Search

Begin New Search Topic History Political Geography South Asia Publishing Institution Centre for Policy Research, India

1. The Evolution of India’s Welfare System from 2008-2023: A Lookback

Author:
Centre for Policy Research
Publication Date:
02-2023
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Centre for Policy Research, India
Abstract:
In the 15 years that have gone by, India has seen a significant transition in the social sector, and lived through a pandemic. At the Accountability Initiative, Centre for Policy Research, we have tracked the provision of welfare services and entitlements since 2008, in-step with the country’s evolution over these years. The year 2023 marks a moment to pause and reflect for us as we celebrate our 15th anniversary, and the Centre for Policy Research reaches its milestone of 50 years. But, aside from our legacy of evidence-based knowledge sharing, this reflection is important in one more way. In 2024, India will choose a new government. A lookback on welfare spending and outcomes is an essential first step to understanding future priorities and pathways to development. Drawing from previous Union Budgets, this Special Brief will dive into six major aspects. Firstly, reviewing the sources of funding available with the government. Secondly, analysing trends in expenditures including social sector allocations for key ministries and schemes. Thirdly, the devolution of funds to states who are primary spenders on welfare services. Fourthly, unpacking social sector schemes over the years. Fifthly, analysing select outputs and outcomes over time. Lastly, we offer our own experience by providing a snapshot of the changes in government Management Information Systems which are critical to monitoring welfare schemes, among other aspects. For the purpose of this Special Brief, we are covering the period from 2009-2023. Actual Government of India (GoI) expenditures have been used till Financial Year (FY) 2020-21. For FY 2021-22, figures are Revised Estimates (REs) and Budget Estimates (BEs) for FY 2022-23.
Topic:
History, Governance, Budget, Welfare, and Public Spending
Political Geography:
South Asia and India

2. Debates on Administrative Reform in India: Expertise

Author:
Karnamadakala Rahul Sharma, Aditya Unnikrishnan, and Sonakshi Sharma
Publication Date:
03-2022
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Centre for Policy Research, India
Abstract:
Historical accounts show that the education and training of the colonial civil servant was purposely made non-specialised. Autobiographical narratives of ICS officers who received their training at Halieybury (England), reveal that the quality of education was low and students were tested on their knowledge of languages such as Persian and Sanskrit, which had little practical use once they arrived in India. After the Service was made merit-based in 1853, officer training included more practical aspects such as attending court proceedings and writing reports, however, it did not involve in-depth specialisation in any one field. The non-specialised character of training and the expertise gained, were well suited to the nature of the polity that required district officials to hold multiple portfolios. Earl Cornwallis, the third Governor General of Bengal who is credited with making extensive changes in the civil service from 1793 to 1859, tried to differentiate the judicial and supervisory functions for land revenue assessment and collection. He created the office of the District Collector as a supervisory role to oversee collection of revenue from landholders, whereas the administration of law was to be the responsibility of a civil judge and magistrate. However, after the annexation of Awadh and the territorial expansion of the company, it proved impossible for a District Collector to separate their judicial and supervisory functions, particularly in the newly acquired territories (Cohn, 1987, p. 509). The Indian Administrative Service (IAS) we have today inherited this generalist notion of the civil servant from its predecessor, the ICS. Post-independence, even though different services were created to undertake specific responsibilities, the imagination of the expertise of the IAS officer continues to be organised around the principles of the colonial civil service. This has led many to argue that the skills and knowledge of the IAS were unsuited to the nature of polity and demands of governance (Administrative Reforms Commission, 1969). More than fifty years later, the same tension concerning the personnel involved in governance and the skills/ knowledge required for these roles persists. As a result, two fundamental questions are central to the debates on expertise in the country’s government. First: What kind of knowledge and expertise is most useful for administrators? This debate has frequently been framed as a choice between generalists and specialists. And second: How can this expertise be embedded in administration, particularly at senior levels? Two kinds of solutions dominate this discourse, one where internal mechanisms are restructured to make best use of existing internal talent (via domain assignment) and the other involving the recruitment of external experts (via lateral entry). This working paper delves into the detailed discussion on these two questions by reviewing the First and Second Administrative Reforms Commissions (ARC), Central Pay Commission Reports, the Surinder Nath Committee report, Sarkaria Commission report, NITI Three Year Action Agenda and Parliamentary Standing Committee reports. The first section of the working paper attempts to present a discursive overview of the generalist-specialist binary. The next two sections, on Domain Assignment and Lateral Entry respectively, explain the dominant approaches that have been considered to address the expertise problem. 2. Generalists vs Specialists: origins and tensions As with any job, there is consensus within the reform discourse that bureaucrats must display a high degree of ability and expertise. However, there are opposing views on what constitutes this expertise at the highest levels of the bureaucracy. These differences have frequently been expressed in the language of ‘generalists’ and ‘specialists’ partially as a result of the structure of India’s Civil Service which consists of generalist and specialist services as described in the next sub-section. The next two subsections throw light on the evolution of reform thinking on the kind of expertise needed—from narrow technical knowledge to domain competence, and eventually towards a more complex understanding that expertise is gained on the job that cannot be achieved through appropriate training alone. In the timeline on page 6, we present the sequence of events and reports of the last few decades that we consider salient for understanding the debate on generalist versus specialist roles. The timeline offers a bird’s eye view of reform trajectory when read alongside the detailed information provided in the following sections.
Topic:
History, Reform, Colonialism, and Administration
Political Geography:
South Asia and India

