29%

Total 28 100%

III. Satisfaction levels

Rating Score Break-up Totally Unsatisfactory 11 40% Unsatisfactory 6 21% Okay 4 14% Satisfactory 6 21% Fully Satisfactory 1 4%

Total 28 100%

Mean Score 2.286 Unsat Okay


Table 5-24 provides the three aspects of the complaints redressal mechanism: the nature of

the complaints lodged, how they were resolved, and the satisfaction levels of the respondents:

• Nature of the complaints: 36 per cent related to drainage problems100, 21 per cent

each with regard to garbage and road problems, and 11 per cent each were street light,

water supply related problems (though some of these are not directly related to

Corporation);

• Redressal: For 10 per cent of the complaints there was no response at all and 32 per

cent of the complaints were not solved at all. This means 42 per cent of the

complaints remain as such. This is an extremely important point, as this could

100 Refer Table 5-4 where drainage clearing has been expressed as the major issue in service delivery by the Chennai Corporation.

140

influence the other citizens not to lodge any complaint. 29 per cent of the cases were

solved, and another 29 per cent delayed but solved or not fully solved.

• Satisfaction levels: 40 per cent of the complainants feel totally unsatisfied, while 21

per cent feel unsatisfied. This puts the level of not satisfied persons at 61 per cent -

and this summarizes the overall pulse. While 14 per cent say okay, only 25 per cent

are satisfied (21 per cent satisfied and 4 per cent fully satisfied). The overall score of

2.286 regards the overall satisfaction level as - between unsatisfactory and okay (more

towards unsatisfactory).

All the above points provide an insight into one aspect of action-ability of the Corporation. In

order to understand the ideas of respondents from the perspective of action-ability, the

respondents were asked to prioritize various aspects of action items in this regard. The results

of the responses are given in Table 5-25.

Table 5-25: Action-ability Action Points

Inputs to improve action-ability

Rank #1

Rank #2

Rank #3

Rank #4

Rank #5

Total Mean Score

Rank

1. Technical service delivery 129 159 155 91 123 657 2.878 3

20% 24% 24% 14% 19% 100%

2.Proper use of the tax money collected

103 113 140 165 136 657 2.857 2 16% 17% 21% 25% 21% 100%

3.Coordination, monitoring and follow up of work

131 92 102 111 221 657 2.782 1 20% 14% 16% 17% 34% 100%

4.Public relations 103 113 140 165 136 657

3.180 4 16% 17% 21% 25% 21% 100%

5.Strong Administration 131 92 102 111 221 657

3.303 5 20% 14% 16% 17% 34% 100%


The ranking provided by the respondents prioritize the chief action points.

• Rank #1: Coordination, monitoring and follow-up of work gets priority;

• Rank #2: Proper use of the tax money collected. This is an action point as the

respondents feel that if there is focus on the proper use of money collected, then

proper action will be taken. This also supports the follow-up action;

• Rank #3: Technical service delivery is in relation to the works done by various

departments like Engineering, Health, etc. within the Corporation. By being

141

technically sound there may not be any serious necessity for complaints. At the same

time availability of technically sound teams can help in addressing various issues;

• Public relations and strong administration seems less important in relation to the other

two choices and hence the scoring for these options have been less;

Section IV: Analysis around the EVLN Model

Aspect #2: Options for Citizens – the EVLN Model

Various observations have been made with regard to the aspect#1 on accountability through

the ATA model and the working/performance and service delivery aspects of the

Corporation. In general it was observed that the respondents were not that happy with regard

to most of the key issues taken up for the study. In order to examine the causes for at least the

major ones, an analysis of the options available for the citizens, when they confront problems

with the Corporation is taken up for the study.

