officials bureaucracy accountability rti open · 34 source: uc analysis appropriate representation...
TRANSCRIPT
Copyright © Jay P Desai, 2013. All Rights Reserved Accountability: Angst, Awareness, Action
bills
med
ia
Accountability democracy
culture
performance elections
tran
spar
ency
officials
liability
trus
t
tole
ranc
e
information
solic
it control
implementation
improve
policy
independence
literacy
invo
lve
transfers
infr
astr
uctu
re
monitoring
reform Judiciary regulations
hierarchy
responsibility justification
authority laws
bureaucracy
decisions
impa
rtia
lity
acts
civi
c pa
rtic
ipat
ion
Institutions vo
ice
perf
orm
sanc
tion
Exec
utiv
e
right
s
agencies
enforcement
Legislature
open
debate ci
tizen
s Angst Action
Awareness
Constitution governance
parliament
answerability
dism
issa
l
audi
t
RTI
PIL
Objective
advocacy
impe
achm
ent
CSO
foundation
Copyright © Jay P Desai, 2013. All Rights Reserved Accountability: Angst, Awareness, Action
Jay P Desai Founder & CEO
Universal Consulting India Pvt Ltd
Accountability Angst Awareness Action
Copyright © Jay P Desai, 2013. All Rights Reserved Accountability: Angst, Awareness, Action
2
To increase the public understanding of accountability
Objective
Angst Awareness Action
Copyright © Jay P Desai, 2013. All Rights Reserved Accountability: Angst, Awareness, Action
3
& Angst A Question of Accountability
The Accountability Deficit
& Awareness Unveiling the Shroud
Three-Dimensional Accountability
& Action The Six Initiatives
The Five-Fold Path Epilogue
The Origin of Angst
citiz
ens
Angst
Copyright © Jay P Desai, 2013. All Rights Reserved Accountability: Angst, Awareness, Action
5
A Question of Accountability
“A prudent question is one-half of wisdom.”
Francis Bacon, 1561–1626
Copyright © Jay P Desai, 2013. All Rights Reserved Accountability: Angst, Awareness, Action
6
A host of acute and chronic tragedies underline the lack of accountability within the public administration
Institutions
Distribution
Healthcare
Education
l Public projects and auctions face accusations of financial impropriety
l Inept public response systems exacerbate natural and industrial disasters
l Millions of tonnes of food grains rot in warehouses every monsoon due to inefficiencies in the Public Distribution System (PDS)
l High absenteeism among doctors and support staff, chronic shortage of medicines, primitive facilities, unhygienic conditions and sub-standard care
l Poor educational infrastructure and absent teachers plague the public education system
Copyright © Jay P Desai, 2013. All Rights Reserved Accountability: Angst, Awareness, Action
7
The Origin of Angst “Set up eyes and ears in your kingdom that pick up weak
signals before your enemies.”
Machiavelli, 1469–1527
Copyright © Jay P Desai, 2013. All Rights Reserved Accountability: Angst, Awareness, Action
Independent India Vedic Age Mauryan and Gupta Empire
Medieval and Post-Medieval India Colonial India
60yrs 200 yrs 1500 yrs 2500 yrs 3500 yrs Years Ago
l King was the supreme authority, but provisions to depose him in case of misconduct existed
l People’s opinions were invited on important matters through Public Meetings called Sabha and Samiti
l Arthashastra emphasised on the system of spies and penalties to check mal-practices in society
l However, it justified bribery or fraud, if is was conducted for welfare of the State
l Corruption in civil service increased, as monetary tips to officials in return of a favour became a norm
l Usage of information gatherers or spies to report corruption cases of officials continued in this era too
l Formal mechanisms like Auditors and Committees to check public finance were introduced
l Role of citizens and media in protesting against wrong Government practices increased
l India moved to democracy, introduced the Constitution and elections
l Framework of institutions and policies to check accountability introduced
l CSOs and the media have been playing an important role in exposing corruption
8 Source: UC Analysis, Secondary Research
Socio-Cultural Structure l Social stratification
into four castes l Introduction of
Hinduism, belief in God l Epics like Mahabharata
emphasized on dharma (conduct), where morality/fair play was secondary
l Caste based rigidity increased with rules and penalties for each strata defined in Manusmriti
l Foundation of Islam religion was laid
l Religious tolerance reduced as most Mughal rulers discriminated against practitioners of other religions
l Differentiation between castes deepened due to:
- Introduction of caste-based census
- Reservation of seats for ‘Scheduled Castes’ in the legislatures
l Caste has degenerated into an inflexible hierarchical system
l Communal harmony has reduced due to high social diversity
Institutional Structure
Social institutions and accountability practices that originated thousands of years ago, mould our view of accountability today
Copyright © Jay P Desai, 2013. All Rights Reserved Accountability: Angst, Awareness, Action
Citizens Charter
9
Pre-1900 1900 -1925 1925 -1950 1950 -1975 1975 - 2000 2000 - 2009
CAG
USA
UK
India
CAG
CAG
RTI
RTI
RTI
PIL
PIL
LP
EC
EC
EC
DAC
DAC
DAJ
LP CC
CC
WBP
WBP
2009 onwards
DAJ WBP
Source: UC Analysis, Secondary Research
Comptroller & Auditor General
LP Age of democracy: 59 yrs
Age of democracy: 129 yrs
Age of democracy : 200 yrs
CAG
PIL Public Interest Litigation
Right to Information
Disclosure of Assets by Judges/Candidates
RTI
DAC
Election Commission EC
CC
Lokpal LP
WBP Whistleblowers Protection DAJ
Pending
MS
US
MS
US MS
US
Male Suffrage MS
US Universal Suffrage
Although many key accountability mechanisms have already been introduced in India, the lack of proper implementation is a roadblock
Copyright © Jay P Desai, 2013. All Rights Reserved Accountability: Angst, Awareness, Action
10
The Accountability Deficit
“The hardest thing to see is what is in front of your eyes.”
