Abstract
This book, in two parts, offers 14 essays to readers interested in knowing more about the democratic decentralisation initiatives of Kerala and of other countries. Balan and Rajan tell us that Kerala, unlike other Indian states went in for a big bang approach. The state government in 1995 devolved ‘powers, functions and resources to local governments’ and subsequently a ‘third of the plan resources’. The ‘enactment of two comprehensive legislation’ devolved statutory powers on the village assembly and decentralised powers through an elected committee system (pp. 5, 9). Operation was decentralised through the ‘path of participatory local level planning…’ widely known as the ‘People’s Planning Campaign’ (p. 12). This ‘vigour of practice’ is what makes democracy effective, and Kerala has shown the way is the point Mani Shankar Aiyer makes (p. 39).
In 1996, the communist government radicalised ‘decentralisation’ by launching ‘the people’s plan…’ which got underway influenced by ‘the Gandhian concept of village democracy’, and the Paulo Freirean idea that ordinary people acted upon ‘are capable of becoming the subjects of their destiny…’ (pp. 46–47). The results are there. The ‘number of students attending government schools’ has increased. Poverty has come down to 0.7% ‘as against the national figure of 25.1%. From ‘29% of the public’ using government health facilities ‘when people’s plan started’, the percentage in 2018 rose to 47.5% (Vijayanand, pp. 59, 60).
Mexico, Egypt, Ghana and India ‘have active decentralisation programs in place’ (p. 130). The eastern province of Sri Lanka has been inspired by the Kerala experience (Fauget, p. 153). The ‘local governments in Nepal lack the institutional support and expertise required to formulate effective development plans’ (p. 185). Local level ‘planning and participatory budgeting are in its incipient phase’ in South Africa (p. 206). The Kerala experiences of ‘participatory budgeting and planning’ would be useful for the ‘local self-government system in the Republic of Bashkortostan’. (Anasovna, pp. 257, 269).
The Bahl essay describes the Kerala approach ‘as a classic expenditure decentralisation model’ following the ‘norms for good fiscal decentralisation practice’ (p. 113). ‘Arguably, Kerala has gone further’ on the fundamental goal of expenditure devolution ‘of moving government decisions closer to the local population’. At ‘its core, the Kerala approach is about local government control of its own budget, autonomy in its delivery of services and collection of revenues, transparency and public participation in program design and evaluation’ (p. 114).
After 25 years of success, ‘the Kerala decentralisation program’ still ‘remains a work in progress’. No basic data is available to track fiscal performance. Own source revenue generation is weak, So is the capacity of the local government in project planning and execution. Rapid urbanisation is creating new pressures (p. 116), and Kerala must now address the trade-off dilemma ‘between keeping governance closer to the people and adopting more cost-effective ways of service delivery’ (p. 124).
For the Global South, this book carries a theme of some significance. That is, even without a ‘rapid growth in GDP and real output’ decentralised development practice can usher in considerable ‘human development achievements’ (p. 109). Serious readers would find an index useful. Overall, this book carries important lessons for the Global South and how to deepen democracy through decentralisation.
