the state intervention and decentralised planning in...
TRANSCRIPT
79
Chapter 5
The State Intervention and Decentralised Planning in Kerala
The 73rd
and 74th
Constitutional Amendments rendered Constitutional
status to Local Self Government Institutions (LSGIs) in India. According to the
Constitutional Amendments, it is the responsibility of the state government to
design the institutional structure and decide the extent of devolution of power
and resources to LSGIs. The Kerala Panchayat Raj Act and the Kerala Municipality
Act of 1994 provide power to the state government to interfere with the
functioning of LSGIs in accordance with national and state level policies. The
policy changes at state level influence LSGIs in local economic development. In
this backdrop, the chapter analyses changes in political coalition in Kerala and
resultant shift in policy paradigm of LSGIs. The chapter is divided into three
sections. The first section explains the method of state government intervention
in LSGIs and structure of local economic development envisaged through
decentralised planning in Kerala. The second section analyse the political and
administrative intervention of state government due to changes in the coalition
government in the state. The third section analyses the trend in the allocation of
grant-in-aid in LSGIs in Kerala.
Section I
5.1 Role of the State Government in Decentralised Planning
India has a federal democratic structure of governance. The 73rd
and 74th
Constitutional Amendments facilitated extension in the structure of governance
from regional to local level with the Constitutional status. Devolution of power and
functions to local level government is an effective way to strengthen the
democratic process. Intensity of the decentralisation process depends on a set of
principles: (i) financial, functional and administrative autonomy; (ii) Principle of
subsidiarity; (iii) role clarity to exercise autonomy; (iv) complementarity of different
80
tiers; (v) uniformity in norms in beneficiary selection, prioritization of development
schemes and assistance; (vi) people’s participation; (vii) accountability of LSGIs; and
(viii) transparency.1
It is important to note that functions of LSGIs in Kerala can broadly be
classified into two, viz., agency functions and autonomous function.2 Among the
agency function, LSGIs in Kerala have to implement development schemes
designed by the central and the state governments and also execute other
administrative functions delegated. Decentralised planning is considered as the
main autonomous function of LSGIs in Kerala because it enables local bodies to
plan and implement need based development programmes in the locality. It is
also noted that autonomy is not the sovereign power to LSGIs in Kerala. Changes
in the government at the state level may lead to policy changes in the affairs of
LSGIs and thereby a significant alteration in the autonomous functions of LSGIs in
Kerala. The statement becomes important in the political scenario of Kerala,
where two political coalitions (Left Democratic Front and United Democratic
Front) with significant difference in their political and economic ideologies, come
to power in the state in an alternative basis. The Local Self Government
Department (LSGD) in the state is empowered to issue general guidelines in the
form of government orders, circulars and gazette notifications to control
functioning of LSGIs in Kerala. Chapter 183 of The Kerala Panchayat Raj Act and
Chapter 54 of The Kerala Municipality Act of 1994 ensured power for the state
government to interfere in the affairs of LSGIs in Kerala. Subsection One in the
section 189 of The Kerala Panchayat Raj Act and subsection One in the section 58
1 For a discussion on different principles of decentralisation process, see Government of Kerala,
Committee on Decentralization of Power - Preliminary Report (Thiruvananthapuram:
Government of Kerala, 1996a). 2 For details, see S. K. Singh, “Functional Devolution on Panchayats in Kerala,” in Decentralised
Governance in India: Myth and Reality, ed. Surat Singh (New Delhi: Deep and Deep
Publications Pvt Ltd, 2004), 296-97. 3 For details, see Chapter 18 of The Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994. The chapter has nine
sections (187, 188, 188A, 189, 190, 191, 192, 193 and 194). 4 See Chapter 5 of The Kerala Municipality Act, 1994. The chapter has nine sections (56, 57, 58,
59, 61, 62, 63, 64, and 65).
81
of The Kerala Municipality Act empower the state government to issue guidelines
and conduct enquiry in the functioning of LSGIs in accordance with the interest of
national and the state level policies.
Table 5.1. Number of Government Orders, Circulars and Gazette Notification
Issued by Kerala Government for LSGIs
Year Government
Order Circular
Gazette
Notification
2013 1068 76 14
2012 595 61 2
2011 188 79 10
2010 178 82 31
2009 179 87 13
2008 173 51 1
2007 48 36 2
2006 60 36 3
2005 54 21 3
2004 74 61 5
2003 68 101 11
2002 52 14 4
2001 55 28 2
2000 56 52 Nil
1999 71 46 5
1998 132 74 6
1997 35 29 5
1996 13 12 Nil
1995 8 7 Nil
1994 5 7 Nil
1993 6 4 Nil
1992 8 6 Nil
1991 3 3 Nil
1990 2 1 Nil Source: “Orders at a Glance.” Local Self Government Department: Government of Kerala.
Accessed March 11, 2014. http://go.lsgkerala.gov.in/pages/orderGlance.php.
An important political decision was taken by the ruling Left Democratic
Front (LDF) government in the state in 1997 to devolve 35 to 40 percent of state
plan fund to LSGIs in Kerala to finance locally planned projects under the 9th
Five
Year Plan. The political decision was also taken for the functional and
administrative decentralisation along with financial decentralisation. The table 5.1
82
shows the sequence of Government Orders, Circulars and Gazette Notifications
issued by the government of Kerala for LSGIs in Kerala from 1990.5 It is clear from
the table 5.1 that the number of Government Orders, Circulars and Gazette
Notifications have substantially increased after 1996 than the pre-decentralisation
period. It is also observed that government orders have been increased over the
years even after the state government emphasised the institutionalisation process
of decentralised planning in Kerala during the 10th
Five Year Plan.
Important components that influence the quality of decentralised
planning in Kerala can be classified into different heads, viz., finance, people’s
participation, and transparency. Chart 5.1 indicate that people’s participation
have a significant role in the functioning of decentralised planning. People’s
participation is the pre-condition for effective functioning of the Working Group,
Grama Sabha, Monitoring Committees and Social Auditing. It is also a fact that, to
enable people’s participation, Working Groups and Grama Sabha should have
mandatory provisions to incorporate representation of local people. Inadequate
people’s participation in LSGIs will leads to the bureaucratisation of decentralised
planning. This will limit transparency into the measures of financial efficiency of
development projects rather than considering its viability and sustainability in
local economic development. Decentralised planning in Kerala envisaged
intervention in economic development through mobilisation of untapped savings
and other local resources along with the plan fund devolved by the state
government. In order to materialise the mobilisation of untapped savings and
other resources, both Grama Sabha and Working Group should have adequate
provision in decision making process.
5 The statistics in the table 5.1 are calculated from the data available in the website of Kerala
Local Self Government Department on 11th March 2014. It is reported from Kerala Local Self
Government Department that the data available in the website is less than the actual number
of Government Orders, Circulars and Gazette Notification issued by the state government.
83
Ch
art 5
.1. S
tructu
re o
f De
cen
tralise
d P
lan
nin
g u
nd
er LS
GIs in
Ke
rala
De
cen
tralise
d P
lan
nin
g
Tra
nsp
are
ncy
Audit by People
Audit by Bureaucrats
Social Audit
Monitoring
Committee
Local Fund Audit
Performance
Audit
Pe
op
le’s P
articip
atio
n
Grama Sabha
Working Group
Fin
an
ce
Own Fund
Plan Grant-in-Aid
Fund from Other
Sources
84
The People’s Plan Campaign during the 9th
Five Year Plan envisaged
decentralised planning with active participation of local people along with the
facilitator role of government staffs in the LSGIs. Plan guidelines for decentralised
planning have important role in LSGIs since plan guidelines carries policy changes
of government at state level. The changes the plan guideline also affect quality of
the decentralised planning process in the state. For example, if the state
government takes policy against the active participation of people in the
decentralised planning, it will adversely affect local resource mobilisation,
performance of certain key institutions and transparency. The conditions
explained above problematize role of guidelines issued by the state government
in decentralised planning in Kerala.
Section II
5.2 Plan Guidelines and Plan Formulation
Guidelines for plan formulation is important for LSGIs in Kerala. It is
mandatory for LSGIs in Kerala to follow the plan guidelines in the formulation of
development projects with grant-in-aid devolved by the state government. The plan
guidelines of the state government includes directions that local bodies have to
follow during the different phases of plan formulation. Sectoral allocation of plan
fund is declared in the plan guideline. Guidelines for plan formulation under LSGIs
were issued on an annual basis by the state government during the 9th
Five Year Plan.
But guidelines for plan formulation under LSGIs for 10th
, 11th
and 12th
Five Year Plans
were issued for a Five Year Plan period.