Goethe, 1749–1832
Copyright © Jay P Desai, 2013. All Rights Reserved Accountability: Angst, Awareness, Action
Source: Wignaraja, Kanni. “Mutual Accountability Mechanisms: Accountability, Voice and Responsiveness.”, UNDP Development Group (2006); Bovens, Mark. “Public Accountability.”, The Oxford Handbook of Public Management, E. Ferlie, L. Lynne & C. Pollitt (Eds.), Oxford: Oxford University Press 2005
11
Public Officials Citizens/ CSOs/ Media
Objects (Duty Bearers) Agents (Rights Holders) Accountability Mechanisms
• Justification • Information • Reward • Punishment
Accountability is a two way process – it is the responsibility of public officials to justify their conduct to citizens by using accountability mechanisms. It is also the responsibility of citizens to extract answerability and sanction public officials
Copyright © Jay P Desai, 2013. All Rights Reserved Accountability: Angst, Awareness, Action
12
Source: UC Analysis, Bovens, Mark. “Public Accountability.”, The Oxford Handbook of Public Management, E. Ferlie, L. Lynne & C. Pollitt (Eds.), Oxford: Oxford University Press 2005
Appropriate Representation
Participative Conduct
Legitimate Conduct
Liability Enforcement
Accountability Proactive Reactive
Accountability should be both proactive - ensuring selection of right public officials and participative governance process; and reactive - ensuring transparent and legitimate conduct and enforcing liability for conduct on public officials
l Electing/ appointing public officials through an objective and transparent process
l Inviting participation of stakeholders like citizens, CSOs and media, in policy formulation and implementation
l Monitoring and assessing the performance of public officials, to ensure transparent, fair and honest functioning
l Applying penalties such as legal proceedings, penalty fees or resignation, against errant public officials
Copyright © Jay P Desai, 2013. All Rights Reserved Accountability: Angst, Awareness, Action
13
Source: UC Analysis; W. Carrington, J Debuse, H. Lee. “The Theory of Governance and Accountability”, The University of Iowa Centre for International Finance and Development, 2008
ACCOUNTABILITY
Social Performance
Economic Performance
Governance Performance
It is imperative to improve governance, to strengthen the economic and social performance of a country
Copyright © Jay P Desai, 2013. All Rights Reserved Accountability: Angst, Awareness, Action
14
Source: UC Analysis, ‘Democracy Index 2010: Democracy in Retreat’, The Economist Intelligence Unit, 2010; ‘Governance Matters VI: Aggregate and Individual Governance Indicators’; The World Bank; 2009; ‘Corruption Perception Index’, Transparency International, 2010;
Worldwide Governance Indicators (2009)
Corruption Perceptions Index (2010)*
World Bank
Transparency International 87 78 69 154 20 22
India China Brazil Russia USA UK Index Institution
Note: The numbers indicate the ranks of the countries on respective indices.
112 148 91 26 20 161
178
Total
213
Democracy Index (2010) The Economist Intelligence Unit 40 136 47 17 19 107 167
*India’s 2011 rank is 95
Governance Performance: Global cross-country surveys highlight the poor quality of governance in India, on a comparative basis
Copyright © Jay P Desai, 2013. All Rights Reserved Accountability: Angst, Awareness, Action
15
Source: UC Analysis; ‘Doing Business Index 2010’, World Bank; ‘Global Competitiveness Index 2010-11’, World Economic Forum; ‘Governance Matters VI: Aggregate and Individual Governance Indicators’; The World Bank; 2009
Doing Business Index (2010)
Global Competitiveness Index (2010-11)
World Bank
World Economic Forum
133
51
89
27
129
58 63
4 5
12 4
120
India China Brazil Russia USA UK Index Institution
Note: The numbers indicate the ranks of the countries on respective indices
Total
139
183
Economic Performance: Global cross-country surveys highlight India’s poor comparative ranking on economic indicators
Copyright © Jay P Desai, 2013. All Rights Reserved Accountability: Angst, Awareness, Action
16
Source: UC Analysis; ‘Doing Business Index 2010’, World Bank; ‘Global Competitiveness Index 2010-11’, World Economic Forum; ‘Governance Matters VI: Aggregate and Individual Governance Indicators’; The World Bank; 2009
Economic Performance: Poor governance reflects in the poor economic performance of the country
-2
-1
0
1
2
3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5 6.0
Governance and Economic Performance Worldwide Governance Indicator (WGI) Score 2009 (#)
Global Competitiveness Index 2010-11 (#)
Sample size: 96 countries
India
l Governance performance is measured using the scores of countries on Worldwide Governance Indicators (WGI) 2009
l Economic performance is measured using scores of countries on Global Competitiveness Index in 2010-11
l The correlation between Worldwide Governance Indicators and Global Competitiveness Index shows a very high positive correlation co-efficient (r) of 0.86
l This indicates a very strong relationship between governance performance and economic performance of a country
l Poor governance in India is reflected in its poor economic performance, in global surveys (see below)
r = 0.86
Moderate
Weak
Strong
+0.5 < r < + 0.7
r < + 0.5
r > + 0.7
Copyright © Jay P Desai, 2013. All Rights Reserved Accountability: Angst, Awareness, Action
17
Source: UC Analysis; ‘Human Development Index - 2010’, Human Development Report 2010, UNDP; ‘Global Gender Gap Index 2010’, World Economic Forum; ‘Governance Matters VI: Aggregate and Individual Governance Indicators’; The World Bank; 2009
Human Development Index (2010)
United Nations Development Programme
119
India China Brazil Russia USA UK Index Institution
Note: The numbers indicate the ranks of the countries on respective indices
89 73 4 26 65
Global Gender Gap Index (2010) 112 61 85 19 15 45
World Economic Forum
Total
134
169
Social Performance: Global cross-country surveys highlight India’s poor comparative ranking on social indicators
Copyright © Jay P Desai, 2013. All Rights Reserved Accountability: Angst, Awareness, Action
18
Source: UC Analysis; ‘Human Development Index - 2010’, Human Development Report 2010, UNDP; ‘Global Gender Gap Index 2010’, World Economic Forum; ‘Governance Matters VI: Aggregate and Individual Governance Indicators’; The World Bank; 2009
-2
-1
0
1
2
0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
Governance and Social Performance Worldwide Governance Indicator (WGI) Score 2009 (#)
r = 0.76
Human Development Index 2010 (#)
Sample size: 98 countries
l Governance performance is measured using the World Bank’s World-wide Governance Indicators (WGI) score 2009
l Social performance is measured using UNDP’s Human Development Index score 2010
l The correlation between Worldwide Governance Indicators and Human Development Index shows a high positive correlation co-efficient (r) of 0.76
l This indicates a strong relationship between governance performance and social performance of a country
l Poor governance in India is reflected in its poor social performance, in global surveys (see below)
Social Performance: Poor governance also reflects in the poor social performance of the country
India
Moderate
Weak
Strong
+0.5 < r < + 0.7
r < + 0.5
r > + 0.7
r = 0.76
citiz
ens
Awareness
Copyright © Jay P Desai, 2013. All Rights Reserved Accountability: Angst, Awareness, Action
20
Unveiling The Shroud “… The success of democracy is not merely a matter of having the most perfect institutional structure that we can think of. It depends inescapably on our actual behaviour patterns and
the working of political and social interactions ….”