As discussed in detail in Chapter-3, the principal concept here is

‘Exit/Voice/Loyalty/Neglect’ or EVLN model. That is in a confronting situation where a

citizen faces problem with the provision of public services he/she either ‘voices’ his/her

opinion or ‘exits’ from the scene. Alternately the person could be ‘loyal’ and tolerate or be

indifferent and hence ‘neglect’. The behavior in this regard would depend on two dimensions:

an active-passive dimension (Action dimension) and a positive-negative dimension

(Tolerance dimension). Hence between these two dimensions there are four major options

available - EVLN. These are being examined in order to understand the issues mainly from

the demand (citizen) perspective, so that the supply (policy makers) could accordingly

respond. Table 5-26: EVLN Options for citizens

Services Provided by

Corporation EXIT VOICE LOYAL NEGLECT Total

Action/ Action/ Inaction/ Inaction/

Negative Positive Positive Negative

1.Corpn Hospital

339 237 50 32 658 51.5% 36.0% 7.6% 4.9% 100.0%

2.Corpn School

340 201 59 58 658 51.7% 30.5% 9.0% 8.8% 100.0%

3. Roads

235 295 91 37 658 35.7% 44.8% 13.8% 5.6% 100.0%

4.Sewerage, Drainage 216 344 71 27 658 32.8% 52.3% 10.8% 4.1% 100.0%

142

Services Provided by Corporation

EXIT VOICE LOYAL NEGLECT Total

Action/ Action/ Inaction/ Inaction/

Negative Positive Positive Negative

5.Garbage removal

211 337 87 23 658 32.1% 51.2% 13.2% 3.5% 100.0%

6. Issue of birth/death certificate

267 214 86 91 658 40.6% 32.5% 13.1% 13.8% 100.0%

Total 1608 1628 444 268 3948 40.7% 41.2% 11.2% 6.8% 100.0% Action/ Inaction 82.0% 18.0% 100.0% Positive/Negative 52.5% 47.5% 100.0% Source: Compiled from Survey Output

Table 5-26 shows options chosen by the respondents. Six different service delivery aspects:

Hospital, School, Roads, Sewerage/drainage, Garbage removal and issue of birth/death

certificates were taken up for the study for the examination of the choices opted by them.

• Action Dimension – the Action-inaction components:

o It is seen that Voice (41.3 per cent) and Exit (40.7 per cent) predominate the

choice;

o Loyalty (Tolerance) (11.2 per cent) and Neglect (6.8 per cent) seem to be

relatively less;

o The action choices thus dominate at 82.0 per cent and the inaction choices are

at 18.0 per cent;

• Tolerance Dimension: Positive-negative components:

o The positive choices Voice (41.3 per cent) and Loyalty (11.2 per cent) are

marginally more at 52.5 per cent;

o The negative choices Exit (40.7 per cent) and Neglect (6.8 per cent) are

marginally less at 47.5 per cent.

The implications are, in the order of the popularity of the choices, as follows. The

combination of the two dimensions Action x Tolerance result in four combination situations:

• Action/Positive: Voice option: When the citizen is not happy about the services

delivered, he generally chooses to complain. In case the complain system does not

work and he desperately requires those services, then he has other options. In general,

a citizen will raise his/her voice or complain – provided there is a redressal

mechanism and is working properly. This is what 41.3 per cent of the respondents

have opted for;

• Action/Negative: Exit option: When the services delivered by the Corporation are not

up to the mark, the citizen will chose to exit – provided an option is available.

143

Generally this happens when the complaints do not have any effect. However, he/she

will choose to exit only when suitable options are available. 40.7 per cent of the

respondents have chosen this option;

• Tolerance/Positive: Loyalty option: The citizen tolerates (or remains loyal to the

Corporation) if he/she has no options for exit or he/she does not have a redressal

mechanism. Alternatively one may choose to remain dormant and tolerate the issue

he/she is facing. 11.2 per cent of the respondents chose to behave this way;

• Tolerance/negative: Neglect option: The citizen who are indifferent and unconcerned

about using the choices available are stated to select the Neglect option. They may or

may not have faced such situations requiring service delivery requirements. When

they have problem with problems of service delivery – they do not move out (exit),

they do not complain (voice), they also do not tolerate (loyalty). Many of them are

able to possibly ‘afford’ indifference. 6.8 per cent of the respondents have reacted this

way. They seem to be totally unconcerned.

The overall analysis shows that the respondents would choose to exit from such options that

are present; and would voice their issues as complaints. However, this is in slight

contradiction to the observation that only 4.2 per cent of the respondents have so far lodged

any sort of complaints to the Corporation.