5.2.1 Task Force, Sectoral Committee and Working Group
Constitution of Task Force or Working Group is one of the main phases in the
decentralised planning in Kerala.6 According to guidelines issued for plan formulation
under the 9th
Five Year Plan, all LSGIs had to constitute Task Force for various
6 Task Force and Working Group are institution with same functions under decentralised
planning in Kerala. The Task Force during the 9th
plan was renamed as Working Group in 10th
plan and further remained it as Task Force in the 11th
and 12th
Five Year Plan periods.
85
development sectors in the first general body meeting held at LSGIs level. According
to the guidelines issued for the 9th
Plan a Task Force comprised of: (i) members of the
Voluntary Technical Corps (VTC); (ii) government officers working under the
jurisdiction of the local body; and (iii) elected representatives. The guidelines
envisaged a Task Force strength of 10 to 12 members.7 A Task Force had four office
bearers in which two are volunteers. A Local Resource Person or District Resource
Person was selected as join convener of a Task Force.8 Minimum of 30 percent of
Task Force members should be women and Schedule Castes (SC) and Schedule Tribes
(ST) community also had representation proportional to their population. The 9th
Plan envisaged separate Task Forces for development of Women, SC and ST
communities. Task Force had a leading role in the plan formulation process during
the 9th
Plan period. It was the responsibility of the Task Force to prepare project
proposals, assist the local body to organise Grama Sabha/Ward Sabha and in the
conduction of Development Seminar, prepare the draft plan document and monitor
the development projects.
Election to the state legislative assembly was held on 10th
May 2001. The
United Democratic Front (UDF) was elected to power in the state. The newly elected
state government introduced the guideline for plan formulation under LSGIs in the
terminal year of the 9th
Five Year Plan. The new guideline made drastic changes in the
very structure and functions of the Task Force. The new guideline renamed Task Force
as ‘Sectoral Committee’. According to the plan guideline, a Sectoral Committee had a
7 See Government of Kerala, “People’s Campaign for Ninth Five Year Plan- Formulation of
Annual Plan 1998-99 of Local Bodies,” G. O. (MS) No. 19/98/plg: 4th June, 1998a. Also,
Government of Kerala, “People’s Campaign for Ninth Five Year Plan- Formulation of Annual
Plan 1999-2000 of Local Bodies,” G. O. (MS) No. 20/99/plg: 5th April, 1999. Also Government
of Kerala, “People’s Campaign for Ninth Five Year Plan- Formulation of Annual Plan 2000-01 of
Local Bodies,” G. O. (MS) No. 17/2000/plg: 3th April, 2000a. 8 To make decentralised planning a success, government availed service of volunteers and gave
training to them. Key Resource Persons got training at Stale level, District Level Resource
Person got training at district and Local Resource Person got training at Grama
Panchayat/Municipality. They were assigned with number of duties at level where they got
training. For details see, Government of Kerala, “Ninth Five Year Plan- Decentralisation and
Peoples’ Participation - Mass Campaign,” G. O. (MS) No. 10/96/Plg: 30th July, 1996.
86
mandatory minimum strength of five members.9 The new guideline insisted only two
office bearers for a Sectoral Committee, viz., an elected representative of the LSGI as
chairperson and, a government officer from concerned government department as
secretary. The guideline proposed mandatory Sectoral Committees that LSGIs have to
constitute and count-in agricultural development in the list. But the guideline has not
made mandatory provisions for the representation of women, SC and ST community
in the Sectoral Committees other than their development. The Committees were
assigned only with the responsibility to prepare draft project proposals and monitor
development projects. The plan guideline issued for 2001-02, discouraged peoples’
participation and encouraged bureaucratisation of decentralised planning.
The UDF government at the state issued the plan guideline to LSGIs for the
10th
Five Year Plan on 6th
June 2002. The new plan guideline for LSGIs further
renamed Task Force as Working Group. According to the guideline for the 10th
Plan,
the plan phase starts with the holding of general body meeting for the formation of
Working Groups in various development sectors of LSGIs. The guideline also
proposed a list of people to consider for Working Group membership and they are;
(i) Professionals, (ii) Non-Governmental Organisations (NGOs) Members,
(iii) Representative of interest groups, (iv) Representatives of banks approved by the
district collector, (v) Farmers, (vi) Entrepreneurs, (vii) SC Promoters10
, and
(viii) Kudumbashree CDS. The guideline for the 10th
Five Year Plan recommended the
formation of eight mandatory Working Groups under LSGIs in Kerala.11
The guideline
9 For discussion on role and functions of Sectoral Committee, see Government of Kerala,
“People’s Campaign for Ninth Five Year Plan- Formulation of Annual Plan 2001-02 of Local
Bodies,” G. O. (MS) No. 17/2001/plg: 18th June, 2001a. 10
‘SC Social Activist’ popularly known as SC Promoter is a volunteer from Scheduled Caste
community and responsible to co-ordinate the development activities of LSGIs and SC
development department for the empowerment of Scheduled Caste community. 11
Mandatory Working Groups according to the 10th
Five Year Plan guideline are; 1) Agriculture
and allied sectors including irrigation and agro processing, 2) Local economic development
other than agriculture including local industries, facilitation of private and community
development, 3) Poverty reduction and social security, 4) Development of SCs/ STs, 5)
Development of women and children, 6) Health, water supply and sanitation, 7) Education, 8)
Infrastructure CDS. For details, see Government of Kerala, “Guide Lines for the Formation of
Tenth Five Year Plan,” G. O. (MS) No. 20/2002/Plg: 6th June, 2002.
87
envisaged a Working Group with minimum strength of seven members in which two
were women and one SC Promoter. Quorum of a Working Group meeting was fixed
as four members. A Working Group was chaired by an elected representative and
subject expert serve as vice-chairperson. Senior most officer of concerned
department in the local body was convener of a Working Group and the presence of
convener became mandatory for all Working Group meetings. A Working Group
under the 10th
Five Year Plan had relatively limited role to perform as compared to a
Task Force during the 9th
Five Year Plan in Kerala. According to the guideline, a
Working Group in the 10th
Plan had to prepare draft plan proposal, update
development report and monitor the development project on a quarterly basis.
According to plan guidelines issued for LSGIs during the 9th
Plan, all members in a
Task Force had to act as facilitator group for smooth functioning of Grama Sabha /
Ward Sabha meeting and development seminar. But the guideline issued for the 10th
Five Year Plan demanded service of only two members (one female) from a Working
Group to facilitate Grama Sabha meeting. The essence of decentralised planning in
Kerala is that it has envisaged the utilisation of the volunteer service of local
community especially retired people.12
The plan guideline issued for the 10th
Five
Year Plan had limited provision to utilise volunteer service of local people and
encouraged bureaucratisation of decentralised planning in the state. But it is
important to noted that peoples’ participation is positively associated with quality
and sustainability of development projects.13
In the election to the state Legislative Assembly LDF was voted to power in
2006. The ruling UDF was replaced by LDF at the state level administration. The new
government had not brought any change in the plan guideline for decentralised
planning in the terminal year (2006-07) of the 10th
Five Year Plan. The LDF
government launched decentralised planning in the 11th
Five Year Plan as ‘Next Phase
12
See T. M. Thomas Isaac and K. N. Harilal, “Planning for Empowerment: People’s Campaign for
Decentralised Planning in Kerala,” Economic and Political Weekly 32, no. 1–2 (1997): 54. 13
For details, see Prabhat Dutta, Decentralisation, Participation and Governance (New Delhi:
Kalpaz Publications, 2006), 117.
88
of People’s Plan Campaign’ (the second phase of the People’s Plan Campaign).14
The
number of mandatory Working Groups in a local body was increased to twelve during
the 11th
Five Year Plan.15
According to the guideline for the 11th
Plan, members in a
Working Group should be selected from; (i) ‘model’ practitioners, (ii) professionals,
(iii) social activists, (iv) academically qualified people, (v) government officers, (vi)
retired people, (vii) representatives of NGOs, (viii) members of Kudumbashree CDS,
(ix) SC promoters, and (x) representatives of the banks.16
The new guideline instated
that a Working Group with three office bearers. A Working Group is chaired by an
elected representative of the local body and vice-chaired by an expert. The guideline
also insisted on the mandatory presence of convenor (government officer in the LSGI)
in all Working Group meetings. A Working Group under the second phase of the
People’s Plan Campaign was assigned the duties to prepare a draft proposal of
development projects, collection and analysis of data for local level planning and
interaction with other Working Groups to ensure co-ordination of development
projects with complementary link. It is also noted that a Working Group in the 11th
Plan had limited difference in the structure and functions as compared to its
predecessor in the 10th
Plan.