Amartya Sen, The Idea of Justice
Copyright © Jay P Desai, 2013. All Rights Reserved Accountability: Angst, Awareness, Action
Source: UC Analysis 21
Income Per Capita
Social Hierarchy
Democratic Lineage
Adult Literacy
Individualism
Population
Social Diversity
Urbanisation
Number of years since the country attained democracy
Gross Domestic Product per capita, as an indicator of economic development (Income Per Capita = GDP/ Population)
Share of total population residing in urban areas
Share of adult population that is literate (adult literacy defined by UNESCO as individuals over 15 yrs of age, who can read and write simple statements)
Degree of racial, ethnic, linguistic and religious fragmentation in a country
Extent of inequality of power and wealth, as perceived and accepted by less powerful individuals, or groups
Degree to which individuals are integrated/dis-integrated into groups
Size of population of the country
Voter Turnout Percentage of registered voters who casted vote in elections
We examined Socio-Economic factors across 60-100 countries to understand their correlation with governance
Copyright © Jay P Desai, 2013. All Rights Reserved Accountability: Angst, Awareness, Action
World Average: 12.5
USD Thousands
Source: UC Analysis; ‘GDP Per Capita (PPP)’ World Development Indicators, The World Bank, 2009; ‘The Worldwide Governance Indicators 1996-2009’, The World Bank, 2010; Kaufmann Daniel and Art Kraay, “Growth without governance”, The World Bank, 2002
22
Per Capita Income Correlation
-2
-1
0
1
2
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
r = 0.87
Income Per Capita (PPP) 2009
Sample Size: 99 countries
There is strong correlation between income per capita and governance. World Bank research suggests that governance matters significantly for growth in the per capita income in the long run
Income Per Capita (PPP) 2009
Worldwide Governance Indicators (WGI) Score 2009
10 7 3
19
37
46
0
10
20
30
40
50
USA UK Russia Brazil China India
Income Per Capita – Are most countries with lower income levels, like India, destined to have poor quality of governance and accountability?
India
Moderate
Weak
Strong
+0.5 < r < + 0.7
r < + 0.5
r > + 0.7
r = 0.87
Copyright © Jay P Desai, 2013. All Rights Reserved Accountability: Angst, Awareness, Action
Scores (#)
World Average: 43
Source: UC Analysis; Hofstede Geert, ‘Individualism Index ’, Cultures and Organizations, Software of the Mind, 2010; ‘The Worldwide Governance Indicators 1996-2009’, The World Bank, 2010
23
Individualism Correlation
-2
-1
0
1
2
0 20 40 60 80 100
r = 0.69
Individualism (Hofstede’s Individualism Index) score
Sample Size: 63 countries
There is strong correlation between individualism and governance. India’s collectivist culture could be a barrier for India to achieve higher levels of accountability and a better order of governance
39 3820
91 89
48
0
20
40
60
80
100
USA UK India Russia Brazil China
Individualism (Hofstede’s Individualism Index)
Worldwide Governance Indicators (WGI) Score 2009
Individualism - Is a relatively collectivist society as we find in India, a barrier to achieving higher governance and accountability?
India
Moderate
Weak
Strong
+0.5 < r < + 0.7
r < + 0.5
r > + 0.7
r = 0.69
Copyright © Jay P Desai, 2013. All Rights Reserved Accountability: Angst, Awareness, Action
Source: UC Analysis; Hofstede Geert, ‘Power Distance Index’, Cultures and Organizations, Software of the Mind, 2010; ‘The Worldwide Governance Indicators 1996-2009’, The World Bank, 2010
24
-2
-1
0
1
2
00 20 40 60 80 100 120
r = (0.65)
Social Hierarchy (Hofstede’s Power Distance Index) score
Social Hierarchy Correlation
There is a moderate to strong correlation between social hierarchy and governance. Social hierarchy and the numerous inequalities among the people of India, could be significant obstacles on the pathway to
better governance and greater accountability
Sample Size: 63 countries Social Hierarchy (Hofstede’s Power Distance Index)
Worldwide Governance Indicators (WGI) Score 2009
World Average: 55
Scores (#)
8069
40 35
7793
0
20
40
60
80
100
Russia China India Brazil USA UK
Social Hierarchy - Does the high degree of social distance, in terms of power & wealth, predispose India to lower governance & accountability?
India
Moderate
Weak
Strong
+0.5 < r < + 0.7
r < + 0.5
r > + 0.7
r = (0.65)
Copyright © Jay P Desai, 2013. All Rights Reserved Accountability: Angst, Awareness, Action
58 4560
130162
201
0
30
60
90
120
150
180
210
USA Switzerland UK India Japan Singapore
Years
Source: UC Analysis; 2010; Country Reports, Polity IV project, Center for Systemic Peace; ‘The Worldwide Governance Indicators 1996-2009’, The World Bank, 2010
25
Democratic Lineage Correlation
-2
-1
0
1
2
0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200 225
r = 0.63
No of years of Democracy (as of 2010)
Sample Size: 98 countries
There is moderate correlation between democratic lineage and governance. Many democracies below the age of 60, have substantially better governance scores than India. Young democracies, therefore,
are equally capable of demonstrating good governance
No of years of Democracy (as of 2010)
Worldwide Governance Indicators (WGI) Score 2009
Democratic Lineage – Does age of democracy have a strong and significant relationship with governance levels?