3. Debates on Administrative Reform in India: Training

Author:
Sonakshi Sharma, Aditya Unnikrishnan, and Karnamadakala Rahul Sharma
Publication Date:
03-2022
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Centre for Policy Research, India
Abstract:
Since Independence, the government’s approach to training the IAS has undergone a sea of change. The IAS has evolved “from being a postcolonial civil service… to one that is rooted in the empirical realities of a developing and resurgent India” (Kiran Aggarwal Committee, 2014, p.1). Training programmes for the IAS have shifted their focus from regulation to socioeconomic development in keeping with the new demands faced by governance and administration (Second Administrative Reforms Commission, 2008). In spite of these changes, there remain similarities with the colonial civil service. Like the ICS, the IAS is a high-functional generalist service tasked with handling a variety of responsibilities. Reform committees continue to express concerns that trainees do not attach adequate value to the training process (Second Administrative Reforms Commission, 2008). Training is still expected to create strong bonds between officers and establish a camaraderie. Most importantly, the central principle remains the same; a merit-based process is used to select young people with little or no experience in governance and place them in positions of great responsibility. This kind of system inevitably relies heavily on training to impart skills. Better training, both at the formative and mid-career stages, is expected to bridge the “wide chasm between public expectation and service delivery” (Kiran Aggarwal Committee, 2014, p. 3). For this reason, it is vital to examine the history of reform debates and conversations on the subject. Tracing the evolution of these reform threads will better equip us to analyse current and future reform measures by understanding which problems are being addressed and how. To this end, this working paper closely reads the following: the Administrative Reforms Commission (ARC) reports, Central Pay Commission (CPC) reports, and reports produced by reform commissions like the Alagh Committee, Kiran Aggarwal Committee, Hota Committee, Kothari Committee, Yugandhar Committee, VT Krishnamachari Committee and the Surinder Nath Committee. Apart from this, the working paper also draws on theNational Training Policy, 1996 and2012, and documents on Mission Karmayogi that reflect the government’s vision for IAS training. This paper begins with a short description of the current training format and the IAS ecosystem. This is followed by an analysis of the three streams that dominate reform thinking on IAS training: the strategy, structure and content of training; the role of and need for incentives in training programmes, and the institutional apparatus in place to operationalise training programmes.
Topic:
History, Reform, Colonialism, Training, Civil Servants, and Administration
Political Geography:
South Asia and India

4. PROPERTY AND SOVEREIGNTY: Creating, Destroying, and Resurrecting Property Rights in British India (1600-1800)

Author:
Namita Wahi
Publication Date:
12-2020
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Centre for Policy Research, India
Abstract:
This paper, the first in a series of three papers, constitutes the first systematic legal attempt since the late nineteenth century to describe the changing configuration of property rights of zamindars (landlords) and ryots or raiyats (peasants) relative to the English East India Company in colonial India over a period of two hundred years from 1600 to 1800. This period begins with the Company’s first arrival in India to the court of the Mughal Emperor Jehangir in 1600 as merely a trading company. It ends with the introduction of the Permanent Settlement in Bengal by Lord Cornwallis, the Governor General of Bengal in 1793, pursuant to the Company’s exercise of sovereign authority over the provinces of Bengal, Bihar, and Orissa. As described in the paper, during this period of great political upheaval, scandal, and intrigue, as the East India Company gradually transitioned from a monopoly trading company to a conquering and then an administering power, Company officials, including the Governor General, and later the Supreme Council of Bengal, created, destroyed, and resurrected property rights of landlords and tenant cultivators. Following a series of experiments with land revenue administration and the lives of zamindars and raiyats, with the sole objective of maximising revenue for the East India Company, Lord Cornwallis introduced the Permanent Settlement of Land Revenue in 1793, which completely destroyed the rights of peasant cultivators in favour of zamindars, and wreaked great injustice and misery upon the people of Bengal. It would take nearly seventy years for British government to begin to reverse this injustice through tenancy protection legislation enacted in 1859, and this reversal in law would only be completed following land reforms introduced by provincial governments post India’s independence in 1947. These later developments will be the subject of the next two papers in this series.
Topic:
Sovereignty, History, Governance, and Property
Political Geography:
United Kingdom, South Asia, and India