The UDF won the assembly election held in 2011 and the new UDF
government not made any changes in the guideline for decentralised planning in
the terminal year (2011-12) of the 11th
Five Year Plan. The UDF government
issued plan guideline for the 12th
Five Year Plan in 15th
June 2012. According to
14
See Government of Kerala, “Decentralised Planning by Local Government – Launch of next
Phase of People’s Plan – Guidelines for the Preparation of Annual Plan 2007-08 and XIth
Five
Year Plan,” G. O. (MS) No. 128/2007/LSGD: 14th May, 2007a. 15
All local bodies in the state have to constitute mandatory working Group under the 11th
Five
Year Plan, and they are; 1) Watershed Management including Environment, Agriculture,
Irrigation, Animal Husbandry, Fisheries and related sector, 2) Local Economic Development-
local industry, promotion of private and community investment and mobilisation of credit, 3)
Poverty reduction including housing, 4) Development of Scheduled Caste, 5) Development of
Women and Children, 6) Health, 7) Water Supply and Sanitation, 8) Education, Culture, Sports
and Youth, 9) Social Security, 10) Energy, 11) Governance plan. 16
For details, see Government of Kerala, “Decentralised Planning by Local Government – Launch
of next Phase of People’s Plan – Guidelines for the Preparation of Annual Plan 2007-08 and
XIth
Five Year Plan,” G. O. (MS) No. 128/2007/LSGD.
89
the new guideline, the first step of decentralised planning in the 12th
Plan starts
with the appointment of a plan co-ordinator at LSGIs level and the selection
should be from all implementing officers of development projects under the
jurisdiction of LSGIs.17
Members of a Working Group under the 12th
Plan are
selected from people in the following category; (i) ‘model’ practitioners, (ii)
professionals, (iii) experts in the concerned sector, (iv) people with specific
qualifications, (v) experts from academic institutions. The new guideline skipped
political activists from the category of members to a Working Group. The second
phase proceeded with the constitution of Working Groups through a general body
meeting.
According to the new guideline, a rural local body has to constitute 16
mandatory Working Groups, which will be under the direct control of five
standing committees. An urban local body has to have 19 mandatory Working
Groups under direct control of seven standing committees. The minimum
strength of a Working Group is seven members, which is similar to the strength of
the 10th
Plan. The new guideline fixed upper limit to a Working Group as 17
members. The quorum of a Working Group is fixed to one-third of its total
strength in the 12th
Plan. If a working Group has mandatory minimum strength
(seven members), then the quorum will be less than three. Each Standing
Committee has to co-ordinate the activities of Working Groups. A Working Group
under the 12th
Plan has only two office bears; (i) members from the concerned
standing committee (other than standing committee chairperson) as chairperson,
(ii) senior officer of the concerned government department as convener. The new
guideline envisaged one third reservation for women and ensured proportional
representation of SC and ST communities. If a member of a Working Group (other
than the chairperson and convenor) fails to attend three consecutive Working
Group meetings, the member will be dropped from the committee.
17
See Government of Kerala, “Twelfth Five Year Plan (2012-17) Plan Guidelines for Local Self
Government Institutions,” G. O. (M S) No. 168/12/LSGD: 15th June, 2012.
90
Table 5.2. Change in the Structure and Functions of Task Force/Working Groups 1996-97 to 2012-13
Five
Year
Plan
Political
Coalition
in power
Office Bearers of Working
Group Maximum
Strength
Minimum
Strength
Number
required for
Quorum
Representation from Weaker
sections Assigned
Responsibilities Category Number Women SC and ST
9th
Plan* LDF
Elected
Representative 1
12 10
ns
30% proportional
Prepare draft Project
proposals, Monitoring,
Facilitate Grama Sabha
and development
seminar
Government staff 1
Volunteers 2
9th
Plan†
UDF
Elected
Representative 1
ns 5
ns
Only for
Women
Development
Only for
SC/ST
Development
Prepare draft Project
proposals, Monitoring Government Staff 1
Volunteers Nil
10th
Plan UDF
Elected
Representative 1
ns 7
4
Two
Kudumbashree
CDS members
SC and ST
Promoter
Prepare draft Project
proposals, Monitoring,
limited role in Grama
Sabha
Government staff 1
Volunteers 1
11th
Plan LDF
Elected
Representative 1
ns ns
4
One
Kudumbashree
CDS member
Two SC
Promoters
Prepare draft Project
proposals, Monitoring,
limited role in Grama
Sabha
Government staff 1
Volunteers 1
12th
Plan UDF
Elected
Representative 1
17 7
2-6
33% proportional
Prepare draft Project
proposals, Monitoring,
support to
stakeholders meeting
Government staff 1
Volunteers Nil
Note: * from 1997-98 to 2000-01, † 2001-02, ns – Not Specified.
91
According to the plan guideline for the 12th
Plan, responsibilities of a Working
Group are; (i) prepare draft plan proposal, (ii) provides academic support for
stake holders’ and Grama Sabha meetings, (iii) Offer effective monitoring of
development projects during the implementation. The table 5.2 explains
changes in the Task Force/Working Group from 9th
plan. Following
observations can be made from the table 5.2; (i) bureaucratisation of the
committee has been increasing over the years since 9th
plan, (ii)
responsibilities of Working Groups have been curtailed and was confined to
the technical side of planning.
5.2.2 Grama Sabha / Ward Conventions
Plan guidelines issued for the 9th Plan proposed holding of Grama
Sabha/Ward Convention as the second phase of decentralised planning in
Kerala. All members in the Task Forces had to mobilise voters of the ward for
Grama Sabha/Ward convention.18
Task Force members were assigned the
responsibility of explaining draft development proposals in multidisciplinary
group wise discussion at Grama Sabha meeting. But the guideline for the
terminal year (2001-02) of the 9th
Five Year Plan removed the role of a Sectoral
Committee as facilitator of Grama Sabha/Ward Conventions.19
The guideline for the 10th
Plan suggested a minimum of 25 per cent
attendance in a Grama Sabha meeting and called for a ‘Campaign Mode’ to
mobilise people. To quote the guideline for the 10th
Plan;
The following steps are suggested to be carried out on a campaign
mode. (a) Determination of dates in advance by the local
governments. (b) Printing of invitation notices and distributing them
with each notice summarising the responsibilities of Grama
18
See Government of Kerala, “People’s Campaign for Ninth Five Year Plan- Formulation of
Annual Plan 1998-99 of Local Bodies,” G. O. (MS) No. 19/98/plg. Also, Government of Kerala,
“People’s Campaign for Ninth Five Year Plan- Formulation of Annual Plan 1999-2000 of Local
Bodies,” G. O. (MS) No. 20/99/plg. Also, Government of Kerala, “People’s Campaign for Ninth
Five Year Plan- Formulation of Annual Plan 2000-01 of Local Bodies,” G. O. (MS) No.
17/2000/plg. 19
See Government of Kerala, “People’s Campaign for Ninth Five Year Plan- Formulation of
Annual Plan 2001-02 of Local Bodies,” G. O. (MS) No. 17/2001/plg.
92
Sabha/Ward Sabha in plan formulation. (c) Display of fixed notices in
public places. (d) Contact of ‘interest’ groups through officers and
elected members. (e) Information through representative
organisations. (f) Special publicity through schools, anganwadis and
co-operatives. (g) Special efforts through NGOs, libraries, and co-
operatives. (h) Mobilization through SHGs/NHGs/SC/ST promoters. (i)
Campaign through National Service Scheme volunteers, NCC cadets
and College students on social work placement. (j) House visits
through squad work.20
Measures suggested were not enough for mass mobilisation. Working Groups
had a limited role to perform as facilitator as compared to the 9th
Five Year
Plan. It has also been noted that observations made by the government
committee on decentralisation that the early enthusiasm of Panchayats was
not sustained in holding of Grama Sabha/Ward Conventions.21
It is also
observed from the field level interview with different stakeholders that
participation in Grama Sabhas have been declined over the years. Some of
ward members and government officials shared that certain ‘colleagues’ often
cook up attendance of the Grama Sabha if they failed to make a quorum, to
satisfy mandatory requirement.
The guideline for the 11th
Five Year Plan proposed holding of a meeting
with important stakeholders in the LSGIs prior to Grama Sabha meeting.22
The
guideline for the 11th
Five Year Plan proposed six facilitators from Working Groups
to assist Grama Sabha meetings. Out of the six facilitators, three were nominated
20
Government of Kerala, “Guide Lines for the Formation of Tenth Five Year Plan,” G. O. (MS) No.