Table 5-27: EVLN Analysis - Overall

Overall Action

Inaction Action

18.7% 712 81.30% 3236 3948

Tol

eran

ce

Loyalty 444 Voice 1628 Positive

52.5% 11.2% 41.3% 2072

Neglect 268 Exit 1608 Within Corpn Pvt Sec

Negative

47.5% 6.8% 40.7% 935 673

1876 23.7% 17.0%

3948

Exit options: In the case of persons who Exit, they have choices within the Corporation (or in

the public domain) or outside the Corporation – say by a private sector service provider. For

instance in case one is not happy with Corporation school in a locality, they are free to move

144

to another Corporation school (the former choice) or to a private school (the latter choice).

But such options may not be available for all the services/infrastructure provided by the

Corporation. As may be observed in the EVLN Table 5.27, on an overall basis, out of the

40.7 per cent who chose for exit option, 23.7 per cent would choose alternatives within

Corporation or public sphere, while the 17.0 per cent would choose to seek private sector

alternatives.

EVLN Analysis for individual services Table 5-28: EVLN Analysis for Corporation hospitals

Corporation Hospitals

Action

Inaction Action

12.5% 82 87.5% 576 658

Tol

eran

ce


43.6% 7.6% 36.0% 287


Negative

56.4% 4.9% 51.5% 155 184

371 23.6% 28.0%

658

Corporation Hospitals

• The ‘action’ (87.5 per cent) and ‘negative’ (56.4 per cent) seem to

predominate the behavior of the citizens with regard to hospital services;

• Only 36.0 per cent would lodge a complaint for bad quality of service;

• 7.6 per cent would tolerate without complaining remaining loyal to the

Corporation and 4.9 per cent would neglect;

• Out of the 51.5 per cent who would look for outside alternatives 28 per cent

would look for opportunities in the private sector, and 23.6 per cent would

search for alternatives within Corporation/public entities;

• The exit option is high in hospitals because of the alternatives available in the

private sector. There are also good hospitals within public manifold, which

the respondents have considered;

145

• The neglectors form 5.9 per cent, and are less than the overall neglectors

percentage of 6.8 per cent.

Table 5-29: EVLN Analysis – Corporation Schools

Corporation Schools Action

Inaction Action 17.8% 117 82.2% 541 658

Tol

eran

ce


39.5% 9.0% 30.5% 260


Negative

60.5% 8.8% 51.7% 183 157

398 27.8% 23.9%

658

Corporation Schools

• The action (82.2 per cent) and negative (60.5 per cent) aspects are

predominant;

• 9.0 per cent would remain loyal by tolerating, almost an equal number (8.8

per cent) would prefer to neglect;

• Only 30.5 per cent would choose to voice their concerns as complaints;

• Out of the 51.7 per cent who would exit out of this service, 23.9 per cent

would look for private sector options, while 27.8 per cent are likely to move

within the public service provision;

• The availability of a variety of private, corporation and publically run/aided

schools provide alternatives to the citizens;

• Also many of the Corporation runs schools are performing well, so those

opting for private sector alternatives are less.

146

Table 5-30 : EVLN Analysis – Roads

Roads Action

Inaction Action

19.5% 128 80.5% 530 658

Tol

eran

ce


58.7% 13.9% 44.8% 386


Negative

41.3% 5.6% 35.7% 141 94

272 21.4% 14.3%

658

Roads

• The behavior of the respondents with regard to the roads is in contrast to that

seen for the hospitals and schools;

• While the Action components are still predominant at 80.5 per cent, the

positive components are more at 58.7 per cent. This would mean that the

respondents would choose more of voice option than exit option;

• The main reason for the same is that the roads are monopoly of the public

service without any private players and hence most of the citizens would either

complain or tolerate;

• 44.8 per cent of the respondents would complain, while 13.9 per cent would

quietly tolerate;

• Only 5.6 per cent would take no notice by neglecting;

• Out of the 35.7 per cent of the persons who state they would exit, 21.4 per cent

would choose public options and 14.3 per cent private options;

• These options were discussed with the respondents, who state that:

o They would chose to use some other road (public option)

o The persons who choose private option are for more of toll and private

managed roads, though they do not have such options right now,

except for a few patches.

