Kerala 2005 - of Planning Commission

150
Box 9.4: Decentralisation: Initial Challenges
Notwithstanding its physical achievements, the experiment has abounded with problems and further challenges
(Vijayanand, 2001: 23-24):
i) No staff increase has been provided for, and exemption made only in a few cases of professionals and highly
skilled technical personnel and in special schemes with assistance for staff.
ii)
The outliers like Scheduled Tribes are still to gain from decentralisation. In scenarios where one section of the
poor lives off another section, decentralisation has certain inbuilt limitations.
iii) The poorest among the poor need social safety nets particularly for food and health emergencies. This cannot
be provided by local governments.
iv) The management of services particularly health and education have not been more efficient
than before and these services have direct implications for local development especially poverty
reduction.
v) The flow of bank credit into local schemes has been limited resulting more from bankers’ reluctance to
deal with local governments than from inadequacies of project formulation. This has resulted in higher
subsidies.
vi)
In a State like Kerala where the number of educated poor is very high there is an inherent limitation in local
government action. Linkage with job markets through skill up-gradation or identification of self-employment
opportunities or small-scale production activities with assured markets are all functions which can be done
better at higher levels.
vii) There is a tendency to spread resources thinly with preference being given to every electoral constituency
whenever a development scheme is taken up. Distribution of assets and inputs, not necessarily productive,
has been common.
viii) Vertical integration of local level programmes has proved difficult to achieve.
ix)
Participatory aspect of planning is often limited to airing of needs and sharing of benefits. There is need for
enhancing the quality of participatory planning so that there is a healthy discussion by all sections of the
population based on data and norms, generating a prioritised list of developmental needs.
water, sanitation, roads, irrigation facilities, housing for
poor, support for cultivators, income and employment
creation for women, SCs and STs. Similarly by collecting
data on social composition of participation (measured
in terms of participants as a percentage of total relevant
population) in grama sabhas, development seminars and
project preparation by the task forces, the Chaudhuri
et al study (2004) finds a fairly consistent representation
of SC/ST groups and women over the three stages of the
participation cycle. In terms of voice and empowerment
of these groups through enhancing access to public
services, such as housing, assistance to the poor, income
and employment for women and SCs/STs, the response
was that there was greater distributive justice for the
disadvantaged groups under decentralised governance.
However, it was still not adequate. We take up the gender
question in greater detail.
3.3.1 Women’s Empowerment
Given the tremendous interest generated in Kerala’s
decentralised development experience, which
consciously attempted to address ‘gender’ issues,
with a targeted women’s component plan (WCP), high
expectations had been aroused regarding its impact on
gender justice. Would it enhance women’s freedom
in a society increasingly moving towards patriarchal
structures within the family and in the public sphere.?
A number of studies were done to understand the
nature and content of the WCP in terms of resource
allocations and its impact on women both in terms of
meeting their practical as also strategic gender needs
(Isaac and Franke, 2000; Seema and Mukherjee, 2000;
UNICEF, 2001; Radha and Chaudhury, 2003; Thampi,
2004; Eapen and Thomas, 2005).