20/2002/Plg. 21
See Government of Kerala, Report of the Committee for Evaluation of Decentralised Planning
and Development (Thrissur: Kerala Institute of Local Administration, 2009a), 51. 22
The list of Key stakeholders proposed by the guideline are: 1) Farmers and Agricultural
Workers; 2) People engaged in industrial activities and services (both traditional and modern)
including workers; 3) All the Area Development Societies; 4) Headmasters and key PTA office
bearers; 5) Anganwadi Workers and Mothers’ Committee Chairpersons; 6) All Hospital
Management Committee members of the Government Hospitals within the Local
Government (of all three streams) and key medical professionals within the Local government
from the NGOs and private sector;7) Youth Clubs, youth organizations and activists and
functionaries of the literacy and library movements, eminent persons in the field of arts and
culture and representatives of disabled groups; 8) Vana Samrakshana Samithies and
environmental activists; 9) Representatives of Political Parties and Trade Unions.
93
by Area Development Society (ADS)23
, one woman and two men were
unanimously elected by the LSGIs. The methodology of a Grama Sabha meeting
was remained to be same in all guidelines issued from 1997. But the role and
number of volunteer facilitators were minimised and importance of government
staffs had been increased in the plan process after the 9th
Five Year Plan.
The Guideline for the 12th
Plan proposed two more steps to complete
prior to the holding of Pre-Grama Sabha/Ward Sabha consultation of stake
holders. These steps indicated: (i) preparation of status report for the 12th
Five
Year Plan (2012 – 17); and (ii) discussion with lead-bank to mobilise bank loans for
development activity. According to the new guideline, a government officer will
co-ordinate Grama Sabha/ward Sabha meeting.24
This is one of the extreme steps
to bureaucratise the decentralised planning process in Kerala. The guideline for
the 12th
Five Year Plan proposes steps to strengthen Grama Sabha: (i) establish a
village centre (ward office) at all constituencies of LSGIs; and (ii) formation of
groups similar to residence association with 50 to 100 families in a Ward. To
maintain a village centre, LSGIs are permitted to allocate not more than Rs. 50000
per centre from plan fund on an annual basis. It is also important to note that a
good portion of the plan fund will be spent for village centres since a Grama
Panchayat has statutory minimum of 12 constituencies.
5.2.3 Development Seminar
Plan guidelines for LSGIs projected holding of Development Seminar as one
of the major steps after Grama Sabha meetings. Task Force in the 9th
Plan and
Working Group in 10th
, 11th
and 12th
Five Year Plans were assigned with the
23
“Area Development Society (ADS) is the second tier institution in Kudumbashree structure. It is
formed at ward level by federating all the Neighbourhood Groups in a Panchayat Ward. The
activities of the ADS are carried out by the representatives of the women elected from various
NHGs. The Area Development Society consists of: 1) General Body - consisting of all Presidents,
Secretaries and three sectoral volunteers of the federated NHGs. 2) Executive Committee - The
Executive Committee of the Area Development Society consists of seven members elected by the
ADS general body which include a Chairperson, Vice Chairperson and Secretary.” See “CBO
Structure,” Kudumbashree. Accessed August 9, 2012. http://www.kudumbashree.org/ ?q=cbo. 24
See Government of Kerala, “Twelfth Five Year Plan (2012-17) Plan Guidelines for Local Self
Government Institutions,” G. O. (M S) No. 168/12/LSGD.
94
responsibility to prepare a draft plan document which is circulated at Development
Seminar. According to the plan guidelines issued during the 9th
Plan, Task Force
members had active role to facilitate Development Seminar. The guideline for the
10th
Five Year Plan proposed Stakeholder Consultation during the period between
Grama Sabha and Development Seminar.25
Pre-Grama Sabha consultation of
stakeholders is preferable and meaningful than Post-Grama Sabha consultation
since Grama Sabha can also consider stakeholders suggestions and could make
valuable discussion. Printed copy of the draft plan document is distributed for
discussion at Development Seminar. The mode of conducting (procedure) of
Development Seminar remained the same from 9th
to 12th
Five Year Plans. It is also
noted that different group of stakeholders, who were elected to participate in a
Development Seminar has expanded over years till the 11th
Plan. A Grama Sabha
has to select two representatives (one female) from each multidisciplinary group
for Development Seminar. The 12th
Plan guideline differs on the ground that it has
cut short the number of representatives elected form Grama Sabha meetings. The
new guideline permits only a representative from multidisciplinary groups in a
Grama Sabha to participate in Development Seminar and removed the mandatory
presence of a female representative from Grama Sabhas.26
5.2.4 Finalisation, Appraisal and Approval of Development Projects
It is the responsibility of the Committees of LSGIs to finalise annual
projects report (list of development schemes) and send it for approval from the
District Planning Committee (DPC). This process remained the same for all Five
Year Plans from 9th
to 12th
Plans. DPC is the final authority to sanction the final
approval to all development projects submitted by Grama Panchayats in a district.
The committee that assisted DPCs during 1997 to 2000 period for the appraisal of
development projects was known as VTC. A VTC is a multidisciplinary group
consisted of retired experts, college teachers, government/bank officers, social
25
See Government of Kerala, “Guide Lines for the Formation of Tenth Five Year Plan,” G. O.
(MS) No. 20/2002/Plg. 26
See Government of Kerala, “Twelfth Five Year Plan (2012-17) Plan Guidelines for Local Self
Government Institutions,” G. O. (M S) No. 168/12/LSGD.
95
activists, and key resource persons. According to the guideline issued for the
formation of VTC in the beginning of the 9th
Five Year Plan, clearly defined the
strength and proportion of different categories of volunteers in a TVC.27
The
guideline issued for the terminal year of the 9th
Plan (2001-02) had changed the
name of VTC and the new committee called Technical Advisory Committee (TAC)
was formed. The Key Resource Persons were dropped from the TAC.
TAC vetted development projects formulated under decentralised planning
during the 10th
Plan.28
The guideline issued for the 10th
Plan had not mentioned the
procedure for the constitution of TAC for the plan period. The guideline for the 11th
Five Year Plan made a small change in the name of the TAC and the new name was
Technical Advisory Groups (TAGs). There was no significant change in the structure
and composition of TAGs. The guideline for the 12th
Five Year Plan made considerable
change in the appraisal procedure of development projects. The development
projects are vetted by the concerned implementing officers on the basis of norms
issued by the government and the superior officer. The implementing officer will give
consent for its implementation.29
5.2.5 Transparency and Accountability
Decentralised planning in Kerala envisaged institutional provisions for
transparency and accountability of development activities carried out by LSGIs. The
institutional set up to ensure transparency and accountability is classified into two:
(i) auditing performed by government staffs; and (ii) monitoring and auditing set up
with the support of local people. The audit carried out by bureaucrats is in two
types: (i) annual local fund audit performed by the Local Fund Audit Department
(LFAD) under the Local Fund Audit Act 1994; and (ii) performance audit conducted
27
A VTC has membership of 50 to 60 experts, in which 25 per cent are government employees
of various department, 25 percent constitute by non-officials such as college teachers,
technocrats, Management experts, bank officers and key resource persons and remaining 50
percent are constituted by retired persons. The committee at Block and district level are
named as Block Level Expert Committee (BLEC) and District Level Expert Committee (DLEC). 28
See Government of Kerala, “Guide Lines for the Formation of Tenth Five Year Plan,” G. O.
(MS) No. 20/2002/Plg. 29
See Government of Kerala, “Twelfth Five Year Plan (2012-17) Plan Guidelines for Local Self
Government Institutions,” G. O. (M S) No. 168/12/LSGD.
96
by LSGD on a quarterly basis. The common factor found in the two audit system
(Local fund audit and performance audit) is that it considers all financial
transactions (plan and non-plan) of LSGIs. The annual audit scrutinise the finical
transactions of LSGIs. The performance audit system is the outcome of the
recommendations made by the Sen Committee on decentralisation of power in
Kerala. The performance audit system evaluates the efficiency in fund use under
LSGIs with regards to guidelines issued by the state government.
The monitoring and audit with people’s participation is the second type of
institutional mechanism. It is expected to ensure transparency and accountability in the
development activities under LSGIs. The first institution under this category is
Monitoring Committee. From the 9th
Plan onwards, Working Group/Task Forces are
responsible to monitor the implementation of development projects under LSGIs.