147

Table 5-31: EVLN Analysis – Sewerage/drainage

Sewerage/drainage Action

Inaction Action 14.9% 98 85.1% 560 658

Tol

eran

ce


63.1% 10.8% 52.3% 415


Negative

36.9% 4.1% 32.8% 140 76

243 21.3% 11.6%

658

Sewerage/drainage

• Like roads the sewerage and drainage are a monopoly of the Corporation and

hence the responses are skewed towards Positive components (63.1 per cent)

and also action (85.1 per cent) oriented;

• 52.3 per cent would voice their concern and this gets the maximum response.

As discussed, this is basically due to monopoly ;

• 10.8 per cent are prepared to tolerate and 4.1 per cent choose to neglect;

• The persons who have chosen to exit – 32.8 per cent - opine that they have

chosen to seek private service providers (11.6 per cent) for maintenance of

sewerage and drainages. The 21.3 per cent who chose to remain with the

Corporation feel that they would seek the help of other government entities

like the TWAD board. It remains to be seen whether such options are

practicable and viable.

148

Table 5-32: EVLN Analysis – Garbage Removal

Garbage removal Action

Inaction Action

16.7% 110 83.3% 548 658

Tol

eran

ce


64.4% 13.2% 51.2% 424


Negative

35.6% 3.5% 32.1% 136 75

234 20.7% 11.4%

658

Garbage removal

• Garbage removal is a very key concern for the citizens. Though a lot of

garbage removal activities have been privatized, it is basically the Corporation

who engages them and provides services to the citizens. Hence the general

behavior of the citizens can be expected to be similar to those for monopolies

like roads;

• Action components contribute for 83.3 per cent, while the positive

components contribute for 64.4 per cent;

• As far as the garbage removal is concerned, 51.2 per cent would Voice while

13.2 per cent would remain loyal by keeping quiet;

• Only 3 per cent say they would neglect;

• 32 per cent of them would exit and look for other service providers. Here 20.7

per cent would look for alternatives within the Corporation offices. When

enquired the respondents said they would request garbage lorries from

neighbouring localities to clear the garbage (particularly in areas where

Corporation is yet to privatize the garbage collection process). The private

provision option chosen by 11.4 per cent is based on the assumption that such

services could be privatized.

149

Table 5-33: EVLN Analysis – Issue of Birth/Death Certificate

Issue of birth/death certificate Action

Inaction Action

26.9% 177 73.1% 481 658

Tol

eran

ce


45.6% 13.1% 32.5% 300


Negative

54.4% 13.8% 40.6% 180 87

358 27.4% 13.2%

658 Issue of birth/death certificate

• There are some specific issues with regard to the issue of birth/death

certificates in Chennai. The process has been computerized and web enabled.

However, there are some teething troubles and the system is yet to be

stabilized. In some of the localities the process is still manual. At the time of

this study there were some confusions in this regard. However, though these

factors may influence the options (under this EVLN model) for some of the

citizens, the overall impact is expected to be minimal;

• The action component, though high is relatively less in this case at 73.1 per

cent; and the negative component is also high at 54.4 per cent;

• Only 32.5 per cent would Voice and lodge a complaint;

• 40.6 per cent are prepared to exit. 27.4 per cent have preferred to move to

public institutions and 13.2 per cent to private sources. One very important

aspect in this regard is that the issue of birth/death certificates are related to

hospitals and the pattern of options available are on similar lines. One reason

why some of the respondents feel that this could be privatized. This is not true

– as the record of birth and death is a government record. Hence the

privatization option can be considered as far as some service provision by the

private players to improve the process efficiency through computerization.

• 13.1 per cent would keep quiet and tolerate. This is the highest percentage for

this option across six services taken in this EVLN analysis;

150

• 13.8 per cent have stated that they would simply neglect. This is the highest

percentage stated for any of the services. This could be because many of the

respondents may not be requiring this service immediately and could have

reacted in an indifferent manner.

