the power of public accountability - the wall street...

AccountabilityAccountabilityAccountabilityAccountability

Universal Consulting India Pvt Ltd | Shivsagar Estate D | Dr Annie Besant Rd | Worli | Mumbai 400 018 | India

Tel + 91 22 66222100 | Fax + 91 22 66222111 | www.universalconsulting.com

November 2009

Executive Summary

Jay P Desai

Founder & CEO

Universal Consulting India Pvt Ltd

democracy

cu

ltu

re

performanceelections

transparency

Public

liability

ac

tio

n

trust

tole

ran

ce

information

cit

ize

ns

solicit

control

implementationimprove

policy

independence

literacy

invo

lve

transfers

infr

as

tru

ctu

re

monitoring

reform

Judiciary

regulations

hierarchy responsibilityjustification

authority

med

ia

laws

bureaucracy

decisions

imp

art

iali

ty

acts

civ

ic p

art

icip

ati

onInstitutions voice

pe

rfo

rm

sa

nc

tio

n

Executive

The Power of Public Accountability

rig

hts agencies

enforcement

Legislature

open

bil

ls

en

forc

e


1. Background of our Research Study

2. Summary of Research

3. Introduction to Public Accountability

4. Why Public Accountability is important

5. Factors impacting Public Accountability

6. Strengthening Public Accountability

Appendix

A. Citizen’s Survey

B. Civil Society Organisations interviewed

C. Acknowledgements

D. References

CONTENTS

Copyright © Jay P Desai, 2009. All Rights Reserved The Power of Public Accountability, Nov 2009

Objective

� The 26/11 terror attacks in Mumbai brought into sharp focus the absence of public accountability in our country

� This research study was designed to increase the awareness and understanding of public accountability, among citizens and

corporates of India

� The study involved an extensive review of the current literature, to help us understand the landscape of public accountability

in India

� The study looked at 60-100 democracies around the world, to understand the varying levels of public accountability and

governance among them and correlated this data with key socio-economic factors in these countries

� Between Jan-March 2009, we also conducted interviews with individuals at 34 Civil Society Organisations that are actively

involved in the area of public accountability

� We conducted a survey of 358 urban citizens of India, to understand their perspective on public accountability

� The study identified the foundations of robust public accountability and examined the weaknesses of the existing internal and

external accountability mechanisms, for all three arms of the Indian government, i.e. the Legislature, the Executive, and the

Judiciary

� Based on this systems analysis, we recommend several improvement initiatives to strengthen public accountability

� We also identify areas where corporations and citizens can provide support, to help improve accountability in our public

administration, over the medium-long term

In December 2008, triggered by the 26/11 terror attacks in Mumbai, we initiated a year-long research study to understand the landscape of public accountability in India

3

BACKGROUND OF OUR RESEARCH STUDY

Research Methodology








Appendix



C. Acknowledgements

D. References

CONTENTS


The quality of governance in a country is highly correlated with the country’s economic and social

performance. Public accountability is a powerful lever that can be used to improve the quality of governance

Public accountability is impacted by socio-economic factors and the institutional structure of a country

Source: UC Analysis5

Some socio-economic factors that are commonly perceived to be the drivers for low public accountability in

India, have only weak to moderate correlation with public accountability

Public accountability rests on four foundations; Appropriate Representation, Citizen’s Participation,

Legitimate Conduct and Liability Enforcement

Internal and external accountability mechanisms exist, but are not implemented effectively, weakening the

four foundations of public accountability in India

To reinforce the foundations of public accountability, improvement is required in six areas; Information,

Impartiality, Implementation, Infrastructure, Independence and Involvement

1

2

3

5

6

7

A burst of governance reforms, similar to the economic reforms post-liberalisation, is required to gradually

raise the level of public accountability in India8

The findings of our year-long research study, suggest the following:

SUMMARY OF RESEARCH

Unfortunately, India’s global ranking on those socio-economic factors that have moderate to strong

correlation with public accountability, is low4








Appendix



C. Acknowledgements

D. References

CONTENTS


Source: Wignaraja, Kanni. “Mutual Accountability Mechanisms: Accountability, Voice and Responsiveness.”, UNDP Development Group (2006); Bovens,

Mark. “Public Accountability.”, The Oxford Handbook of Public Management, E. Ferlie, L. Lynne & C. Pollitt (Eds.), Oxford: Oxford University Press 2005

Public Accountability is the responsibility of public officials to justify their conduct and performance to citizens using accountability mechanisms. It is also the responsibility of citizens to extract accountability from public officials

Duty BearerObject of

Accountability

� Policies or institutions through which public officials can be held accountable

AccountabilityMechanism

Rights HolderAgent of

Accountability

� Public officials working for a Government department or agency

� Agents to whom public officials are accountable; Citizens, Civil Society Organisations, Media

7

INTRODUCTION TO PUBLIC ACCOUNTABILITY


Independent IndiaVedic Age Ancient India Medieval and Post-Medieval

Colonial India

62 yrs 200 yrs 1500 yrs 2500 yrs 3500 yrs Years Ago

� King was the supreme

authority, but he discussed important matters with public

through Public Meetings - Sabha and Samiti

� As kingdoms grew,

public meetings became operationally difficult; administration was

decentralized to reach

people

� Spies/agents were used

to gather public opinion, information about state

officials

� Corruption in civil

service increased, as monetary tips to officials in return of a

favour became a norm

� Information gatherers/Spies were

appointed to report corruption cases of

officials

� Formal mechanisms

like Auditors and Committees to check public finance were

introduced

� Citizen’s voice gained

importance through public movements against the wrong

Government practices

� Democracy has co-

existed with non-democratic parties and electoral mal-practices for

years

� Institutions, policies to

check accountability introduced, but are not

implemented effectively

� Low citizen’s interest and

awareness of politics

Public Accountability in India today, is still influenced by the socio-economic and institutional structure of our past