There is an association between the structure of the Working Group / Task Force and
performance of Monitoring Committee. For example, if the Working Group is
dominated by the voice of bureaucrats and elected representatives, then the
monitoring becomes a farcical activity since the government officer is also the
implementing officer of the project. As the coalition government in the state changes
the structure, composition and assigned role of a Working Group are also redefined
(table 5.2).
Social auditing is another mechanism to ensure transparency and
accountability of development projects implemented by LSGIs. Several LSGIs in
Kerala has implemented the then successful ‘Vithura model of the social auditing
system’ in the later period of the 9th
Five Year Plan.30
The Vithura model of social
audit is the by-product of people’s urge for decentralised planning. It is also noted
that the plan guidelines issued during the 9th
Plan were silent about social audit.
30
To ensure transparency and accountability of development projects, Vithura Grama
Panchayat in Thiruvananthapuram district introduced a social auditing mechanism during the
9th
Five Year Plan. A People’s Committee of social audit were organised at the Grama
Panchayat level with three representatives from each Grama Sabha. The committee
conducted audit at Grama Panchayat level and presented the report in Grama Sabha
meetings. All government officers must ensure their presence in Grama Sabha meetings to
clear doubts with necessary documents.
97
Table 5.3. Changes in the Key Institutions under Plan Formulation among LSGIs in Kerala
Committees 9th
Plan* 10th
Plan 11th
Plan 12th
Plan
Task Force/
Working
Group
Office Bearers 4 (2 volunteers) 3 (one volunteer) 3 (one volunteer) 2
Responsibilities
1) Prepare Draft Plan, 2)
mobilize people and
conduction of Grama
Sabha and Development
seminar, 3) Monitoring
1) Prepare Draft Plan, 2)
conduction of Grama Sabha
and Development seminar,
3) Monitoring.
1) Prepare Draft Plan, 2)
conduction of Grama
Sabha and Development
seminar, 3) Monitoring.
1) Prepare Draft Plan, 2)
facilitate stakeholders’
meeting, 3) Monitoring.
Plan Coordination
A committee with
elected representatives
and selected Task Force
members
Senior Government Officer
A committee with
elected representatives
and selected Working
Group members
Senior Government Officer
Grama Sabha/Ward Sabha
1) Collection of local
data, 2) beneficiary
selection, 3) prioritise
development schemes.
1) Collection of local data, 2)
beneficiary selection, 3)
prioritise development
schemes.
1) Collection of local
data, 2) beneficiary
selection, 3) prioritise
development schemes.
1) Collection of local data, 2)
beneficiary selection, 3)
prioritise development
schemes.
Development Seminar
Elected representatives,
Task Force members,
representatives from
Grama Sabha, other
volunteers
Elected representatives,
Working Group members,
Representatives from Grama
Sabha, Stakeholders,
government officials
Elected representatives,
Working Group
members,
Representatives from
Grama Sabha,
Elected representatives,
Working Group members,
Representatives from Grama
Sabha, Government officers,
Academic experts,
Representatives from NGOs,
Social activists
Note: *Details in the guideline issued for the terminal year of the 9th
Five Year Plan is not presented in this table.
98
There was a good environment to build-up such models since LGSIs had sound
provision for volunteer participation during the 9th
Five Year Plan. The Vithura
model of social audit did not sustain after the 9th
Plan. Steps were not taken to
build a social audit mechanism to ensure transparency of development projects
under LSGIs in Kerala during 10th
and 11th
Plans. But LSGIs in Kerala also
implemented social audit to evaluate works associated with Mahatma Gandhi
National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MGNREGA) during the 11th
Five Year
Plan. The plan guideline issued for the 12th
Five Year Plan insisted for mandatory
constitution of institutions for social audit under LSGIs in Kerala. Promotion of
people’s participation in all stages and de-bureaucratisation are indicators of
good governance process in Kerala.31
But bureaucratisation has increased and the
quality of decentralisation has declined from 2001 under LSGIs in Kerala. It is also
observed that the magnitude of the bureaucratisation has been fluctuating under
alternative coalition government in the state. Table 5.3 explains major changes in
the key institutions in the decentralised planning from 9th
to 12th
Plans in Kerala.
Following observation can be made from the table 5.3: (i) active role of Working
Groups to mobilise people in the planning process have been minimised during
10th
, 11th
and 12th
Five Year Plans; (ii) plan coordination at LSGIs level is
performed by a committee comprised of elected representatives (Ward
members) and members of Task Forces/Working Groups in 9th
and 11th
Plans. On
the other hand plan coordination at LSGIs level is performed by a government
official of the LSGIs (implementing officer) during 10th
and 12th
Plans. It can be
stated that the people’s participation has been significantly diluted over plan
period.
31
For details, see S. M. Vijayanad, “Local Governments and Decentralised Development,” Kerala
Calling 24, no. 12 (2003): 12–15), 12.
99
Section III
5.3 Financial Autonomy and Trend in Plan Formulation
The decentralisation process envisaged devolution of financial autonomy in
Kerala. LSGIs in Kerala have been receiving various categories of funds for different
purposes: (i) own revenue (own fund); (ii) grant-in-aid devolved for decentralised
planning (plan fund); (iii) fund for State Sponsored Schemes; (iv) fund for Centrally
Sponsored Schemes; (v) fund for maintenance of assets in LSGIs; (vi) general purposes
grand; (vii) loans; and (viii) receipts from other sources. Own fund is consisted of tax
as well as non-tax revenue collected by LSGIs in Kerala. 32
The local bodies have high
degree of autonomy over own fund. But the volume of the own fund is barely enough
to meet establishment charges and obligatory functions of LSGIs in Kerala.33
The
Fourth State Finance Commission of Kerala identified about 300 Grama Panchayats as
fiscally deficit since they failed to meet establishment charges and obligatory
functions with the sum of own revenue and general purpose fund.34
Funds for State
Sponsored Schemes, Centrally Sponsored Schemes, general purpose grant and
maintenance of assets are tied with specific purposes. Under such schemes, LSGIs
have to identify beneficiaries or locations, based on the general norms issued by the
central and the state governments. The grant-in-aid devolved for development
purposes is important for LSGIs because this is the fund which amounted to be the
major portion of funds used for decentralised planning in Kerala.
During the inception of the People’s Plan Campaign in Kerala, the state
government had earmarked 35 to 40 percent of state plan fund to facilitate LSGIs to
prepare their own development schemes through decentralised planning. The table
32
Comptroller and Auditor General (India), Audit Report (LSGIs) for the year ended 31st
March
2009 - Kerala, Chapter-1. Accessed September 20, 2012. http://saiindia.gov.in/english/home/
Our_Products/Audit_Report/Government_Wise/local_bodies/Tabled_Legislature/Kerala/200
8_2009/Chapter-1.pdf. 33
For details, see Government of India, Kerala Development Report (New Delhi: Planning
Commission and Academic Foundation, 2008), 446. 34
Government of Kerala, Report of the Fourth State Finance Commission Kerala- Part 1
(Thiruvananthapuram: Finance Department, 2011a), 178.
100
5.4 shows relative share of grant-in-aid devolved to LSGIs from the state plan fund
during 1997-98 to 2012-13. Important observations from table 5.4 are: (i) total as well
as category wise devolution to LSGIs have been fluctuating over the years; (ii) total
outlay for the 9th
Plan was 29.29 percent of the state plan fund, it had declined to
26.81 percent in the 10th
Plan and 22.18 percent of the 11th
Plan; (iii) the general
sector allocation during the 9th
Five Year Plan was 21.99 percent of the state plan
fund and the share has declined to 19.86 percent during the 10th
Plan and 15.17
percent during the 11th
Plan; (iv) Special Component Plan (SCP) received more or less
stable share of the state plan fund from 9th
to 11th
Five Year Plans, but it was also
declined over the years; (v) share for Tribal Sub Plan (TSP) during the 9th
Plan was 1.02
percent of the state plan and it has declined to 0.80 percent in the 10th
Plan and
registered a marginal increase during the 11th
Five Year Plan.
Table 5.4. Grant-in aid to LSGIs as Share of State Plan by Category
Year General SCP TSP Total
1997-98 18.07 6.80 1.37 26.23
1998-99 23.10 6.29 1.26 30.65
1999-00 24.00 6.15 1.23 31.38
2000-01 22.21 6.14 1.22 29.56
2001-02 22.16 6.04 0 28.19
9th
Plan Total 21.99 6.27 1.02 29.29
2002-03 26.66 6.67 0 33.33
2003-04 22.78 5.94 1.00 29.73
2004-05 21.18 5.94 1.00 28.13
2005-06 18.44 6.23 0.93 25.61
2006-07 14.02 6.03 0.91 20.96
10th
Plan Total 19.86 6.14 0.80 26.81
2007-08 14.77 6.38 0.96 22.11
2008-09 14.67 6.33 0.95 21.96
2009-10 13.97 6.01 0.90 20.89
2010-11 13.72 5.89 0.88 20.50
2011-12 18.05 5.99 0.90 24.93
11th
Plan Total 15.17 6.09 0.91 22.18
2012-13 16.97 5.28 0.79 23.04
Source: Government of Kerala (2006c, 2008b, 2010b, 2011b, 2011c, 2012b).