Table 5-34: EVLN Analysis - Action/Inaction – Positive/Negative Aspects

Services Provided by Corporation

Action Tolerance

Action (1)

Inaction (2)

Positive (3)

Negative (4)

1.Corpn Hospital 576 82 287 371

87.5% 12.5% 43.6% 56.4%

2.Corpn School 541 117 260 398

82.2% 17.8% 39.5% 60.5%

3. Roads 530 128 386 272

80.5% 19.5% 58.7% 41.3%

4.Sewerage, Drainage 560 98 415 243

85.1% 14.9% 63.1% 36.9%

5.Garbage removal 548 110 424 234

83.3% 16.7% 64.4% 35.6%

6. Issue of birth/death certificate

481 177 300 358

73.1% 26.9% 45.6% 54.4%

Total 3236 712 2072 1876

82.0% 18.0% 52.5% 47.5% Note: Col (1) + Col (2) = 100% for each line item. Col (3) + Col (4) = 100% for each line item. Source: Compiled from Survey Output from SPSS

In the beginning of the EVLN discussions, the components were discussed predominantly to

give a framework for various discussions. Having discussed various observations for the six

specific services delivery using EVLN tables, analysis based on the action/inaction and

positive/negative aspects are being made, based on Table 5-34.

• A very interesting pattern is seen with regard to the monopoly and non-monopoly

services:

o For all the major monopoly items: roads (58.7 per cent), sewerage/drainage

(63.1 per cent), garbage removal (64.4 per cent) – the positive aspect is high

(as shown within the brackets);

151

o And the converse is true for the relatively non-monopoly items; Corporation

Hospital (56.4 per cent), Corporation School (60.5 per cent), and Issue of

birth/death certificates (54.4 per cent) have high negative aspect (as shown

within the brackets);

o From the perspective of action-inaction aspect, in all the services except the

issue of birth/death certificates, the action aspect is very high (over 80 per

cent). Even for the said service the action aspect is at 73.1 per cent, ( less than

the overall average of 82.0 per cent).

Two questions that arise out of this analysis are:

• Is the action-inaction pattern of citizens generally uniform for any Corporation

(indicating the governance and local participation aspects)?

• Is it true that for monopoly services, the positive approaches are preferred by citizens

and for non-monopoly services, the negative aspects are preferred by the citizens?

All the issues discussed in this regard are directly related to accountability from the demand

side perspective. It is because of the demand for accountability that people choose voice

options and only when there is faith in the accountability arrangements can the voice options

work. When there is lack of accountability, the service delivery parameters fail; it is because

of deteriorating services without any recourse or lack of service delivery that the citizens go

for exit options. While these options may be true for the ‘active’ participants, the inactive

ones can tolerate and remain idle – and this will not improve the situation and possibly would

worsen it. The other set of ‘indifferent’ persons who neglect need to be dealt with and be

brought to the main stream. Thus the accountability framework (ATA) is related to the EVLN

aspects. The EVLN analysis provides insights into specific aspects of accountability and

service delivery.

152

Section V: Preparedness of the Citizens for Accountability

Aspect #3: Preparedness for Accountability

Having studied the response to various aspects of accountability through ATA model and

also having examined the options available for the citizens through the EVLN models, a very

important aspect of the characteristics of the citizens is sought to be studied in this research.

This is the ‘preparedness for accountability’. Preparedness for accountability is dealt with

from two perspectives: Knowledge perspective and participation perspective.

• Knowledge perspective: This perspective seeks to examine the question: Are the

citizens ready for handling and managing accountability related issues? This is an

important question from the perspective of the demand side of accountability. Do the

citizens want accountability even without understanding the basic concepts,

ingredients, and their role in this regard? While this is a very complicated question,

as a part of this research some aspects of the knowledge of the citizens about the

Corporation were studied in this regard. The major aspects are presented here.

• Participation perspective: In this perspective the question: Are the citizens willing to

participate in the activities of the Corporation? is addressed. As part of the

participative democracy the citizens need to support the third tier of governance. Also,

newer and improved methods of governance through public private partnerships and

other methods of contracting for infrastructure development and service delivery are

considered today. Some of these issues are addressed in this part.