Moderate
Weak
Strong
+0.5 < r < + 0.7
r < + 0.5
r > + 0.7
India
r = 0.63
Copyright © Jay P Desai, 2013. All Rights Reserved Accountability: Angst, Awareness, Action
World Average: 57
(%)
Source: UC Analysis; 2010; ‘Urban Population’ World Development Indicators, The World Bank, 2009; ‘The Worldwide Governance Indicators 1996-2009’, The World Bank, 2010
26
Urbanization Correlation
-2
-1
0
1
2
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
r = 0.55
Urban Population 2009 (% of total population)
Sample Size: 100 countries
There is moderate correlation between urbanization and governance, but rapid urbanization by itself, will not usher in an era of good governance
Urban Population 2009 (% of total population) Worldwide Governance Indicators (WGI) Score 2009
7344 30
828690
0
20
40
60
80
100
UK Brazil USA Russia China India
Estimated Urban and Rural population in India
72 70 55
28 30 45
0
20
40
60
80
100
2001-10 E2011-20 E2050
Urban
Rural
(%)
Urbanization – Is this low level of urbanisation in India, a key constraint in achieving high accountability?
India
Moderate
Weak
Strong
+0.5 < r < + 0.7
r < + 0.5
r > + 0.7
r = 0.55
Copyright © Jay P Desai, 2013. All Rights Reserved Accountability: Angst, Awareness, Action
(%)
World Average: 89
Source: UC Analysis; Global Rankings – Adult Literacy Rate (Total), UNESCO Institute of Statistics, 2008; ‘The Worldwide Governance Indicators 1996-2009’, The World Bank, 2010
27
There is a weak-moderate correlation between adult literacy levels and governance. High adult literacy, thus, does not necessarily mean better quality of governance. Good governance is certainly not just the
preserve of the well-read
-2
-1
0
1
2
00 20 40 60 80 100
r = 0.50
Sample Size: 100 countries
Adult Literacy Rate (%)
Correlation
300 Mn
300 Mn
Adult Literacy
99 99 94 90
66
99
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
UK USA Russia China Brazil India
Adult Literacy Rate 2008
Worldwide Governance Indicators (WGI) Score 2009
Adult Literacy - Is the low level of adult literacy in India a key constraint in achieving high levels of governance and accountability?
India
Moderate
Weak
Strong
+0.5 < r < + 0.7
r < + 0.5
r > + 0.7
r = 0.50
Copyright © Jay P Desai, 2013. All Rights Reserved Accountability: Angst, Awareness, Action
(%)
World Average: 69.5
Source: UC Analysis; 2010; ‘Unified Database’, Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance, 2009; ‘The Worldwide Governance Indicators 1996-2009’, The World Bank, 2010
28
Voter Turnout Correlation
-2
-1
0
1
2
0 20 40 60 80 100
r = 0.33
Average Voter Turnout (%)
Sample Size: 85 countries
There is weak correlation between voter turnout and governance. This suggests that voter turnout, while important, is not sufficient to address the issue of poor governance
69 65 595975
8586
0
20
40
60
80
100
Denmark Germany UK Japan USA India Russia
Average Voter Turnout
Worldwide Governance Indicators (WGI) Score 2009
Voter Turnout – Does low voter participation act as a roadblock to achieving better governance?
India
Moderate
Weak
Strong
+0.5 < r < + 0.7
r < + 0.5
r > + 0.7
r = 0.33
Copyright © Jay P Desai, 2013. All Rights Reserved Accountability: Angst, Awareness, Action
World Average: 0.775
Source: UC Analysis; Okediji, T, ‘Social Diversity Index- The dynamics of ethnic fragmentation: a proposal for an expanded measurement index’, American Journal of Economics and Sociology, 2005; ‘The Worldwide Governance Indicators 1996-2009’, The World Bank, 2010
29
-2
-1
0
1
2
0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20
r = (0.28)
Social Diversity Index (Score)
Social Diversity Correlation
Sample Size: 78 countries
There is a weak correlation between social diversity levels and governance. This shows that India’s great diversity is not argument enough to justify the poor quality of governance in India
Social Diversity Index
Worldwide Governance Indicators (WGI) Score 2009 Scores (#)
0.96 0.88 0.850.66
0.98
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
India USA China UK Brazil
Social Diversity - Does high linguistic, cultural & religious fragmentation in India predispose it to lower governance & accountability?
India
Moderate
Weak
Strong
+0.5 < r < + 0.7
r < + 0.5
r > + 0.7
r = (0.28)
Copyright © Jay P Desai, 2013. All Rights Reserved Accountability: Angst, Awareness, Action
World Average: 188
Source: UC Analysis; ‘Population’ World Development Indicators, The World Bank, 2009; ‘The Worldwide Governance Indicators 1996-2009’, The World Bank, 2010
30
-2
-1
0
1
2
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200
r = (0.08)
Population (in millions)
Population Correlation
Sample Size: 78 countries
There is a weak correlation between population levels and governance. There is extremely low probability that countries with large populations are automatically relegated to the basket of
poor governance
Population 2009 (in 000’s)
Worldwide Governance Indicators (WGI) Score 2009
61
1155
193307
1331
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
China India USA Brazil UK
#
Population - Does high population in India predispose it to lower governance and accountability?
India
Moderate
Weak
Strong
+0.5 < r < + 0.7
r < + 0.5
r > + 0.7
r = (0.08)
Copyright © Jay P Desai, 2013. All Rights Reserved Accountability: Angst, Awareness, Action
Source: UC Analysis, Secondary Research 31
100 83
63 28 1
63 49 1
98 21 1
100 89 1
1
100 91 1
78 70 1
85 71 1
100 100 1
Correlation with Governance (r) Socio-Economic Factors
Per Capita Income
Social Hierarchy
Democratic Lineage
Adult Literacy
Individualism
Population
Social Diversity
Urbanisation
Voter Turnout
Strong 0.87
0.69
(0.65)
0.63
0.55
0.50
(0.08)
(0.28)
0.33
Moderate
Weak
India’s Rank
Unfortunately, India’s position on most of the socio-economic factors is weak, limiting its ability to improve its ranking and demonstrate rapid change
Copyright © Jay P Desai, 2013. All Rights Reserved Accountability: Angst, Awareness, Action
32
Three-Dimensional Accountability
“The real voyage of discovery consists not in seeking new lands, but in seeing with new eyes.”