101
5.3.1 Sectoral Allocation and Plan Guidelines
The grant-in-aid devolved for development purposes to LSGIs from the
state plan fund is the major financial source for decentralised planning in Kerala.
The state government also incorporated instructions for the use of the plan fund
in the general plan guideline issued for LSGIs. In order to ensure the use of grant-
in-aid in all sectors of development, the state government gave broad
classification of development activities into three, viz., productive, service and
infrastructure sectors. Plan guidelines have fixed mandatory minimum and
maximum allocation of grant-in-aid for different sectors. Governments in the state
have brought changes in the mandatory minimum and maximum allocation of
grant-in-aid in each sectors. During the 9th
Five Year Plan, importance of
productive sector investment through LSGIs in Kerala was identified as the
potential source of development. The policy makers believed that LSGIs could
make effective intervention in certain areas of material production sector of the
state. All plan guidelines issued for decentralised planning has highlighted the
need to promote material production sector since the state has been under
stagnation in the material production for quite some time.
Table 5.5. Allocation of Plan Fund by Sectors under LSGIs - General Category
(Relative Share)
Plan Rural Local Bodies Urban Local Bodies
Productive Service Infrastructure Productive Service Infrastructure
9th
Pla
n 1998-99 40 NS 30 30 NS 30
1999-00 40 NS 30 30 NS 35
2000-01 40 NS 30 20 NS 35
2001-02 40 NS 30 10 NS 50
10th
Plan 30 * NS 30 10 NS 50
11th
Plan 40 NS 20 10 NS 50
12th
Plan NS NS 45† NS NS 55
Note: *For District Panchayat, the minimum allocation to productive sector was 25 percent.
† For District Panchayat, the maximum limit to Infrastructure was 50 percent.
NS - No Specification.
Source: Government of Kerala (1998a, 1999, 2000a, 2001a, 2002, 2007a, 2012a).
102
Table 5.5 explains instructions for sectoral allocation of plan fund under
general category among rural and urban local bodies from 9th
to 12th
Five Year
Plan in Kerala. Major observations made from table 5.5 are: (i) LDF government
in the state gave more priority to material production sector under LSGIs in Kerala
since they proposed mandatory minimum of 40 percent allocation of plan fund
(in rural local bodies) under productive sector in the plan guidelines issued during
9th
and 11th
Five Year Plans; (ii) the plan guideline issued by the UDF government
during 10th
and 12th
Plans, gave relatively less emphasis to productive sector
allocation under rural LSGIs as compared to LDF government. Although the
guideline issued in the terminal year of the 9th
Plan (by UDF government) made
mandatory minimum of 40 percent allocation to productive sector under rural
LSGIs, the plan guideline also made provision to divert productive sector allocation
to specific purpose schemes proposed by the state government;35
(iii) Both UDF
and LDF government paid less consideration to material production intervention
and enhanced investment in infrastructure sector through urban local bodies; (iv)
the plan guideline issued for the 12th
Five Year Plan differs from other plan
guidelines in the ground that it removed the mandatory minimum allocation for
productive sector and enhanced allocation for infrastructure sector. It is also noted
that allocation to Women Component Plan remained stable at 10 percent of
general category plan fund from 9th
plan to 12th
Plans. At the same time women
representation to LSGIs in the state were hiked to 50 percent in 2010.
Table 5.6 summarises norms implemented for the allocation of SCP and
TSP from the 9th
Five Year Plan. The table shows that guidelines issued by the
state governments made limited sectoral restriction on plan fund allocation under
SCP and TSP. The state government has not fixed mandatory minimum share for
productive sector allocation (except 30 per cent in 1998-99 under SCP) but put a
cap to infrastructure spending baring the 12th
Five Year Plan. As a result of
malfunctioning of TSP during the 9th
Plan, the state government in 2001, decided to
35
For details, see Government of Kerala, “People’s Campaign for Ninth Five Year Plan-
Formulation of Annual Plan 2001-02 of Local Bodies,” G. O. (MS) No. 17/2001/plg.
103
take bake TSP and placed to the disposal of the Director, Scheduled Tribes
Development Department. There for there was no instruction for TSP in the plan
guideline issued for the 10th
Five Year Plan. The state government has realised the
role of LSGIs in empowering the weaker sections and devolved 50 per cent of TSP
fund to LSGIs from 2003-04. The Government of Kerala had issued separate guideline
for the planning and implementation of projects under TSP.36
For the 12th
Plan, no
specific sectoral allocation of SCP and TSP fund except direction to allot 50 percent
for TSP fund for service sector. It is noted that the plan guidelines have proposed
series of schemes (mandatory projects) that LSGIs to incorporate under SCP and TSP.
Table 5.6. Allocation of Plan Fund by Sectors under LSGIs in Kerala - SCP and TSP
(Relative Share)
Plan SCP TSP
Productive Service Infrastructure Productive Service Infrastructure
9th
Pla
n 1998-99 30 NS 30 NS NS 30
1999-00 NS NS 30 NS NS 30
2000-01 NS NS 30 NS NS 30
2001-02 NS NS 30 NS NS 30
10th
Plan NS NS 30 NS 50* 25 *
11th
Plan NS NS 20 NS 50 25
12th
Plan NS NS NS NS 50 NS
Note: * From 2003-04 of 10th
Five Year Plan.
NS - No Specification.
Source: Government of Kerala (1998a, 1999, 2000a, 2001a, 2002, 2003, 2007, 2012a).
5.3.2 Trend in Plan Formulation under General Category
Analysis of data on plan formulation and actual utilisation of plan grant-in-
aid of LSGIs reflect impact of instructions in plan guideline issued for decentralised
planning. Paucity of data for 9th
Five Year Plan, limit the analysis on sectoral
allocation of plan formulation and actual utilisation during 10th
and 11th
Plans.
Tables 5.7 and 5.8 summarise trend in plan formulation in rural and urban local
bodies from 2002-03 to 2011-12 under general category. It is important to noted
36
See Government of Kerala, “Decentralised Planning - Annual Plan 2003-2004 - Formulation
and Implementation of Tribal Sub Plan (TSP) by Local Governments,” G. O. (MS)
No.54/2003/Plg: 31 May, 2003.
104
that allocation to projects formulated under non-sector have been increasing over
the years and the projects categorised as ‘non-sector’ are mandatory schemes
proposed by the state government. Allocation to mandatory schemes are
exempted from sectoral allocation. A significant portion of plan fund earmarked
to LSGIs in the state had devolved to Grama Panchayats. Allocation to non-sector
projects amounted to 7.55 percent of general category grant-in-aid of Grama
Panchayats during the 10th
Plan. It has increased to 39.46 percent during the 11th
Five Year Plan. Share of service sector allocation had declined in all local bodies
between 10th
and 11th
Plans. The schemes come under non-sector (mandatory
project) also have the same features of schemes come under service sector.37
Although the share of service sector allocation has declined during the 11th
Plan as
compared to the 10th
Plan, the combined allocation of service sector and non-
sectors has been increasing over the years. An increase in the proportion of non-
sector allocation indicates that the degree of autonomy of LSGIs has declined. The
revised guideline for plan formulation issued in 2004 had increased the allocation
to the mandatory projects by the state government. It is also observed that state
government made intervention in plan formulation of LSGIs over 30 times during
2002-2004 period through government orders and circulars.38
The state
government issued a separate guideline for 2005-06, which further elaborated
provisions for mandatory projects that LSGIs had to implement.
It is also observed from tables 5.7 and 5.8 that infrastructure investment
has declined in all categories of local bodies except District Panchayats between
10th
and 11th
Five Year Plan periods.
37
Major non-sector schemes come under the 10th
and 11th
Five Year Plans are: 1. Nutrition
program for Anganwadies and children up to the age of three; 2. Special drinking water
schemes like Jalanidhi, 3. Total sanitation program; 4. Computer literacy program- Akshaya; 5.