Knowledge Perspective:

1. Knowledge about the Key employees of corporation and ward details

As citizens of the city, the Chennai residents should know about the key office bearers of

the Corporation like Mayor and Commissioner at least; and also about the ward they live

in: in terms of the name of the ward, the ward number and the name of the ward

representative. The details of the survey results are given in Table 5.40. Table 5-35: Basic information about Corporation and Ward

Item No Yes Total No% Yes% Rank 1.Mayor 269 394 663 41% 59% 1 2.Commissioner 360 303 663 54% 46% 3 3.Ward representative 398 265 663 60% 40% 5 4.Ward Number 368 295 663 56% 44% 4 5.Ward Name 349 314 663 53% 47% 2

Overall 1744 1571 3315 53% 47% Source: Compiled from Survey Output

153

The analysis of Table 5-35 shows that:

• Except for the knowledge about the Mayor (59 per cent), for all the other items

less than 50 per cent of the respondent only seem to know;

• The ranking of the five items are as follows:

o #1 Mayor

o #2 Ward name

o #3 Commissioner

o #4 Ward number

o #5 Ward representative

• The ranking clearly brings out the fact that the citizens do not know their ward

representative. He is the key link between the citizens and the Corporation. This

link itself is weak;

• The overall knowledge – all the five items put together – indicated by the overall

yes percentage is very low at 47 per cent;

• Hence the foremost and basic knowledge about the Corporation itself is weak.

2. Municipal tax related matters

The next was to understand the tax payment profile of the respondents. Since the

sampling plan did not include municipal payment as a necessary criteria (as it is not

sensitive or relevant to the study objectives), an idea of the percentage of respondents

who paid municipal taxes, and the quantum, etc. were sought to be examined.

154

Table 5-36: Municipal tax related analysis

1. How many pay property tax Nos Total Percentage190 663 28.7%

2. How many know how much they paid Who

know Out of Percentage137 190 72.1%

3. Average municipal tax paid Rs.2,231 considering 137 persons

4. Which are the other municipal taxes paid Nos Total Percentage a. Professional Tax 32 663 4.8% b. Trade license 12 663 1.8%5. Is the municipal tax paid high? Nos Break-up a. Yes high 59 31% b. Not high 48 25% c. Reasonable 43 23% d. No opinion 40 21%

Total 190 100% 6. How do the citizens pay their municipal taxes Nos Break-up a. At the Corporation office 49 26% b. Through the tax collector 33 17% c. Through bank 62 33% d. Other methods 2 1% e. Not sure how I pay 44 23%

Total 190 100% Source: Compiled from Survey Output

There are several interesting observations that can be made from Table 5-36:

• Only 190 (28.7 per cent) of the 663 respondents pay property tax;

• Out of 190, only 137 (72.1 per cent of those who paid the tax) knew how much

property tax they paid. This again reflects the knowledge base and importance

attached to this matter;

• Taking the 137 persons who knew how much they paid, the annual average tax

paid comes to Rs.2,231; The other municipal taxes paid are: professional tax by

4.8 per cent and trade license by 1.8 per cent of the total respondents;

• Out of the 190 tax payers only 31 per cent opine that the tax paid is high; 25 per

cent feel that the tax paid is not high and 23 per cent feel that it is reasonable.

Here also 21 per cent of the respondents offer no opinion. This again is the

‘indifference’ category as discussed in other sections of this study.

• With regard to the municipal tax payment, 33 per cent pay through bank, 26 per

cent at the Corporation office, 17 per cent through the tax collectors. Here also 23

per cent do not know how they pay their municipal taxes; this group can again be

classified as the ‘indifference group’.

155

To summarize: the tax payer base is weak and the average tax collected is also quite

low. Over 20 per cent of the tax payers are not sure about the amount they pay, how

they pay and seek to offer no opinion on the level of the tax.

3. Citizen interfaces of the Corporation

In the earlier portions of the study, while discussing accountability and transparency

aspects various citizen interfaces like grievance redressal mechanism were discussed. In

this portion certain knowledge of other interfaces like the web-site, citizens’ charter, etc.

are discussed.