Marcel Proust, 1871–1922
Copyright © Jay P Desai, 2013. All Rights Reserved Accountability: Angst, Awareness, Action
Source: UC Analysis, Bovens, Mark. “Public Accountability.”, The Oxford Handbook of Public Management, E. Ferlie, L. Lynne & C. Pollitt (Eds.), Oxford: Oxford University Press 2005; Goetz, Anne Marie and Rob Jenkins. “Hybrid Forms of Accountability.”, Public Management Review 3.3 (2001); Schacter, Mark. “When Accountability Fails- A Framework for Diagnosis and Action.” Institute of Governance, Ottawa Policy Brief, 2001
33
Civil Society Organisations Media
Citizens
Legislature Judiciary Executive
Internal Accountability
Independent government agencies (CAG, CVC, CBI..)
External Accountability
Horizontal Accountability
Institutions of Government
Mechanisms of accountability could be internal - imposed from inside by self-monitoring policies; horizontal - imposed by independent government institutions; and external - imposed from outside by citizens, CSOs, media
l Internal Accountability: A government body monitoring the performance of its staff internally
l Horizontal Accountability: A government body scrutinizing the activities of another government department
l External Accountability: Accountability imposed upon the Government from outside, by citizens, civil society organisations (CSOs) and media
Copyright © Jay P Desai, 2013. All Rights Reserved Accountability: Angst, Awareness, Action
34 Source: UC Analysis
Appropriate Representation
Participative Conduct
Legitimate Conduct
Liability Enforcement
Accountability
Foundations of Accountability
(1st dimension)
Mechanisms of Accountability
(2nd dimension)
Civil Society Organisations Media
Citizens
Legislature
Judiciary
Executive
Independent government agencies (CAG, CVC, CBI..)
Pub
lic
Rep
rese
ntat
ion
Pub
lic
Par
ticip
ati
on
Legi
timat
e C
ondu
ct
l Accountability mechanisms that help improve the quality of citizen’s representatives in the Government
l Accountability mechanisms that help improve the performance of the Government officials
l Accountability mechanisms that help sanction the Government officials for their performance
Liab
ility
E
nfor
cem
ent
Liab
ility
E
nfor
cem
ent
Pub
lic
Rep
rese
ntat
ion
Pub
lic
Par
ticip
atio
n Le
gitim
ate
Con
duct
l Accountability mechanisms that help improve the quality of citizen’s representatives in the Government
l Accountability mechanisms that help improve the quality of citizens’ participation in the Government
l Accountability mechanisms that help improve the performance of the Government officials
l Accountability mechanisms that help sanction the Government officials for their performance
Judiciary Internal Accountability External
Accountability Horizontal
Accountability
l Accountability mechanisms that help improve the quality of citizens’ participation in the Government
Pub
lic
Rep
rese
ntat
ion
Pub
lic
Par
ticip
ati
on
Legi
timat
e C
ondu
ct
l Accountability mechanisms that help improve the quality of citizen’s representatives in the Government
l Accountability mechanisms that help improve the performance of the Government officials
l Accountability mechanisms that help sanction the Government officials for their performance
Liab
ility
E
nfor
cem
ent
Liab
ility
E
nfor
cem
ent
Pub
lic
Rep
rese
ntat
ion
Pub
lic
Par
ticip
atio
n Le
gitim
ate
Con
duct
l Accountability mechanisms that help improve the quality of citizen’s representatives in the Government
l Accountability mechanisms that help improve the quality of citizens’ participation in the Government
l Accountability mechanisms that help improve the performance of the Government officials
l Accountability mechanisms that help sanction the Government officials for their performance
Executive Internal Accountability External
Accountability Horizontal
Accountability
l Accountability mechanisms that help improve the quality of citizens’ participation in the Government
Pub
lic
Rep
rese
ntat
ion
Pub
lic
Par
ticip
ati
on
Legi
timat
e C
ondu
ct
l Accountability mechanisms that help improve the quality of citizen’s representatives in the Government
l Accountability mechanisms that help improve the performance of the Government officials
l Accountability mechanisms that help sanction the Government officials for their performance
Liab
ility
E
nfor
cem
ent
Foun
datio
ns o
f Acc
ount
abili
ty
Liab
ility
En
forc
emen
t A
ppro
pria
te
Rep
rese
ntat
ion
Part
icip
ativ
e C
ondu
ct
Legi
timat
e C
ondu
ct
Legislature
Internal Accountability External Accountability Horizontal Accountability
Enumerate &
Evaluate
We assessed the strength of the internal, horizontal and external accountability mechanisms, across the Legislature, the Executive and the Judiciary, to examine the ability of the mechanisms to support the four foundations of accountability Institutions of
Government (3rd dimension)
Copyright © Jay P Desai, 2013. All Rights Reserved Accountability: Angst, Awareness, Action
35
Does Not Exist
Participative Policy Formulation
No internal check on implementation of citizen’s participation mechanisms
Internal Evaluation of Performance
Lack of checks on parliamentary proceedings and behaviour of MPs
Expulsion of MPs - Expelling MPs is rare - No penalties for poor
participation in Parliament
l Elections Low participation by citizens in elections and biased voting decisions
Citizen’s Evaluation of Performance
- Poor access to information about MPs’ performance
- Indifferent attitude of citizens
Election Commission - Lack of authority with the
Election Commission in controlling unethical voting practices
- Lack of co-operation from election officers in the voter registration process Participative Policy
Formulation
No independent check to ensure implementation of citizen’s participation mechanisms
Judicial Review - Judiciary cannot question the functioning of Legislature - No independent check to review parliamentary proceedings exists
Police, Judiciary - Political interference in
appointments and transfers - Lack of accountability - Inadequate infrastructure
Citizen’s Feedback and Advocacy
- Low awareness about feedback mechanisms and advocacy organisations
- Indifferent attitude of citizens
Internal Accountability External Accountability Horizontal Accountability
Legislative Accountability A
ppro
pria
te
Rep
rese
ntat
ion
Part
icip
ativ
e C
ondu
ct
Legi
timat
e C
ondu
ct
Liab
ility
En
forc
emen
t
Foun
datio
ns o
f Acc
ount
abili
ty
Public Interest Litigation Difficulty in using PILs due to lack of understanding of scope and application
Right to Recall - Inadequate implementation
Not Applicable
Legislature: There are significant constraints that impede the implementation of these accountability mechanisms
Copyright © Jay P Desai, 2013. All Rights Reserved Accountability: Angst, Awareness, Action
Objective and Transparent Process - Lack of objective process of selection of Council of Ministers - Lack of transparency in transfer of public officials