8

Source: UC Analysis, Secondary Research

Socio-Economic Structure

� Social stratification into

four castes

� Introduction of

Hinduism, belief in God

� Epics like Mahabharata

emphasized on dharma (conduct), where morality/fair play was

secondary

� Caste based

discrimination increases

� Arthashastra

emphasized on material gain, more than the means to achieve these

gains

� Dis-harmony between

Hindus and Muslims

increased

� Improved role of women

during this era

� Increased poverty due

to low income, high taxes, famines, low literacy

� British discouraged social practices like sati,

untouchability etc

� Caste has degenerated

into an inflexible hierarchal system

� Nurturing corruption and favouritism to climb up in hierarchy

� Tendency to collude with powerful instead of

questioning them

Institutional Structure

INTRODUCTION TO PUBLIC ACCOUNTABILITY








Appendix



C. Acknowledgements

D. References

CONTENTS


Governance Performance

10

Economic Performance

SocialPerformance

Public Accountability

It is imperative to improve governance, to strengthen the economic and social performance of a country. Public accountability is a powerful lever to improve governance

� Governance implies the processes and institutions that guide the functioning of the Government

� Public accountability checks and controls governance with mechanisms that ensure accountability

Source: UC Analysis; W. Carrington, J Debuse, H. Lee. “The Theory of Governance and Accountability”, The University of Iowa Centre for International

Finance and Development, 2008

WHY PUBLIC ACCOUNTABILITY IS IMPORTANT


Global cross-country surveys continuously highlight the poor quality of governance in India, on a comparative basis

Governance Performance Indicators

11

Worldwide Governance Indicators (2008)

Corruption Perception Index (2009)

Democracy Index (2008)

World Bank

Transparency International

EconomistIntelligence Unit 35

108

84

136

140

79

41 10718 21

96

75 146

21 16

1719

162

India China Brazil RussiaUSA UKIndexInstitution

Note: The numbers indicate the ranks of the countries on respective indices.


How does this poor performance on governance, impact our

economic performance and social performance?



Governance & Economic Performance

-6

-4

-2

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

00 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

GDP per capita PPP 2007 (‘000 USD)

The quality of governance has a very high correlation with economic performance

Worldwide Governance Indicator (WGI) Score 2007 (#)

r = 0.86

Source: UC Analysis; ’World Development Indicators Database’, The World Bank, 2007; ‘Governance Matters VI: Aggregate and Individual Governance

Indicators’, The World Bank, 2007

Sample size: 100 countries

� Governance performance is measured using the World Bank’s

World-wide Governance Indicators (WGI) score 2007

� Economic performance is measured using GDP per capita (PPP)

� The correlation between Worldwide Governance Indicators and

GDP per capita (PPP) shows a very high positive correlation

co-efficient (r) of 0.86

� This indicates a very strong relationship between governance

performance and economic performance of a country

� Poor governance in India is reflected in its poor economic

performance, in global surveys (see below)

Economic Performance Indicators

Doing Business Index

(2008-09)

Global Competitiveness Index (2009-10)

World Bank

World Economic Forum

133

49

89

29

129

56 63

4 5

132

120


Note: The numbers indicate the ranks of the countries on respective indices



-6

-4

-2

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.2

13

Governance and Social Performance

The quality of governance also has a high correlation with social performance


Sample size: 99 countries

� Governance performance is measured using the World Bank’s

World-wide Governance Indicators (WGI) score 2007

� Social performance is measured using UNDP’s Human

Development Index score 2007

� The correlation between Worldwide Governance Indicators and

Human Development Index shows a high positive correlation

co-efficient (r) of 0.72

� This indicates a strong relationship between governance

performance and social performance of a country

� Poor governance in India is reflected in its poor social

performance, in global surveys (see below)

Social Performance Indicators

Human Development

Index (2007)

Prosperity Index (2009)

United Nations

Development Programme

The Legatum Institute

134

45


Note: The numbers indicate the ranks of the countries on respective indices

r = 0.72

Human Development Index

2007 (#)

92

75

75

41 69

13 21

129

71

Source: UC Analysis; ‘Governance Matters VI: Aggregate and Individual Governance Indicators’, The World Bank, 2007; ‘Human Development Index -

2007’, Human Development Report 2009, UNDP




1947 - 1970 1970 - 1990 1990-2009

53 56 59 62 68 71 74 77 83 86 8965 80

Phase I Phase II Phase III

24.Panchayati Raj Act

25.Alternate Dispute Resolution formalised

26.Citizen’s Charter

27.Judicial Collegium

28.Bhagidari Initiative

29.Grievance Redressal System

30.Mandatory disclosure of information by election candidates

32.Mandatory social audit as part of NREGS

92 98 01 04 0795

1.Official Secrets Act

3.Enactment of the Constitution

3. Comptroller and Auditor General established

6.Formation of Union Public Service Commission

7.First General elections

9. Law Commission established

10.Central Bureau of Investigation established

Has negative impact on accountability

Has positive impact on accountability

4

5

2013 26 29 31 339 21 2710 11

6

3 28

32

2 19 23 25

14

7

12

15

16

17

2.First Pay Commission

5.Formation of Election Commission

8. Programme Evaluation Organisation formed

11.Central Vigilance Commission established

12.Central Civil Services Conduct rules framed

15.Maintenance of Internal Security Act

16.Censorship of media

17.Political parties were banned

18.Controller General of Accounts formed

19.National Police Commission formed

20.Public Interest Litigation

21.First Lokayukta established

33.Outcome budgeting introduced

34.National e-Governance plan

35

35.SC judges declare assets and HC judges agree to disclose assets

Unfortunately, in India, governance reforms have been few and sparse over the past decades, resulting in poor quality of governance and lower public accountability

