Assessing Relationship between Devolution and Public Services through Devolution Index

1
Assessing Relationship between Devolution and
Public Services throughDevolution Index
Service Delivery IndexExperiences from Urban
India
Presentation by DR. KAUSTUV K BANDYOPADHYAY PRIA
Global Partnership
GLOBAL INITIATIVE ON CITIZENSHIP AND DEMOCRACY
2
EXPECTATIONS FROM DECENTRALIZATION

• Expectations from Local Governance Institutions
  (LGIs)
• Deepening grassroots democracy participation
  social accountability
• Promoting equity and empowerment of marginalized
  new political leadership
• Ensuring access to quality public services

• Expectations from Provincial and National
  Governments
• Enacting and implementing legal frameworks for
  LGIs
• Establishing institutions to safeguard the
  wellbeing of LGIs
• Ensuring devolution of Functions, Functionaries
  and Funds to LGIs
• Providing opportunities for institutional human
  capacity development

3
ISSUES CONFRONTING DEVOLUTION

• Accountability of the national and provincial
  governments towards the Constitutional/legal
  obligations to devolve authorities to LGIs
• Capacity gaps in LGIs an administrative
  excuse and to hide political unwillingness for
  not devolving authorities
• Objective and transparent measurement of
  devolution and its impact
• Devolution with accountability (institutional and
  social) for LGIs

4
FISCAL SUB INDEX (F1) FISCAL SUB INDEX (F1)
Expenditure funded out of own source revenue / total expenditure of ULB (a1) 0.35
Untied grants received/ total grants received by the ULB (a2) 0.30
Sum of tax and non-tax income of ULBs/ total own source revenue income (a3) 0.35
5
FUNCTIONS FUNCTIONARIES SUB INDEX (F2) FUNCTIONS FUNCTIONARIES SUB INDEX (F2)
No. of functions devolved from state to ULB as per State Municipal Act/ total no. of functions required to be devolved as per 12th Schedule of the 74th CAA (b1) 0.20
No. of functions for which functionaries have been devolved to ULB/ no. of (obligatory) functions devolved as per state Municipal Act (b2) 0.20
Expenditure on Core Functions/ total expenditure by ULB (b3) 0.20
No. of posts (with decision making authority) recruited by ULB/ total number of such posts (b4) 0.20
No. of staff engaged in urban development functions (with decision making authority)/ total number of staff in ULB (b5) 0.10
No. of functional Standing Committees/ Committees in supervision of functions mentioned in the 12th Schedule/ total number of Committees required to be constituted for this purpose (b6) 0.10
6
ENABLING ENVIRONMENT SUB INDEX (F3) ENABLING ENVIRONMENT SUB INDEX (F3)
No. of ULB elections conducted in the state/ minimum number of times elections should have been conducted since 74th CAA (1993) (c1) 0.20
No. of SFCs constituted in the state/ total no. of SFCs that should have been constituted since 74th CAA (1993) (c2) 0.20
No. of SFC recommendations accepted by the state government/ total no. of SFC recommendations (for the last SFC only) (c3) 0.10
No. of DPCs that have prepared consolidated (urban and rural) district development plans/ total no. of DPCs ought to be constituted in the state (c4) 0.20
No. of MPCs that are functional/ total no. of MPCs that ought to be constituted in the state (c5) 0.20
No. of ULBs with 300,000 and above population that have constituted Ward Committees / total no. of ULBs with population of more than 300,000 or above (c6) 0.10
7
SEWERAGE SUB INDEX (SE1) SEWERAGE SUB INDEX (SE1)
No. of households covered by sewerage system/total no. of households in ULB or Area covered by sewerage network/total municipal area in ULB (h1) 0.25
Quantity of treated waste water/ total wastewater generated in ULB (h2) 0.25
Total no. of slum households having access to public toilets/total no. of slum households in ULB (h3) 0.25
No. of employees engaged in sewerage operations/total employees in public health/ sanitation department in ULB (h4) 0.25
8
SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT SUB INDEX (SW2) SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT SUB INDEX (SW2)
No. of households covered under daily waste collection system/total number of households in ULB (j1) 0.20
Total quantity of solid waste collected daily/total quantity of solid waste generated daily ULB (j2) 0.20
Total quantity of waste disposed safely/total quantity of waste collected daily in ULB (j3) 0.20
No. of employees engaged in SWM/total employees in public health/sanitation department in ULB (j4) 0.20
Area served by sweepers/total municipal area in ULB (j5) 0.20
9
(No Transcript)
10
CONCLUSION WAYS FORWARD

• A definite trend is discernable, however, due to
  data paucity/inaccuracy positive relationship
  could not be established for all cities
• The process generated constructive dialogues (i)
  at the city level between various actors, (ii)
  between cities state/national govt.
• The methodology could be tried in a diverse
  contexts (more cities and countries) with new
  set of indicators relevant to the contexts
• The relationship between devolution local
  democracy (using participation, social
  accountability transparency indicators) could
  be explored
• Some incentive should be in place for ULBs with
  better data management
• The findings should be linked to the
  recommendations of SFCs

11
Thank You

• GLOBAL INITIATIVE ON CITIZENSHIP AND DEMOCRACY