Table 5-37: Knowledge/experience about key interfaces Items Response Base Percentage 1. Do you know corporation has a web site? 202 663 30% 2. Have you seen it? 122 202 60% 3. Do you know about online facilities for making payment to Corporation? 189 663 29% 4. Have you used the same? 67 189 35% 5. Do you know you can apply for birth/death certificates, licenses online? 124 663 19% 6. Do you know what a Citizens' charter is? 94 663 14% 7. Do you know Chennai Corporation has a Citizen's charter? 104 663 16% 8. Have you seen a Citizens' charter 51 663 8% Source: Compiled from Survey Output

The public interfaces discussed in Table 5-37 are: some aspects of the on-line interfaces

provided to the citizens to transact with the Corporation in an easy manner, some aspects

of various services provided by the Corporation, and the knowledge of Citizen’s Charter.

The analysis shows that:

• Only 30 per cent of the respondents know that the Corporation has a website.

This is a low number considering the general awareness in Chennai and the usage

of internet in the city;

• Out of the persons who know the web-site only 60 per cent have seen the website;

• Only 29 per cent of the respondents know about the online facilities for making

payment to the Corporation;

• Only 35 per cent of this 29 per cent, have actually used it for making payment to

Corporation;

156

• Only 19 per cent of the respondents know that birth/death certificates and other

licenses can be applied online to the Corporation;

• With regard to the Citizens’ Charter, while 16 per cent of the respondents know

that Chennai Corporation has one, 14 per cent of the respondents actually know

what a Citizen’s Charter is, and only 8 per cent of the respondents have seen one.

All the above observations show that the general awareness of the citizens seems to be

quite low. While these are not essentials for being a good citizen, these become very

important in an urban set up that is undergoing a rapid change. Since the theme of

discussion is related to demand side of accountability related aspects, knowledge base

about the Corporation, its functioning and the interfaces with the citizens is considered as

a minimal requirements. These analyses show that the knowledge of citizens of Chennai

in this regard is weak and hence the preparedness for accountability could be very low.

This means there has to be efforts from both the demand side (citizens) and the supply

side (the Corporation). This research seeks to make a small but a sure case in this regard.

Participation perspective:

1. Willingness to participate in the activities of the Corporation

One of the most important aspects of public governance is participation of the stakeholders.

From this perspective the views of the respondents were taken to understand their willingness

to participate in the governance of the Corporation, and also take their inputs on some of the

issues like PPP (public private partnerships).

Table 5-38: Willingness to participate

Frequency Percent Valid No 252 38

Yes 411 62 Total 663 100


The willingness to participate in the activities of the Corporation was exhibited by 62 per cent

of the respondents. Considering the literacy of the Chennai City at over 80 per cent, this

percentage is quite less. Also such an attitude could be due to lack of awareness on these

issues.

157

2. Preferred activities for participation Table 5-39: Activities for participation

Activities Nos Percentage Rank 1. Cleaning 174 26% 3 2. Maintenance 164 25% 4 3. Education 222 33% 1 4. Tree planting 179 27% 2 5. Supervision 113 17% 6 6. Spreading awareness 162 24% 5

Total Respondents 663

Overall Average response 25%


Table 5-39 gives the list of activities where the citizens are willing to participate.

• At the maximum only 33 per cent of the citizens are willing to participate;

• The overall average of the response to participate is only 25 per cent;

• The importance in terms of response received are in the following order:

o Education (support to corporation schools)

o Tree planting (environment)

o Cleaning (road, garbage)

o Maintenance (drain, parks)

o Spreading awareness (on schemes)

o Supervision (of activities in the ward)

• While support to education has the maximum response (33 per cent), the supervision

(for ward and local works) is minimum at 17 per cent. In fact, for a real participatory

governance, supervision by stakeholders particularly citizens is considered very

important and this requires public support. But this is not considered very relevant by

the respondents. This is an important point arising out of this study, and gives an idea

about the citizens;

3. Not willing/able to participate

While on an average 25 per cent of the respondents were willing to participate, another set of

respondents are either not willing or not able to participate in the activities. Table 5.40

provides information in this regard.

158

Table 5-40: Not willing to participate

Not interested in participation Nos Percentage Rank 1. Preoccupation with work 120 18% 2 2. Did not know I could participate 54 8% 3 3. Not interested 137 21% 1




Pre-occupation seems to be the main issue for 18 per cent of the respondents, while 8 per cent

of them do not know that they could participate in the activities. This is an important finding.