18

23.Prevention of Corruption Act

22.Anti-Defection Law

22

31.RTI Act implemented at national level

3024

36

36.Delivery Monitoring unit formed

1

50Pre’50

8

13.1st Administrative Reforms Commission appointed

14.Judges Inquiry Act

34

Key Governance Reforms



Source: UC Analysis

Key Economic Reforms

1947 - 1970 1970 - 1990 1990-2009

53 56 59 62 68 71 74 77 83 86 8965 80


92 98 01 04 0795

Has negative impact

Has positive impact

Key Governance Reforms

1947 - 1970 1970 - 1990 1990-2009

53 56 59 62 68 71 74 77 83 86 8965 80


92 98 01 04 0795

A burst of high-intensity governance reforms, similar to the economic reforms during liberalisation are needed to substantially improve public accountability and governance

50

50

Pre’50

Pre’50

Burst of

economic

reforms

Burst of

governance

reforms

???









Appendix



C. Acknowledgements

D. References

CONTENTS



17


SocialPerformance


Socio-Economic

Factors


Public accountability in a country is impacted by socio-economic factors and the institutional structure

Source: UC Analysis; W. Carrington, J Debuse, H. Lee. “The Theory of Governance and Accountability”, The University of Iowa Centre for International

Finance and Development, 2008

FACTORS IMPACTING PUBLIC ACCOUNTABILITY


We examined 12 Socio-Economic factors across 60-100 countries, to understand their correlation with pubic accountability


Socio-Economic Factors Description

Per Capita Income

Social Hierarchy

Age of Democracy

Adult Literacy

Individualistic Culture

Civic Participation

Social Diversity

Tolerance Level

Inter-personal Trust

Urbanisation Level

Geographic Size

Population

Number of years since the country attained democracy

Gross Domestic Product per capita, as an indicator of economic development

Share of total population residing in urban areas

Share of adult population that is literate (adult literacy defined by UNESCO as individuals over 15 yrs of age, who can read and write simple statements)

Degree of racial, ethnic, linguistic and religious fragmentation in a country

Extent of inequality of power and wealth, as perceived and accepted by less powerful individuals, or groups

Degree to which individuals are integrated/dis-integrated into groups

Society’s tolerance for uncertainty and ambiguity

Geographic area of the country

Level of participation (time and money) of citizens in civic affairs

Degree of inter-personal trust among individuals in a society

Size of population of the country

SOCIO-ECONOMIC FACTORS


Source: UC Analysis; Global Rankings – Adult Literacy Rate (Total)’, UNESCO Institute of Statistics, 2007; ‘Governance Matters

VI: Aggregate and Individual Governance Indicators’, The World Bank, 200719

Adult Literacy - Is the low level of adult literacy in India (~300 mn illiterates), a key constraint in achieving high public accountability?

There is a low-moderate correlation between adult literacy levels and public accountability. India’s low literacy levels should not be a significant barrier to achieving higher public accountability

-6

-4

-2

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

00 20 40 60 80 100 120

R2 = 0.25

r = 0.5

Sample Size: 100 countries

Literacy Level (%)

Correlation

300 Mn

300 Mn

Adult Literacy

99

99

93

90

66

99

0 20 40 60 80 100 120

UK

USA

Russia

China

Brazil

India

Low literacy

level

High literacy

level

Adult Literacy Rate (%) - 2007




Source: UC Analysis; Okediji, T, ‘Social Diversity Index- The dynamics of ethnic fragmentation: a proposal for an expanded measurement index’, American Journal of Economics and Sociology, 2005; ‘Governance Matters VI: Aggregate and Individual Governance Indicators’, The World Bank, 2007

20

Social Diversity - Does high linguistic, cultural and religious fragmentation in India predispose it to lower public accountability?

-6

-4

-2

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2

R2 = 0.083

r = (0.29)

Social Diversity Index (#)

Social Diversity Correlation


There is a low correlation between social diversity levels and public accountability. India’s high social diversity should not be a significant barrier to achieving higher public accountability

Low social

diversity

High social

diversity

0.96

0.88

0.85

0.66

0.98

0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2

India

USA

China

UK

Brazil

Social Diversity Index (#)




Source: UC Analysis; ‘Power Distance Index’, Geert Hofstede’s Cultural Dimensions, 2003; ‘Governance Matters VI: Aggregate

and Individual Governance Indicators’, The World Bank, 200721

Social Hierarchy - Does the high degree of social distance, in terms of power and wealth, predispose India to lower public accountability?

-6

-4

-2

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

00 20 40 60 80 100 120

R2 = 0.45

r = (0.67)

Power Distance Index (#)

Social Hierarchy Correlation

There is a moderate correlation between social hierarchy and public accountability. India’s high social hierarchy could be a significant barrier to achieving higher public accountability


Low social

hierarchy

High social

hierarchy

80

77

69

40

35

93

0 20 40 60 80 100

Russia

China

India

Brazil

USA

UK

Hofstede’s Power Distance Index (#)




Source: UC Analysis; ‘Individualism Index ’, Geert Hofstede’s Cultural Dimensions - 2003; ‘Governance Matters VI: Aggregate

and Individual Governance Indicators’, The World Bank, 2007

22

Individualistic Culture - Is a relatively collectivist society as we find in India, a barrier to achieving higher public accountability?