Participative Policy Implementation
No internal check on implementation of citizen’s participation mechanisms
• Annual Performance Assessment Reports, Results Framework Document
- Performance not linked with salaries • Whistle-blowers Protection
- Inadequate protection to whistle-blowers
Dismissal, Removal or Reduction in Rank
- Lengthy process to prosecute corrupt officials
- Lack of action due to political interference
RTI Act, Citizen’s Charter, Budget Advocacy, Social Audits, PETS, Report Cards & Community Scorecards - Low awareness about
mechanisms - Low participation by citizens - Limited reach of CSOs
Objective and Transparent Process - No independent check on selection of Council of Ministers - No independent monitoring of the transfers of civil officials
Participative Policy Implementation
No independent agency to check implementation of citizen’s participation mechanisms
Legislature, Parliamentary Committees, Delivery Monitoring Unit, Planning Commission, CAG, CBI, CVC, Lokayukta/ Lokpal
- Limited authority to take action - Lack of independence in
functioning - Political interference
Advocacy and Government-Citizen Initiatives
Lack of decentralized governance structure to encourage local participation
Internal Accountability External Accountability Horizontal Accountability
Executive Accountability A
ppro
pria
te
Rep
rese
ntat
ion
Part
icip
ativ
e C
ondu
ct
Legi
timat
e C
ondu
ct
Liab
ility
En
forc
emen
t
Foun
datio
ns o
f Acc
ount
abili
ty
Police, Judiciary - Political interference in
appointments and transfers - Lack of accountability - Inadequate infrastructure
Public Interest Litigation Difficulty in using PILs due to lack of understanding of scope and application
Public Disclosure of Appointments
No justification for transfers available in public domain
36
Does Not Exist
Executive: There are significant constraints that impede the implementation of these accountability mechanisms
Copyright © Jay P Desai, 2013. All Rights Reserved Accountability: Angst, Awareness, Action
37
Does Not Exist
Judicial Collegium - Lack of neutral and external
members in the Collegium - Lack of an objective and
defined process for appointment
- Non-transparent and secretive process to appoint judges
Internal Evaluation of Conduct - Investigation against judges has
been rarely initiated by Collegium or judges
- CJI rarely grants permission to conduct investigation
Impeachment - Impeachment is seldom initiated
by the Collegium - No other mechanism of
imposing minor penalties or punishing judges
Public Evaluation of Conduct - Difficult to challenge judges
due to threat of ‘contempt of court’
- Difficult to access information about court proceedings
Independent Evaluation of Conduct No independent agency exists to investigate complaints against the Judiciary
Parliament & President - Slow and lengthy process of
impeachment - Political patronage hampers
impeachment process
Public Interest Litigation - No independent authority
exists to review PILs against Judiciary
- Difficulty in using PILs due to lack of understanding of scope and application
Internal Accountability External Accountability Horizontal Accountability
Weaknesses in Mechanisms of Accountability - Judiciary A
ppro
pria
te
Rep
rese
ntat
ion
Part
icip
ativ
e C
ondu
ct
Legi
timat
e C
ondu
ct
Liab
ility
En
forc
emen
t
Foun
datio
ns o
f Acc
ount
abili
ty
President & Governor - Limited authority with President
and Governor to challenge the appointment of judges
Internal Accountability External Accountability Horizontal Accountability
Judicial Accountability A
ppro
pria
te
Rep
rese
ntat
ion
Part
icip
ativ
e C
ondu
ct
Legi
timat
e C
ondu
ct
Liab
ility
En
forc
emen
t
Foun
datio
ns o
f Acc
ount
abili
ty
Public Monitoring of Appointments
- No voluntary disclosure of information regarding appointments by Judiciary
- Citizens cannot file RTI for appointment information
Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable
Judiciary: There are significant constraints that impede the implementation of these accountability mechanisms
Copyright © Jay P Desai, 2013. All Rights Reserved Accountability: Angst, Awareness, Action
Source: UC Analysis 38
The four foundations of accountability have been severely weakened by constraints in the implementation of accountability mechanisms
Lack of transparency in appointment and
transfer
Lack of defined criteria for appointment and
transfer
Citizen’s apathy in selecting appropriate
candidates
Appropriate Representation
Participative Conduct
Legitimate Conduct
Liability Enforcement
Accountability
Lack of authority devolved to local
agencies
Ad-hoc implementation of participation
mechanisms by public officials
Low involvement of citizens in policy-
making
Lack of authority with investigating agencies
like CBI, CVC, CAG
Subjective and non -transparent
performance assessment of officials
Administrative apathy and non-cooperation of
public officials Low awareness of
accountability mechanisms like RTI,
among citizens Low involvement of
citizens in monitoring Government
Corrupt and lengthy process of prosecution
of officials
Low involvement of citizens in monitoring
Government
Lack of adequate infrastructure with law enforcement agencies
Low awareness of accountability
mechanisms like PIL, among citizens
Copyright © Jay P Desai, 2013. All Rights Reserved Accountability: Angst, Awareness, Action
39
Corrupt and lengthy process of prosecution of officials
Foundations Weaknesses Inadequacies
Appropriate Representation
Participative Conduct
Legitimate Conduct
Liability Enforcement
Citizen’s apathy in selecting appropriate candidates
Lack of defined criteria for appointment and transfer
Lack of transparency in appointment and transfer
Low involvement of citizens in policy-making
Ad-hoc implementation of participation mechanisms by public officials
Lack of authority devolved to local agencies
Lack of authority with investigating agencies, like CBI, CVC, CAG
Low awareness of accountability mechanisms like RTI, among citizens
Subjective and non-transparent performance assessment of officials
Administrative apathy and non-cooperation of public officials
Lack of adequate infrastructure with law enforcement agencies
Low awareness of accountability mechanisms like PIL, among citizens
1
2
3
4
Inadequate Information
1
Inadequate Impartiality
2
Inadequate Implementation
3
Inadequate Infrastructure
4
Inadequate Independence
5
Inadequate Involvement
6
Low involvement of citizens in monitoring Government
Lack of minor penalties like warnings to check mis-conduct
Source: UC Analysis
These constraints can be further categorized into six inadequacies, that limit the performance of the existing accountability mechanisms
citiz
ens
Action
Copyright © Jay P Desai, 2013. All Rights Reserved Accountability: Angst, Awareness, Action
41
The Six Initiatives I hope that I may always desire more than I can accomplish.