Solid waste management like Clean Kerala project; 6. E M S housing scheme (in 11th
plan
only); 7. Rehabilitation of destitute – Ashraya (in 11th
plan only); 8. Computerisation of
Panchayats (11th
plan only). 38
Government of Kerala, “Tenth Five Year Plan – Decentralised Planning under Local Self
Government Institutions – Modified Guideline,” G. O. (M S) No. 40/2004/Plg: 31st March,
2004c.
105
Table 5.7. Plan Fund Allocation by Sectors in PRIs in Kerala under General Category (Percentage Share)
Year
District Panchayat Block Panchayat Grama Panchayat
Productive Service Infrastructure Non-
Sector Productive Service Infrastructure
Non-
Sector Productive Service Infrastructure
Non-
Sector
2002-03 35.53 40.22 24.21 0.03 31.08 34.99 24.99 8.94 32.40 36.14 25.93 5.52
2003-04 30.26 41.94 27.58 0.22 24.19 38.25 27.21 10.34 26.66 40.54 26.27 6.53
2004-05 28.11 42.77 27.25 1.87 25.82 43.12 20.92 10.14 30.86 43.42 17.80 7.91
2005-06 24.66 44.20 29.02 2.12 26.92 37.82 24.32 10.94 28.32 45.96 18.89 6.83
2006-07 27.12 50.92 18.56 3.40 30.33 37.89 16.10 15.68 29.77 42.39 15.71 12.13
10th Plan
Total 29.42 43.78 25.30 1.50 27.80 38.22 22.96 11.02 29.74 41.34 21.37 7.55
2007-08 39.31 41.23 12.89 6.56 29.10 23.00 11.94 35.96 34.61 30.70 9.24 25.45
2008-09 41.12 30.67 11.02 17.19 35.92 20.56 5.79 37.73 31.18 22.76 5.80 40.26
2009-10 35.89 27.39 12.79 23.93 36.12 22.40 7.11 34.38 28.50 20.53 8.08 42.89
2010-11 18.56 17.92 51.50 12.02 20.92 18.51 34.38 26.19 22.81 22.54 13.34 41.31
2011-12 27.33 31.25 22.15 19.26 26.27 23.73 22.52 27.48 20.28 22.92 13.32 43.49
11th Plan
Total 29.12 27.27 27.62 15.99 28.44 21.53 19.03 31.01 26.96 23.46 10.12 39.46
Source: Information Kerala Mission (IKM), Thiruvananthapuram.
106
Table 5.8. Plan Fund Allocation by Sectors in Urban Local Bodies in Kerala under General Category (Percentage Share)
Year
Municipality Corporation
Productive Service Infrastructure Non- Sector Productive Service Infrastructure Non- Sector
2002-03 15.67 40.15 40.71 3.48 13.18 42.53 41.37 2.92
2003-04 10.05 40.32 46.50 3.13 5.03 36.33 54.08 4.56
2004-05 12.42 47.59 34.94 5.05 10.69 49.25 37.50 2.56
2005-06 13.52 47.54 32.78 6.16 8.48 49.12 34.66 7.75
2006-07 13.71 44.82 32.71 8.76 8.45 55.46 26.33 9.76
10th
Plan Total 13.25 43.96 37.60 5.18 9.20 45.70 39.92 5.18
2007-08 11.14 42.83 27.29 18.75 9.65 46.77 18.48 25.09
2008-09 11.55 35.21 20.73 32.51 13.29 37.40 18.14 31.17
2009-10 12.97 29.23 24.38 33.42 12.75 31.17 23.73 32.35
2010-11 11.00 25.88 33.44 29.68 13.48 27.02 33.36 26.14
2011-12 10.68 29.65 26.30 33.37 8.40 35.79 28.43 27.37
11th
Plan Total 11.42 31.50 26.89 30.19 11.45 34.42 25.81 28.32
Source: Information Kerala Mission (IKM), Thiruvananthapuram.
107
The magnitude of the decline in investment in the infrastructure under Grama
Panchayat was high in the 11th
Plan as compared to the 10th
Plan. The allocation
to infrastructure under Grama Panchayats during the 11th
Plan was 9.34 percent
of general category, which is calculated to be less than half of the maximum fixed
for infrastructure sector. This change should be read with the government
decision on implementation of recommendations of the Second State Finance
Commission. The state government took decision in 2004, to devolve
maintenance grant for asset creation under LSGIs and issued a detailed guideline
for the utilisation and preparation of maintenance plan along with the annual plan
of LSGIs.39
Maintenance grant from 2005-06 constituted a significant portion of
the general category plan fund of LSGIs in Kerala (Table A.5.1 in Appendix of
chapter 5). LSGIs have limited role in the preparation of maintenance plan since
they have only prioritise the maintenance of assets according to the norms issued
by the state government.
Investment in productive sector is important since 22.80 percent of work
forces in the state are agriculture dependent population (both cultivators and
agriculture labours) (see table A 3.1 of appendix of chapter 3). According to plan
guideline, LSGIs have to put a cap on sectoral allocation of plan fund, which is
made after the necessary allocation to mandatory projects (non-sector). If
allocation to mandatory projects (non-sector) has been increasing over the years,
it would affect availability of fund for productive sector projects. Further, projects
come under non-sectors have the features of service sector project. The allocation
to infrastructure sector is ensured with plan fund and maintenance grant.
Therefor increase in the share of mandatory projects affect more to the allocation
to productive sector. For example, guidelines for 10th
and 11th
Plans fixed
minimum share of 30 and 40 percent of plan fund for productive sector allocation
under Grama Panchayat. The 10 percent increase proposed for productive sector
39
For details, see Government of Kerala, “Implementation of Recommendations of Second State
Finance Commission – Guidelines for the Utilisation of General Purpose and Maintenance
Grant,” G. O. (MS) No. 330/2004/LSGD: 9th December, 2004a.
108
investment in the 11th
Five Year Plan was not materialised due to the increase in
the share of mandatory projects (Table 5.7). Data on plan allocation of productive
sector under Municipalities indicate that instructions of sectoral allocation are
met. Corporations on the other hand have volatile rate of productive sector to the
prescribed sectoral limit. The productive sector share of Corporations often fall
below the fixed minimum rate of 10 percent (Table 5.8).
It is also important to analyse the sector wise expenditure of plan fund.
The data for the 10th
and 11th
Plans show that share of actual expenditure of non-
sector in the total expenditure of LSGIs has increased over the years (see Table
A.5.2 and A.5.3 in Appendix of chapter 5). It is worth to pointing out that the rate
of fall in the relative share of expenditure under productive sector was higher
during the 10th
Plan period. The relative share of actual expenditure of service
sector has increased for District Panchayats during 10th
and 11th
Five Year Plans.
The expenditure data indicate that projects formulated under non-sector were
received better implementation. On the other hand, the data on productive sector
indicate that projects under this category were either dropped or underutilised
during the time of implementation.
5.3.3 Trend in Plan Formulation under SCP and TSP Category
Decentralised planning in Kerala envisaged separate plan for SC and ST
communities. It is a general trend that more than 50 percent of SCP and TSP plan
fund were used for the formulation of service sector projects during 10th
and 11th
Five Year Plans. Table 5.9 describes allocation of plan fund to SCP category under
rural LSGIs in Kerala. Important observations emerge from the table are: (i) share
of non-sector allocation in total SCP fund has increased from less than one
percent to more than 13 percent between 10th
and 11th
Plan periods. Block
Panchayats allotted around one third of its SCP fund for mandatory projects
during 11th
plan; (ii) productive sector share has declined under SCP during the
11th
Five Year Plan as compared to the 10th
Plan under rural local bodies in Kerala;
(iii) Service sector share for SCP has also declined during the 11th
Plan;
109
Table 5.9. Plan Fund Allocation by Sectors in PRIs in Kerala under SCP (Percentage Share)
Year
District Panchayat Block Panchayat Grama Panchayat
Productive Service Infrastructure Non-
Sector Productive Service Infrastructure
Non-
Sector Productive Service Infrastructure
Non-
Sector
2002-03 20.03 46.96 33.01 0 12.72 66.23 20.83 0.22 12.02 66.23 21.62 0.13
2003-04 11.25 58.22 30.52 0 9.13 66.95 23.61 0.31 9.72 67.29 22.87 0.12
2004-05 8.98 66.53 24.26 0.22 5.75 71.60 22.41 0.25 7.22 72.21 20.04 0.52
2005-06 11.15 66.75 21.59 0.51 5.91 71.28 22.44 0.36 6.96 72.87 19.79 0.37
2006-07 11.63 72.77 15.48 0.12 6.98 71.36 21.39 0.28 5.94 73.87 19.72 0.47
10th
Plan
Total 12.65 64.00 23.15 0.19 8.16 69.59 21.97 0.28 8.23 70.76 20.67 0.34
2007-08 5.57 72.18 9.27 12.98 5.91 57.62 10.83 25.65 6.26 76.18 13.80 3.76
2008-09 6.44 65.27 11.03 17.26 6.01 47.28 8.82 37.89 6.58 62.74 11.29 19.39
2009-10 4.23 63.18 11.74 20.85 4.87 47.84 8.74 38.55 7.49 61.19 11.14 20.19
2010-11 7.19 60.27 20.01 12.53 5.27 47.50 13.48 33.74 8.82 58.68 16.16 16.35
2011-12 9.03 60.03 21.22 9.72 4.89 54.73 17.43 22.96 8.33 64.22 18.75 8.71
11th
Plan
Total 6.67 63.43 15.47 14.43 5.33 51.00 12.29 31.38 7.67 63.93 14.67 13.73
Source: Information Kerala Mission (IKM), Thiruvananthapuram.