Individualistic Culture Correlation

-6

-4

-2

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

0 20 40 60 80 100

R2 = 0.52

r = 0.71

Individualism Index (#)


There is high correlation between individualistic culture and public accountability. India’s collectivist culture could be a barrier to achieving higher public accountability, since responsibility is often diffused among groups

89

48

39

38

20

91

0 20 40 60 80 100

USA

UK

India

Russia

Brazil

China

Hofstede’s Individualism Index (#)

Collectivist

countries

Individualistic

countries




Some socio-economic factors commonly perceived to be the drivers for low public accountability in India, show lower correlation with public accountability

R2

0.75

0.52

0.45

0.43

0.39

0.32

0.25

0.25

0.08

0.06

Correlation with Public Accountability

Strong

Weak

Moderate

r

0.86

0.71

(0.67)

0.66

0.63

0.56

0.50

0.50

(0.29)

(0.24)


0.01 0.1

0.006 (0.07)

Socio-Economic Factors

Per Capita Income

Social Hierarchy

Age of Democracy

Adult Literacy


Civic Participation

Social Diversity

Tolerance Level


Urbanisation Level

Geographic Size

Population


Commonly

perceived drivers

for low

accountability,

based on survey of

358 citizens


Unfortunately, India’s ability to leverage the factors that have strong to moderate correlation with public accountability is low, based on global cross-country rankings

Strong

Weak

Moderate

24

83 / 100

28 / 63

14 / 63*

21 / 98

30 / 65

89 / 100

91 / 100

82 / 90

9 / 78*

55 / 63

5 / 100*

1 / 100*


* - Higher rank on these factors indicates possibly weaker position for India

India’s Ranking

High

Medium

Medium

Low

Low

Low

Low

Low

Low

Low

Leverage-ability of Factors

Low

Low




Per Capita Income

Social Hierarchy

Age of Democracy

Adult Literacy


Civic Participation

Social Diversity

Tolerance Level


Urbanisation Level

Geographic Size

Population


Socio-economic reforms, can positively influence the level of public accountability and governance, thus improving social and economic performance over the long term

Strong

Weak

Moderate

25




� Right to Education Bill (2009)

� National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme (2005)

� Bharat Nirman (2005) - focused on rural infrastructure

� Jawaharlal Nehru National Urban Renewal Mission (2005)

� Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan (2001)

� Bhagidari initiative in Delhi (2000)

� Poverty alleviation programmes (part of Five Year Plans)

� Panchayati Raj Act (1993) - Decentralization

� Twenty Point Programme - focused on poverty eradication,

reduction in social and economic disparities

� Women’s Reservation Bill (Pending)

� …

Some examples of Socio-Economic Reforms


Per Capita Income

Social Hierarchy

Age of Democracy

Adult Literacy


Civic Participation

Social Diversity

Tolerance Level


Urbanisation Level

Geographic Size

Population



26


SocialPerformance


Socio-Economic

Factors


FACTORS IMPACTING PUBLIC ACCOUNTABILITY


Our research suggests that public accountability needs four solid foundations torest on

27

Appropriate Representation

Citizen’s Participation

Legitimate Conduct

Liability Enforcement

Source: UC Analysis, Bovens, Mark. “Public Accountability.”, The Oxford Handbook of Public Management, E. Ferlie, L. Lynne & C. Pollitt (Eds.),

Oxford: Oxford University Press 2005


� Representation of citizens

by capable and reliable

officials for policy

formulation and

implementation

� Electing/ appointing public

officials through an

objective and transparent

process

� Participation of

stakeholders like citizens,

CSOs and media, in policy

formulation and

implementation, to assist

Government in effective

functioning

� Transparent, fair and

equitable functioning of the

Government to ensure

healthy governance

� Regular monitoring and

evaluation of the

performance of public

officials

� Application of sanctions

based on conduct and

performance of the

Government

� Sanctions could be formal

(fees, penal action) or

informal (resignation,

answerability)

INSTITUTIONAL STRUCTURE

1 2 3 4


Mechanisms of public accountability could be internal to the Government (Public Institutions, Policies), or external (Citizens, Civil Society Organisations, Media). External accountability mechanisms are critical in India, to improve accountability

Source: UC Analysis, Bovens, Mark. “Public Accountability.”, The Oxford Handbook of Public Management, E. Ferlie, L. Lynne & C. Pollitt (Eds.),

Oxford: Oxford University Press 2005; Goetz, Anne Marie and Rob Jenkins. “Hybrid Forms of Accountability.”, Public Management Review 3.3 (2001);

Schacter, Mark. “When Accountability Fails- A Framework for Diagnosis and Action.” Institute of Governance, Ottawa Policy Brief, 2001

28

� Internal Accountability: Accountability imposed

upon the Government from within

- Intra-Departmental: A government body

monitoring the performance of its staff internally

- Inter-Departmental: A government body

scrutinizing the activities of another government

department

� External Accountability: Accountability imposed

upon the Government from outside, by citizens, civil

society organisations (CSOs) and media

Citizens

MediaCSOs

External Accountability

Legislature Judiciary

Internal Accountability

Government

Executive



Intra-Departmental AccountabilityInter-Departmental Accountability



Our research assessed the strength of these internal and external accountability mechanisms, across the Legislature, the Executive and the Judiciary, to examine the ability of the mechanisms to support the four foundations of public accountability

29

Source: UC Analysis



Legitimate Conduct



� Accountability mechanisms that help improve the quality of citizens’ participation in the Government

Fo

un

da

tio

ns

of

Pu

bli

c A

cc

ou

nta

bil

ity

Public

R

epre

senta

tion

Public

P

art

icip

atio

n

Legitim

ate

C

onduct

� Accountability mechanisms that help improve the quality of citizen’s representatives in the Government