Michelangelo, 1475–1564
Copyright © Jay P Desai, 2013. All Rights Reserved Accountability: Angst, Awareness, Action
42 Source: UC Analysis
Impartiality Implementation Infrastructure Independence Involvement
Information Availability
Information Accessibility
Personnel
Technology
Policy Formulation
Performance Evaluation
Redressal Enforcement
Authority to Agencies
Decentralisation
Information
Independent Agency
Fixed Tenure
Performance-linked Incentives
Institutionalisation
Timelines
Penalties
To strengthen the foundations of accountability, initiatives are needed in six areas: Information, Impartiality, Implementation, Infrastructure, Independence and Involvement
1 2 3 4 5 6
No Progress
Strong Progress
Minimal Progress
Partial Progress
Good Progress
Copyright © Jay P Desai, 2013. All Rights Reserved Accountability: Angst, Awareness, Action
Information Availability
Provide information about the amount allocated to public schemes, the amount utilised and the outcome
Provide information on funds allocated, and the amount utilised by the Ministries
Allow citizens to track their public services (license, ration card etc) applications online
43
Initiative 1 - Information: Enhance transparency in government functioning by improving information availability and accessibility
Information Accessibility
Leverage information and communication technology (internet, mobile phones) to foster transparency
Build awareness about accountability mechanisms
Source: UC Analysis
1.1
1.2
Increase transparency in appointments and transfers
Provide information on the operational expenses incurred by Ministries
None Strong Minimal Partial Good
Progress
Copyright © Jay P Desai, 2013. All Rights Reserved Accountability: Angst, Awareness, Action
Independent Agency
Form an independent agency to overlook appointments and transfers
44
Initiative 2 - Impartiality: Introduce independent check on appointment and transfers, fixed tenure and performance-linked incentives
Fixed Tenure
Introduce fixed tenure for civil service officials to avoid rampant transfers
Source: UC Analysis
2.1
2.2
Performance-linked Incentives
Introduce performance-linked incentives and build an integrated performance management system
2.3
None Strong Minimal Partial Good
Progress
Copyright © Jay P Desai, 2013. All Rights Reserved Accountability: Angst, Awareness, Action
45
Initiative 3 - Implementation: Strengthen implementation of policies by institutionalising social accountability checks, prescribing timelines and penalising officials for poor performance
Source: UC Analysis
Institutionalisation
Institutionalise social accountability mechanisms as part of governance structure
Timelines
Prescribe timelines for implementation of accountability mechanisms
3.1
3.2
Penalties 3.3
Introduce penalties as a part of accountability mechanisms and public schemes
None Strong Minimal Partial Good
Progress
Copyright © Jay P Desai, 2013. All Rights Reserved Accountability: Angst, Awareness, Action
Personnel
Provide adequate personnel to accountability agencies
Provide training to improve effectiveness of personnel
46
Initiative 4 - Infrastructure: Provide adequate infrastructure support in the form of personnel and technology
Technology
Leverage information technology and telecommunications to facilitate enforcement of accountability
Source: UC Analysis
4.1
4.2
None Strong Minimal Partial Good
Progress
Copyright © Jay P Desai, 2013. All Rights Reserved Accountability: Angst, Awareness, Action
Authority to Agencies
Provide adequate authority to monitoring agencies
47
Initiative 5 - Independence: Empower monitoring agencies and decentralize authority, to enable them to function effectively
Delegation of Power
Strengthen local authorities by delegating power
Source: UC Analysis
5.1
5.2
None Strong Minimal Partial Good
Progress
Copyright © Jay P Desai, 2013. All Rights Reserved Accountability: Angst, Awareness, Action
Policy Formulation
Participate in policy formulation
Track public expenditure
Evaluate quality of public services
48
Initiative 6 - Involvement: Increase participation of citizens in seeking accountability for non-performance
Redressal Enforcement
Complain against poor delivery of public services
Complain against corrupt officials
Source: UC Analysis
6.1
6.3
Performance Evaluation 6.2
Participate in budget formulation
None Strong Minimal Partial Good
Progress
Copyright © Jay P Desai, 2013. All Rights Reserved Accountability: Angst, Awareness, Action
49
The Five-Fold Path “What would life be if we had no courage to attempt anything?”
Vincent Willem van Gogh, 1853–90
Copyright © Jay P Desai, 2013. All Rights Reserved Accountability: Angst, Awareness, Action
50
Provide Time
Encourage employees to volunteer time for CSOs: • Infosys employees can opt to work for a year with a CSO at half the
salary • HSBC and Standard Chartered encourage their staff to officially dedicate
some time and energy for social causes
1
Provide Media Access
Sponsor media campaigns of CSOs:
• Tata Tea supported the Jaago Re! campaign of a CSO, to build citizen’s awareness on the importance of voting
• NDTV supported and screened the ‘RTI Awards’ organised by a CSO
2
Provide Intellectual Capacity
Conduct research for CSOs, or share technical expertise in areas like legal or financial analysis:
• Accenture extends its expertise and skills to local CSOs, at lower fees • A law firm, Public Interest Legal Support and Research Centre, supports
CSOs by providing legal advice, legal research and litigation support
3
Copyright © Jay P Desai, 2013. All Rights Reserved Accountability: Angst, Awareness, Action
51
Provide Technology & Infrastructure
Corporates can provide CSOs with IT infrastructure or physical infrastructure: • SP Jain Institute provides a CSO with office space and lecture room to
conduct workshops • The ‘ConnectIT’ workshops run by the NASSCOM Foundation, was
aimed at building IT capacity in NGOs
4
Provide Monetary Support
Corporates can provide grants/sponsorships to CSOs: • Ford Foundation, set by the Ford Motor Company provides grants to
CSOs working for various causes • National Foundation of India (www.nfi.org.in) collects funds from
corporates and provides them to CSOs focused on specific issues
5
Copyright © Jay P Desai, 2013. All Rights Reserved Accountability: Angst, Awareness, Action
52
Epilogue “There is a tide in the affairs of men.