110
Table 5.10. Plan Fund Allocation by Sectors in PRIs in Kerala under TSP (Percentage Share)
Year District Panchayat Block Panchayat Grama Panchayat
Productive Service Infrastructure Non-Sector Productive Service Infrastructure Non- Sector Productive Service Infrastructure Non- Sector
2002-03 26.04 59.06 14.90 0 15.02 71.89 13.09 0 12.74 59.27 27.88 0.11
2003-04 10.76 71.97 17.27 0 2.85 86.58 10.57 0 8.59 83.09 8.20 0.11
2004-05 7.19 85.22 7.59 0 4.06 91.56 4.28 0.09 4.61 88.92 6.25 0.22
2005-06 5.44 88.42 6.14 0 3.68 90.64 5.58 0.10 4.42 88.68 6.23 0.66
2006-07 4.85 86.62 8.53 0.01 2.52 90.23 5.07 2.18 3.07 90.22 6.41 0.31
10th
Plan Total 7.09 83.98 8.93 0.002 3.72 89.53 6.04 0.71 5.05 86.89 7.72 0.34
2007-08 6.18 85.16 3.62 5.03 3.78 81.35 2.64 12.23 3.55 87.07 4.89 4.49
2008-09 3.36 75.37 3.34 17.92 2.06 52.98 3.83 41.13 3.00 75.91 3.46 17.64
2009-10 4.48 60.75 9.06 25.71 2.53 45.39 2.89 49.19 3.12 59.67 4.84 32.37
2010-11 7.49 61.63 16.19 14.69 3.90 35.26 6.53 54.31 4.43 54.38 6.56 34.62
2011-12 8.71 62.00 17.64 11.65 3.74 45.79 8.88 41.59 6.19 69.54 10.79 13.48
11th
Plan Total 6.10 68.14 10.42 15.34 3.24 50.72 5.27 40.77 4.30 68.24 6.64 20.81
Source: Information Kerala Mission (IKM), Thiruvananthapuram.
111
(iv) Introduction of separate fund under Maintenance Plan has increased the
allocation for infrastructure development since 2004. As a result, plan allocation
for infrastructure development has recorded a fall in rural local bodies und SCP
during the 11th
Five Year Plan.
Table 5.11 explains allocation of plan fund for SCP under urban local
bodies in Kerala. Important observations from the table are: (i) the share of non-
sector allocation was less than one percent of SCP fund during the 10th
Plan,
which has increased to more than 15 percent during the 11th
Five Year Plan; (ii)
Productive, service and Infrastructure sector shares have declined during the 11th
Plan. The actual expenditure of SCP reveals that the relative share of non-sector
has increased during 10th
and 11th
Plans, with exceptions of Grama Panchayats
and Corporations during the 11th
Five Year Plan (Table A.5.4 and A.5.5 in Appendix
of chapter 5). The data on actual expenditure of LSGIs indicate that the relative
share of productive sector to total SCP has also declined during 10th
and 11th
Five
Year Plans.
Table 5.10 and 5.12 explain trends in allocation of plan fund for TSP
category of LSGIs in Kerala. Fragile allocation of TSP in Corporations indicate the
weak relative share of ST in the social composition of urban population. Important
observations form table 5.10 and 5.12 are: (i) allocation to mandatory projects has
increased from less than one percent during the 10th
Plan to more than 15 percent
in the 11th
Plan; (ii) share to productive sector allocation has declined during the
11th
plan under LSGIs in Kerala; (iii) share to Infrastructure sector also declined
during the 11th
Five Year Plan; (iv) development programmes under TSP are more
focused to schemes for service delivery. Data on actual expenditure indicate that
the relative share of mandatory projects has increased to total TSP expenditure
during 10th
and 11th
Plans (Table A.5.6 and A.5.7 in Appendix of chapter 5). No
expenditure was reported in Corporations under TSP category. It is also important
to note that the relative share of TSP expenditure of productive, service and
infrastructure sectors has declined during the 11th
Five Year Plan.
112
Table 5.11. Plan Fund Allocation by Sectors in Urban Local Bodies in Kerala under SCP (Percentage Share)
Year
Municipality Corporation
Productive Service Infrastructure Non-
Sector Productive Service Infrastructure
Non-
Sector
2002-03 7.66 72.71 19.61 0.02 18.55 66.15 15.30 0
2003-04 4.76 68.32 26.92 0 7.69 76.87 15.44 0
2004-05 4.37 73.94 21.40 0.28 1.97 64.07 33.76 0.20
2005-06 3.20 80.42 16.33 0.05 35.22 53.57 11.21 0
2006-07 3.76 73.19 22.94 0.11 2.33 77.79 19.88 0
10th
Plan Total 4.69 74.02 21.20 0.10 12.86 67.66 19.44 0.04
2007-08 2.91 81.22 14.14 1.73 0.31 89.66 9.23 0.80
2008-09 3.13 65.21 11.19 20.47 1.88 60.77 8.06 29.29
2009-10 4.30 62.32 10.23 23.16 1.78 63.72 6.73 27.77
2010-11 3.43 58.54 12.43 25.60 4.24 62.97 11.63 21.16
2011-12 6.23 69.73 16.15 7.89 6.60 63.60 20.05 9.76
11th
Plan Total 4.31 66.94 13.16 15.59 3.41 67.21 12.04 17.35
Source: Information Kerala Mission (IKM), Thiruvananthapuram.
113
Table 5.12. Allocation of Plan Fund by Sectors in Urban Local Bodies in Kerala under TSP (Percentage Share)
Year Municipality Corporation
Productive Service Infrastructure Non- Sector Productive Service Infrastructure Non- Sector
2002-03 3.56 55.64 40.24 0.56 0 0 100 0
2003-04 0 64.70 35.30 0 0 100 0 0
2004-05 0 83.74 16.26 0 0 0 0 0
2005-06 0 98.86 1.14 0 0 0 0 0
2006-07 1.20 91.51 7.29 0 0 0 0 0
10th
Plan Total 0.68 84.07 15.18 0.07 0 6.30 93.70 0
2007-08 0.80 91.51 7.69 0 0 0 0 0
2008-09 0.18 71.42 5.16 23.24 0 0 0 0
2009-10 0.21 72.54 5.56 21.68 0 0 0 0
2010-11 0.45 55.27 4.71 39.57 0 0 0 0
2011-12 0.10 71.27 12.28 16.35 0 100 0 0
11th
Plan Total 0.35 72.45 7.32 19.88 0 100 0 0
Source: Information Kerala Mission (IKM), Thiruvananthapuram.
114
Conclusion
In democratic decentralisation, the state government devolve power,
functions and fund to local bodies. Chapter 18 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act
1994 and Chapter 5 of the Kerala Municipality Act 1994 give power to the state
government to interfere in the affairs of LSGIs in Kerala. Political coalitions in the
state make changes in plan fund allocation and pattern of expenditure in plan
guideline. It has been revealed that the role of LSGIs has increasingly been
reduced to an agency function of central and state governments. The programmes
designed and implemented from above is found to be increasing over the years
under LSGIs. Another notable drawback of imposing schemes from above is that
people participation and local level planning based on local factor endowment are
gradually withdrawn and replaced by government officials. The process is termed
as institutionalisation of decentralised planning. However, the process amounts to
bureaucratisation. It is a fact that bureaucratisation and people’s planning move
always in opposite directions and completion of either of the time ensures the
total paralysation of another. The intervention in the productive sector called for
people’s participation and involvement and decline in the mandatory allocation to
the productive sector enables the LSGIs to manage decentralised planning without
people’s involvement and participation.