� Accountability mechanisms that help improve the performance of the Government officials

� Accountability mechanisms that help sanction the Government officials for their performance

Lia

bili

ty

Enfo

rcem

ent

Fo

un

da

tio

ns

of

Pu

bli

c A

cc

ou

nta

bil

ity

Lia

bili

ty

Enfo

rcem

en

t

Public

R

epre

senta

tio

n

Public

P

art

icip

atio

n

Legitim

ate

C

onduct





Judiciary

Internal Accountability External AccountabilityHorizontal

Accountability


Fo

un

da

tio

ns

of

Pu

bli

c A

cc

ou

nta

bil

ity

Public

R

epre

senta

tion

Public

P

art

icip

atio

n

Legitim

ate

C

onduct




Lia

bili

ty

Enfo

rcem

en

t

Fo

un

da

tio

ns

of

Pu

bli

c A

cc

ou

nta

bil

ity

Lia

bili

ty

Enfo

rcem

en

t

Public

R

epre

senta

tio

n

Public

P

art

icip

atio

n

Legitim

ate

C

onduct





Executive

Internal Accountability External AccountabilityHorizontal

Accountability


Fo

un

da

tio

ns

of

Pu

bli

c A

cc

ou

nta

bil

ity

Public

R

epre

senta

tion

Public

P

art

icip

atio

n

Legitim

ate

C

onduct




Lia

bili

ty

Enfo

rcem

en

t

Fo

un

dati

on

s o

f P

ub

lic A

cco

un

tab

ilit

y

Lia

bili

ty

En

forc

em

en

tA

ppro

priate

Repre

se

nta

tion

Citiz

en

's

Pa

rtic

ipation

Le

gitim

ate

C

on

duct

LegislatureInternal (Intra-Departmental)

AccountabilityExternal Accountability

Internal (Inter-Departmental)

Accountability

� Examine accountability mechanisms that ensure representation

of citizens by capable and reliable officials for policy formulation and implementation

� Examine accountability mechanisms that encourage participation of

stakeholders like citizens, CSOs and media, in policy formulation and implementation, to assist Government in effective functioning

� Examine accountability mechanisms that ensure transparent, fair and equitable functioning of the Government

� Examine accountability mechanisms that evaluate the conduct

and performance of the Government and apply sanctions

Citizens

MediaCivil Society

Organisations


Legislatu

re

Judiciary

Internal Accountability

Government



Internal -Intra Departmental Accountability

Internal -Inter Departmental Accountability

Executive


Mechanisms of Public Accountability

Foundations of Public Accountability


Legislature: There are significant constraints that impede the implementation of public accountability mechanisms

� Not applicable

� Lack of any formal mechanism to respond to citizen’s opinions

- Lack of check on Ministries/ Committees evaluating public opinion

� Lack of internal checks on Parliamentary proceedings and behaviour of MPs

- Inadequate check on attendance

- Lack of check on participation in debates

� Expelling MPs for mis-conduct is rare,

and is used in extreme cases only

� Disqualifying MPs for voting against

their party (Anti-Defection Law) in the

Parliament hinders constructive

debates

� Apathy and indifference of citizens results in:

- Low participation in elections

- Uninformed decision making

- Influenced decision making

� Limited monitoring Parliamentary proceedings due to:

- Lack of access to information (Literacy levels, poor computer penetration etc)

- Indifferent attitude of citizens

� Lack of authority with the independent

agency monitoring elections results in

- Candidates breaking code of

conduct (funding, affidavits etc)

- Unethical practices (bribing etc)

� Lack of an independent agency to monitor public officials participation in policy making

- Ad-hoc usage of participation mechanisms by officials

� Lack of an independent agency to review and check Parliamentary proceedings

- Judiciary can only check the validity of the legislations

� Lack of action against corrupt MPs

due to ineffective Police and Judiciary:

- Corruption and abuse of power

- Political interference

- Lack of adequate infrastructure

- Mis-appropriation of funds

Internal (Intra-Departmental)



Accountability

30

� Difficulty to challenge functioning of MPs

- Lack of understanding of Public Interest Litigations (PILs) to challenge MPs

- Ineffective Police and Judiciary system

� Low citizen’s participation due to: - Low awareness about

mechanisms- Low awareness about CSOs

facilitating public participation- Limited time-frame to participate- Limited access to mechanisms- Indifferent attitude

Legislature

Ap

pro

pri

ate

Rep

resen

tati

on

Cit

izen

s’

Part

icip

ati

on

Leg

itim

ate

Co

nd

uct

Lia

bilit

y

En

forc

em

en

t

Fo

un

da

tio

ns

of

Pu

bli

c A

cc

ou

nta

bil

ity

Source: UC Analysis; Primary Research; Secondary Research



Executive: There are significant constraints that impede the implementation of public accountability mechanisms

� Lack of democratic selection of the Cabinet Ministers due to:

- Political influence - Lack of transparent process

� Lack of check on unreasonable transfers of public officials due to:

- Political interference- Lack of transparency

� Lack of internal check on public officials involved in Government-citizens initiatives

� Ineffective performance assessment - Subjective and non-transparent

assessment- Performance not linked with

promotions and salaries� Ineffective internal reporting of

corruption- Inadequate protection to

whistleblowers

� Lengthy process of prosecuting corrupt officials

� Lack of action against corrupt officials due to corruption

� Substandard quality of candidates elected due to:

- Low participation in elections

- Uninformed decision making

- Influenced decision making

� Lack of monitoring by citizens due to:

- Indifferent attitude of citizens

- Low awareness about rights, mechanisms, NGOs

- Pitfalls in using the mechanisms of accountability

� Lack of authority with the independent

agency monitoring elections

� Lack of an independent check on

transfers

� Lack of an independent agency to monitor the involvement of officers in Government-citizens initiatives