Which, taken at the flood, leads to fortune; Omitted, all the voyage of their life
Is bound in shallows and in miseries. On such a full sea are we now afloat,
And we must take the current where it serves, Or lose all our ventures”
William Shakespeare, Julius Caesar, 1564–1616
Copyright © Jay P Desai, 2013. All Rights Reserved Accountability: Angst, Awareness, Action
53 Source: UC Analysis, Secondary Research
1 3 7 6 4 5
1947 - 1970 1970 - 1990 1990 - 2010
53 56 59 62 68 71 74 77 83 86 89
9 8 11
15 14
13 16
10 17
12 18 20 19 24 21
22
23
65 80
Phase I Phase II Phase III
25 36 26
29 28
37 30
27 31
33 34
32
35 39 38 42 46 45 40 43
44 41 47
25. New industrial policy
26. FDI allowed in various sectors
27. Banking reforms
33. SEBI set up
28. Rules of FERA liberalised
29. Investment of foreign equity allowed
30. FIIs were permitted
31. Greater freedom to banks
44. Quantitative restrictions on imports removed
45. Competition commission set up
92 98 01 04 07 95
32. Creation of NSE
47. VAT implemented
1. Nationalisation of RBI
2. Planning Commission formed
5. Development Banks
6. Few industries opened to foreign investment
3. Industrial development strategy
7. Foreign Investment Promotion Board
9. RBI strongly regulated banks
4. India investment centre created
12. Nationalisation of insurance companies
17. Regional rural banks set up
13. Inspector Raj
18. Delicensing of c. 50 sectors
21. Restrictions on imports liberalised
14. FERA implemented
19. Production capacity limits removed
22. Tax rates reduced
15. Restriction imposed on industries
20. Foreign equity permitted
23. Board for Industrial & Financial Reconstruction
16. Import restrictions
2
8. Monopolies Restrictive Practices Act
35. Tax reforms
36. Private & foreign banks allowed
38. FDI limits increased
39. Further de-licensing
40. FERA replaced by FEMA
42. Disinvest-ment of sick PSUs
Pre’50 10
Negative impact Positive impact
10. Nationalisation of banks
11. New industrial licensing policy
24. One committee system for approval
34. Firms allowed to raise capital from abroad
41. IRDA set up
43. Foreign participation in JVs increased
46. De-reservation of items
Significant economic reforms have been introduced since 1991
Copyright © Jay P Desai, 2013. All Rights Reserved Accountability: Angst, Awareness, Action
54 Source: UC Analysis, Secondary Research
1947 - 1970 1970 - 1990 1990 - 2010
53 56 59 62 68 71 74 77 83 86 89 65 80
Phase I Phase II Phase III
23. Panchayati Raj Institution
29. Mandatory disclosure of information by election candidates
33. Centralized Public Grievance Redress & Monitoring System
24. Alternate Dispute Resolution
34. SC Judges declare assets & HC Judges agree to disclose assets
25. Citizen’s Charter
35. Delivery Monitoring Unit
92 98 01 04 07 95
1. Official Secrets Act
11. Central Vigilance Commission
2. Enactment of the Constitution
12. Central Civil Services Conduct Rules
3. Parliamentary Committees
13. 1st Administrative Reforms Commission
4. Comptroller and Auditor General
4 5
20 13 25 28 29 31 9 21 26 10 11
6
3
27
30
2 19 22 24 14 7
12
15 16 17
6. Union Public Service Commission
7. First General elections
8. Programme Evaluation Organisation
9. Law Commission
14. Judges Inquiry Act
15. Maintenance of Internal Security Act
21. First Lokayukta
16. Censor- ship of media
19. National Police Commission
17. Political parties were banned
26. Judicial Collegium
31. Mandatory social audit as part of NREGS
34
36. UID-Aadhar rollout
18
22. Prevention of Corruption Act
30. RTI Act implemented at national level
23
35
27. Bhagidari Initiative
1
50 Pre’50
8
5. Election Commission
10. Central Bureau of Investigation
32
10
Negative impact
Positive impact
36
33. National e-Governance plan
18. Controller General of Accounts
20. Public Interest Litigation
33
32. Outcome budgeting
Governance reforms have been few and sparse over the past decades, resulting in poor quality of governance and lower accountability
Copyright © Jay P Desai, 2013. All Rights Reserved Accountability: Angst, Awareness, Action
55 Source: UC Analysis
Has negative impact
Has positive impact
1947 - 1970 1970 - 1990 1990 - 2010
53 56 59 62 68 71 74 77 83 86 89 65 80
Phase I Phase II Phase III
92 98 01 04 07 95
Key Accountability Policies
1947 - 1970 1970 - 1990 1990 - 2010
53 56 59 62 68 71 74 77 83 86 89 65 80
Phase I Phase II Phase III
92 98 01 04 07 95 50
50
Pre’50
Pre’50
Burst of economic reforms
Burst of accountability
reforms needed
Key Economic Policies
10
10
A burst of high-intensity governance reforms, similar to the economic reforms during liberalisation are needed to improve accountability & governance
Copyright © Jay P Desai, 2013. All Rights Reserved Accountability: Angst, Awareness, Action
Implementation of accountability mechanisms
Valley of Despair
Per
ceiv
ed A
ccou
ntab
ility
New Equilibrium
Initial Equilibrium
Tipping Point
Low
High
Exposure of misgovernance by
media, citizens, CSOs Improvement in Accountability
?
?
India’s position in 2011
External Accountability
Internal, Horizontal & External Accountability
?
?
?
56
Looking at the current pace of reforms, it is likely that we will see a measurable improvement in accountability medium to long term
Copyright © Jay P Desai, 2013. All Rights Reserved Accountability: Angst, Awareness, Action
Appropriate Representation
Participative Conduct
Legitimate Conduct
Liability Enforcement
“…You must be the change you want to see in the world…” Mahatma Gandhi
57
Accountability
Copyright © Jay P Desai, 2013. All Rights Reserved Accountability: Angst, Awareness, Action 58
For more information, please visit