5. The Peripheral Protagonist: The Curious Case of the Missing Trans-Himalayan Trader

Author:
Nimmi Kurian
Publication Date:
03-2017
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Centre for Policy Research, India
Abstract:
It is intriguing that despite a liberal economic narrative of borders as bridges, the transHimalayan trader has remained a rather forlorn and forgotten metaphor. This absence has however neither been voluntary nor anticipated but instead can be traced to fundamental flaws in India’s subregional discourse with its bias toward state-led formal institution building. Far from being marginal, the trans-Himalayan trader was in fact the central protagonist, as can be seen from a reading of the social and economic history of India’s borderlands. While this is not an attempt to read back into history a larger-than-life role for the border actor, it is a cue for India’s subregional discourse to imaginatively re-engage with the expertise and rich form of social capital that the transborder trader represents.
Topic:
Economics, History, Borders, and Trade
Political Geography:
South Asia, India, Asia, and Himalayas

6. Land Acquisition in India: A Review of Supreme Court Cases (1950-2016)

Author:
Namita Wahi, Ankit Bhatia, Pallav Shukla, Dhruva Gandhi, Shubham Jain, and Upasana Chauhan
Publication Date:
03-2017
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Centre for Policy Research, India
Abstract:
Context: India faces serious challenges in creating development processes that generate economic growth while being socially inclusive, ecologically sustainable, politically feasible, and in accordance with the Rule of Law. Equitable and efficient acquisition of land by the state for economic development projects, including infrastructure and industry, lies at the heart of these challenges. Simultaneously, securing constitutionally guaranteed land rights to the poorest and most vulnerable communities in India against the state and other dominant communities, has been considered crucial to their economic and social empowerment. Land is not only an important economic resource and source of livelihoods, it is also central to community identity, history and culture. Unsurprisingly then, throughout India, dispute over state acquisition of land that deprives people of their land rights spans various dimensions of economic, social, and political life. How do we mitigate this conflict? The CPR Land Rights Initiative report on ‘Land Acquisition in India: A Review of Supreme Court cases from 1950-2016’, offers some preliminary answers to this question. Not only is this report the first comprehensive country-wide study of land acquisition disputes since India's independence, but also for the first time ever analyses these disputes along various metrics, such as i) public purpose, ii) procedure for acquisition, iii) compensation, iv) invocation of the urgency clause, v) pendency of claims, and vi) tracks trends with respect to distribution of disputes across geography and time, and central and state laws. The Report also analyses litigation under the newly enacted Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (LARR Act) for the three year period, 2014 to 2016. A detailed presentation of the findings from the report can be accessed here. Key findings: Reasons for inequity between state and land losers: The Report concludes that the political and social contestation over land acquisition stems from the inherently coercive nature of the land acquisition process, which creates a severe imbalance of power between the state and land losers. While much of this imbalance was created by the text of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, a considerable part of it could also be attributed to executive non-compliance with the rule of law. The result is a situation of great inequity for the land losers. Legal reform under the LARR Act should be implemented by government, not subverted to redress these inequities: The Report finds that specific provisions of the LARR Act are steps in the right direction to redress the imbalance of power that was built into the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 in so far as: i) they empower livelihood losers along with title-holders to bring claims for compensation and rehabilitation, ii) bring compensation requirements in accordance with existing reality, and iii) introduce requirements of consent and social impact assessment. The Report shows that litigation helps channelise political contestation of state action into legal as opposed to extra legal disputes. Therefore, by empowering hitherto disempowered land losers to bring claims under the LARR Act, the Act will help preempt extra-legal conflict. Since conflict inevitably stalls or derails legitimate development projects, it is in the interest of the government to comply with, and not subvert the LARR Act. Legal reforms must be supplemented by administrative and bureaucratic reforms: The Report highlights that legal reform is a necessary but not a sufficient precondition for ensuring greater equity and efficiency within the land acquisition process. In the absence of administrative and bureaucratic reforms, the introduction of the LARR Act will not succeed in eliminating inequities and inefficiencies embedded within the implementation of existing land acquisition procedures. In fact, the increase in procedural requirements under the LARR Act implies an even greater need for securing executive compliance with the rule of law, in order to translate the equities intended by these additional procedures into reality for land losers. Types of administrative reforms required: Such administrative reforms include building of state capacity to meaningfully comply with the increased procedural requirements stipulated by the LARR Act, and designing institutional structures that incentivise such compliance with the rule of law. This, in turn, requires a serious mind-set shift within the government toward accepting the reform enshrined in the LARR Act, and not subverting it as we have seen in both the LARR Ordinance, and the state amendments to the LARR Act, as also the rules adopted to implement the LARR Act in the states.
Topic:
History, Reform, Economic Growth, Land Law, Courts, Supreme Court, Rule of Law, and Land Rights
Political Geography:
South Asia, India, and Asia