� Ineffective monitoring by independent

agencies (CBI, CVC, Lokayukta, CAG)

- Limited power/authority, limited

infrastructure, political influence

� Ineffective monitoring by Legislature:

- Proliferation of political parties,

poor quality of MPs

� Lack of action against corrupt officials

due to ineffective Police and Judiciary:

- Corruption and abuse of power


- Lack of adequate infrastructure

- Mis-appropriation of funds

� Citizens are not able to use PILs to challenge officers due to

- Lack of understanding about PILs

- Ineffective Police and Judiciary� Citizens are unable to use Lokayukta:

- Lack of adequate infrastructure- Lengthy process of prosecuting

corrupt officials

� Lack of effective citizen’s participation due to:

- Lack of awareness

- Lack of interest and motivation

- Lack of decentralized governance structure

31

Ap

pro

pri

ate

Rep

resen

tati

on

Cit

izen

s’

Part

icip

ati

on

Leg

itim

ate

Co

nd

uct

Lia

bilit

y

En

forc

em

en

t




Accountability



Executive

Fo

un

da

tio

ns

of

Pu

bli

c A

cc

ou

nta

bil

ity


Judiciary: There are significant constraints that impede the implementation of public accountability mechanisms

� Lack of an independent and transparent

process to appoint judges:

- Inadequate involvement of all

Collegium members

- Lack of a defined criteria

- Nepotism, lack of non-Judiciary

members in Collegium

� Lack of monitoring or investigation in the conduct of Judiciary

- Collegium inactive in ordering investigations

- Lack of authority to agencies to conduct investigations into Judiciary proceedings

� Lack of action against corrupt judges:

- Collegium inactive in ordering action against corrupt judges

- Internal corruption and mis-use of power

� No mechanism to access justification for appointment of judges

� Difficulty in monitoring and challenging

Judiciary due to:

- Lack of open courts for citizens

- Threat of contempt of court

� Lack of active check by independent authorities (currently President and Governor) in appointment and transfer of judges

� Lack of an independent authority to investigate into complaints against the Judiciary and suggest relevant punitive actions

� Lack of action against corrupt judges:

- Slow and lengthy process of impeachment


32

� Citizens are not able to challenge Judiciary due to:

- Lack of grievance redressal authority for Judiciary

- Lack of independent authority to act on PILs against Judiciary

Ap

pro

pri

ate

Rep

resen

tati

on

Cit

izen

s’

Part

icip

ati

on

Leg

itim

ate

Co

nd

uct

Lia

bilit

y

En

forc

em

en

t




Accountability



Judiciary

Fo

un

da

tio

ns

of

Pu

bli

c A

cc

ou

nta

bil

ity

Not applicable Not applicable Not applicable


The four foundations of public accountability have been severely weakened by constraints in the implementation of public accountability mechanisms

Lack of transparency in appointment and transfer

Lack of authority with the

selection agency (eg:

Elections Commission)

Lack of defined criteria for appointment and transfer

Citizen’s apathy in selecting appropriate

candidates

Low involvement of

citizens in policy-making

Ad-hoc usage of

participation mechanisms

by public officials

Lack of decentralised structure of governance

Ill-equipped law enforcement agencies

Corrupt and lengthy process of prosecution of

officials

In-appropriate usage of

mechanisms by citizens

(eg: PILs)

Ill-equipped and corrupt monitoring agencies

Loopholes in

implementation of policies

(eg: RTI)

Subjective and non -transparent performance assessment of officials

Low involvement of citizens in monitoring

Government

33



Legitimate Conduct



Source: UC Analysis









Appendix



C. Acknowledgements

D. References

CONTENTS


To strengthen the foundations of public accountability, initiatives are needed in six areas (6 Is)- Information, Impartiality, Implementation, Infrastructure, Independence and Involvement

Active participation of

citizens

Adequate authority and delegation of

power

Adequate funds,

personnel and systems support

Effective implementation of policies and mechanisms

Objective and transparent process for

selection, transfer and evaluation

Disclosure of reliable data

in a simplified format

35



Legitimate Conduct


InvolvementInformation Impartiality Implementation Infrastructure Independence


Source: UC Analysis

1 2 3 4 5 6

STRENGTHENING PUBLIC ACCOUNTABILITY


Many types of initiatives are required in each of the six improvement areas, to bring about a systemic change in the level of public accountability



Legitimate Conduct



InvolvementInformation Impartiality Implementation Infrastructure Independence

Impartiality Implementation Infrastructure Independence Involvement

Information Availability

Information Accessibility

Information Comprehend-

ability

Appointment & Transfers

Performance Assessment

Personnel

Technology

Funds

Policy Formulation

Performance Evaluation

Audits & Feedback

Incentives & Penalty

Redressal Enforcement

Authority to Agencies

Delegation of Power

Information

36

6 Is

Source: UC Analysis

Initiatives

1.1

1.2

1.3

2.1 3.1 4.1 5.1 6.1

2.2 3.2 4.2 5.2 6.2

4.3 6.3

1 2 3 4 5 6

1 2 3 4 5 6



Information Availability

Provide information about expenses (travel, salaries, allowances etc) incurred by the Ministries

Provide information about amount allocated and utilized for social schemes (education, employment, health etc), and link it to the quantitative output of these schemes

Allow online tracking of government applications (licenses, ration card etc) to reduce corruption

37

Information: Enhance transparency in government functioning by improving information disclosure and accessibility

1.1

Information Accessibility

Leverage technology (internet, mobile, mass media) to increase accessibility to information