There seems to be no awareness on the part of the general public in this regard or there are

inadequate efforts from the Corporation to promote the same. The most revealing finding is

that 21 per cent have responded stating that they are not interested in participating. This again

indicates a set of citizens who are ‘indifferent’ to the public cause. An analysis into such

cases is required.

4. Public Private Participation (PPP)

PPP is becoming increasingly popular, particularly in the urban public space. Discussing the

participation aspects of the public, irrespective of their personal interest/ability to participate

in the affairs of the Corporation, an analysis of the opinion and inputs of the respondents

were taken in this regard.

Table 5-41: Opinion on PPP

I. Should Corporation promote PPP

Frequency Percent Valid

Percent Cumulative

Percent Valid No 112 16.9 16.9 16.9

Yes 551 83.1 83.1 100 Total 663 100 100

II. Do organizations like EXNORA help in delivery of services

Frequency Percent Valid

Percent Cumulative

Percent Valid No 240 36.2 36.2 36.2

Yes 423 63.8 63.8 100 Total 663 100 100


159

Table 5-41 shows the opinion of the people with regard to PPP and NGOs like EXNORA

who have been working in the urban issues for some time now. The key observations in this

regard are:

• 83.1 per cent of the people feel that Corporation should promote PPP. This is a very

positive and a clear mandate;

• 63.8 per cent of the respondents opine that NGOs like EXNORA do help in the

delivery of services.

The focus of the research is not looking at the efficacy of these services but to take opinion

about the ‘participatory’ aspects of urban governance. There seems to be an overwhelming

support for participation.

5. Areas for participation through PPP

The respondents provided their inputs on the major areas of participation. These are sensitive

to local issues. Table 5-42 provides details of the possible areas for participation and the

ranking according to their priority.

Table 5-42: PPPs: Areas for participation

Areas for participation Nos Percentage Rank 1. Cleaning 391 59% 1 2. Maintenance 346 52% 2 3. Environment 330 50% 3 4. Supervision 240 36% 5 5. Awareness 296 45% 4




The main observations in this regard are:

• Using PPP/NGO for (in the order of ranking):

o Cleaning

o Maintenance

o Environment

o Awareness

o Supervision

160

• Here again the general focus is on cleanliness and maintenance. Since in the overall

analysis, the citizens are not happy with the service delivery, they are willing to make

Corporation take the support of organizations through PPP;

• Also, supervision by external agency seems to take a back seat. Possibly the

respondents feel that supervision of the work of the Corporation employees should be

done by their own superiors;

• The most important revelation is that the average response has been at 48% , which is

almost the double compared to the willingness to participate by themselves (25%

Table 5-32). This implies that the Citizens do understand that the Corporation requires

external support for improving quality of service delivery; some of them would also

take part in this regard, and they would prefer some external support for the same.

Applicability of the CLEAR Model

In the review of literature (Chapter-3) the CLEAR Model for citizen participation was

discussed. Based on the available information of the demand side of accountability, and on

the survey, the issues raised by the Model are examined.

• Can do—have the resources and knowledge to participate: the knowledge aspect was

taken up and it was observed that the knowledge about the Corporation was negligible

and the knowledge about the ward level was relatively better. This was verified at 51

per cent of the population. In summary, this issue is only partially answered ;

• Like to—have a sense of attachment that reinforces participation: the sense of

participation was found to be relatively more (in comparison to the knowledge level)

with over 62 per cent of the respondents having inclination to participate in the

activities related to ward. While this is welcome, this may not be a threshold level for

active participation;

• Enabled to—are provided with the opportunity for participation – this is from the

supply side and hence not addressed ;

• Asked to—are mobilized through public agencies and civic channels – this is also

from the supply side and hence not addressed;

• Responded to—see evidence that their views have been considered – currently there

is no system by which such issues are monitored. This aspect is the meeting point of

both demand and supply sides of accountability.

161

Thus this model brings to light the status of accountability prevailing in Chennai Corporation.

The efficacy of this model can be tested by considering both the demand and supply sides of

accountability.

Based on the three aspects of: ATA model of accountability and related matters, the EVLN

model of options for the citizens, and the preparedness for accountability, some of the key

hypotheses developed in this regard require statistical validation.

162

a study on the demand side of accountability in the urban...

Documents