Build mass awareness of regulations which help to access information and demand accountability (Right To Information Act, Citizens Charter etc)

1.2

Information Comprehend-ability

Provide information (candidate affidavits, documents through RTI, policies, budgets etc) in an easy-to-understand language and format

Provide interactive platforms and search tools to filter and access information (Performance of MPs in Parliament, expenses incurred by Ministries, budget allocation and utilization by Ministries etc)

1.3

Source: UC Analysis, Secondary Research, Primary Research


1


Appointments & Transfers

Provide public access to information on reasons and criteria for transfers of public officials, especially in senior posts

Fix tenure of civil servants, atleast for officers in senior posts, to reduce unreasonable transfers by politicians, for their personal or political gain

38

Impartiality: Increase transparency and objectivity in appointment, transfer and performance assessment of public officials

2.1

Performance Assessment

Define performance targets for public officials and discuss expectations with them, to make the assessment objective and result-oriented

2.2

Adopt quantitative grading system to evaluate the performance of public officials

Link the performance of the public officials with their salary and/or promotion, to incentivise the officials



2


Audits & Feedback

Monitor and audit public schemes and policies (employment, health, education etc), and take immediate action to improve implementation

Make Social Audits* mandatory for all key policies/schemes

39

Implementation: Strengthen implementation of policies by monitoring their progress and penalizing poor conduct of officials responsible for these policies

3.1

Incentives & Penalty

Attach incentives and penalties to the performance of officers, to encourage better performance and achieve higher compliance

3.2

* Social audit is a process where details of resources (both financial and non-financial) used by Government agencies, are shared with people through a

public platform (like public meetings). NREGS is the only scheme yet, that has mandatory in-built social audit as a part of the scheme.



3


Personnel

Provide adequate personnel to monitoring agencies (Central Vigilance Commission, Lokayukta etc) and law enforcement agencies (Judiciary, Police)

Provide adequate training (especially behavioural training) to officials implementing schemes/policies

40

Infrastructure: Provide adequate infrastructure support in the form of personnel, technology and funds

4.1

Technology

Provide platforms (online grievance portals, policy-consultation portals etc) to encourage citizen’s interaction with Government

Increase use of technology in transactions (online procurement, online elections registration etc) between Government and citizens

4.2

Funds

Provide adequate funds to monitoring agencies (Central Vigilance Commission, Lokayukta etc) and law enforcement agencies (Judiciary, Police)

4.3



4


Authority to Agencies

Provide adequate authority to monitoring agencies (Central Vigilance Commission, Comptroller and Auditor General etc) and law enforcement agencies (Judiciary, Police) to function effectively

41

Independence: Empower monitoring agencies and decentralize authority, to enable them to function effectively

5.1

Delegation of Power

Empower local government authorities through administrative and fiscal decentralisation

5.2



5


Policy Formulation

Citizens and CSOs should participate in policy and budget formulation, by providing their views or opinions independently, or by supporting think-tanks/CSOs working in the policy advocacy area

42

Involvement: Increase involvement and participation of citizens in seekingaccountability for non-performance (1/2)…

6.1

Performance Evaluation

Citizens and CSOs should track public expenditure and compare it with allocations to expose the leakages

Citizens should evaluate quality of public services through various participatory monitoring and evaluations tools (public opinion surveys, citizen’s report cards etc) and highlight inefficiencies

6.2

Redressal Enforcement

Citizens should lodge complaints against poor delivery of public services using the online portals and mobile-messaging facility available for grievance redressal

Citizens should complain about cases of corruption with agencies like Central Vigilance Commission, Lokayukta etc

6.3



6


Volunteer Your Time

Corporates can encourage employees to volunteer time for CSOs; eg. Infosys employees can opt to work for a year with a CSO at half the salary

Source: UC Analysis, Secondary Research, Primary Research43

Involvement: Increase support for Civil Society Organisations (CSOs) working in the area of public accountability (2/2)

Provide Media Access

Corporates can sponsor media campaigns of CSOs; eg. Tata Tea associated with a CSO in the area of elections for the Jaago Re! campaign

Provide Knowledge Support

Corporates can conduct small research assignments for CSOs, or share their expertise in areas like legal matters, budget analysis; eg. Accenture extends its expertise and skills to local CSOs, at no charge sometimes

Provide Infrastructure Support

Corporates can provide CSOs with training, IT infrastructure or physical infrastructure; eg. SP Jain Institute provides a CSO with office space and lecture room to conduct workshops

Provide Monetary Support

Corporates can provide grants/sponsorships to CSOs or set up dedicated trusts/foundations; eg. Ford Foundation, set by the Ford Motor Company provides grants to CSOs working for various causes


6








Appendix



C. Acknowledgements

D. References

CONTENTS


What, according to you, is the level

of Public Accountability in India?

0 20 40 60 80 100

Percent of responses (%)

Low

Medium

High

88%

11%

2%

Source: Primary Research45

We conducted a survey of 358 citizens, to get their perspective on public accountability in India

What is your perception (ranking)

about impact of factors on current

level of public accountability in

India?

Inter-personal Trust8

Individualistic Culture7

Social Diversity6

Per Capita Income5

Tolerance Level4

Social Hierarchy 3

Civic Participation2

Adult Literacy1

Age of Democracy10

Urbanisation Level9

FactorsRank

Total number of respondents: 358

APPENDIX - A

Do you think that India’s historical baggage (colonial rule, caste

system, tendency to avoid questioning higher authority) has an

impact on Public Accountability?

0 20 40 60 80 100

Percent of responses (%)

Strongly Agree

5%

13%

23%

14%

45%Agree

Neutral

Disagree

Strongly Disagree

Which branch, according to you, is

currently more accountable to

citizens?

Legislature3

Executive2

Judiciary1

FactorsRank








Appendix



C. Acknowledgements

D. References

CONTENTS


� Anti Corruption Movement, Chennai

� Association for Democratic Reforms, New Delhi

� Budget Analysis Rajasthan Center, Jaipur

� Campaign for Judicial Accountability & Judicial Reforms, New Delhi

� Catalyst Trust, Chennai

� Centre for Budget and Governance Accountability, New Delhi

� Centre for Budget and Policy Studies, Bangalore

� Centre for Civil Society, New Delhi

� Centre for Good Governance, Hyderabad

� Centre for Policy Research, New Delhi

� Centre for the Study of Developing Societies, New Delhi

� Centre for Youth and Social Development, Bhubaneswar

� Charkha, Gurgaon

� Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative, New Delhi

� CUTS-International, Jaipur

� Democracy Connect, New Delhi

� Indian Institute of Public Administration, New Delhi

� Janaagraha, Bangalore

� Janhit Manch, Mumbai

� Justice Corps, Mumbai

� Liberty Institute, New Delhi

� Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan, Rajsamand

� National Centre for Advocacy Studies, Pune

� National Foundation for India, New Delhi

� PRIA, New Delhi

� PRS Legislative Research, New Delhi

� People’s Union for Civil Liberties, New Delhi

� Praja, Mumbai

� Public Affairs Centre, Bangalore

� Sanket, Bhopal

� Satark Nagrik Sangathan, Mumbai

� Social Watch India, New Delhi

� Transparency International India, New Delhi

� 5th Pillar, Chennai

Civil Society Organisations (34)

Between January-March 2009, we also interviewed individuals in 34 Civil Society Organisations (CSOs) working in the area of public accountability

APPENDIX - B








Appendix



C. Acknowledgements

D. References

CONTENTS


Acknowledgments

I would like to thank my Universal Consulting colleagues at the UC Center for Strategic Synthesis, for their

unflagging support over the past year. The team, admirably led by Shweta Gadia, worked tirelessly over the

last 12 months. Shweta was well supported by Neha Tulsiani and others, over the course of our research.

I would also like to thank all the Civil Society Organisations who spoke to us in-person, or via telecon, in the

early part of our work. A large number of citizens also responded to our survey request and thanks are due

to them. A number of business associates, also provided inputs to this research.

Lastly, I would like to thank my four Partners at Universal Consulting, for giving me full support to undertake

this research study and other colleagues at Universal Consulting, for their enthusiasm and encouragement.

APPENDIX - C

49








Appendix



C. Acknowledgements

D. References

CONTENTS


The following literature was referenced for this research study (1/7)

51

� ‘A City Panchayat based on Sahbhaagi, Yes We

Can’, Lead India Website, 2 Mar 2009

� ‘A concise history of India’, Geographia Asia Website,

30 July 2009

� ‘A handbook for trainers on participatory local

development: the Panchayati Raj ... ', FAO Corporate

Document Repository

� ‘A walk through India’s history’, Embassy of India -

Moscow Website, 31 July 2009

� ‘About Election Commission of India: Setup and

Functions’, Election Commission of India Website, 15

Dec 2008

� Ackerman, John, “Social Accountability in the Public

Sector: A Conceptual Discussion”, World Bank

Institute, 2005

� ‘Administrative capacity in the EU8’, World Bank,

September 2006

� Agarwal, S K, ‘Judicial Corruption Fuels Impunity,

Corrodes Rule of Law’, 24 May 2007, Transparency

International Website, 3 Mar 2009

� ‘Amend Anti Defection Law to restrict issuing of party

whips’, Hindu Business Line, 6 Dec 2008

� Anand, Eshwar, ‘Civil services: The blunted edge’,

The Tribune 25 Jan 2009

� ‘Annual Report - Aviation', Ministry of Civil Aviation,

2008-09

� ‘Annual Report - Home Affairs', Ministry of Home

Affairs, 2008-09

� ‘Annual Report - Steel', Ministry of Steel, 2008-09

� Ansari, M M, ‘Impact of RTI on Development’, 15 May

2008, Central Information Commission, 20 Feb 2009

� ‘Anti-corruption initiative for Asia and the Pacific,

Asian Development Bank

� Arora RK, Rajni Goyal, ‘Administration under the

British Rule’, Section III, Indian Public Administration:

Institutions and Issues,1996

� Backus Michiel, ‘E-governance in Developing

Countries’, The International Institute for

Communication and Development, March 2001

� Baisakh, Pradeep, ‘ Are judges over-reaching?’, 19

Apr 2007, India Together Website, 2 Feb 2009

� Banerjee, Chandana, ‘Out to empower’, 12 Mar 2009,

The HOOT Website, 16 Mar 2009

� ‘Bangalore Agenda Task Force’, 1 Dec 2002,

Resource Section, Janaagraha Website, 2 Mar 2009

� ‘Bangalore, India: Citizen Report Cards’, Public

Affairs Centre, May 2005

� Bhatnagar S, ‘India’s Economic Development: How

Does E-Government Help?’, Mar 2002

� Bhattarcharjya, Satarupa, ‘House In Turmoil’, India

Today, 2 Jan 2006

� Bhushan, Pratap, ‘Illusion Of Accountability ‘, Outlook

India, 23 Nov 2006

� ‘Bills passed in Parliament without debate’, 24 Dec

2008, NDTV Website, 20 Jan 2009

� ‘Bindass launches I Change, India Changes

movement’, 26 Feb 2009, Television Point Website,

10 Mar 2009

� ‘Bogus votes beef up voters' list by 71 lakh’ The

Times of India 6 Jan 2009

� ‘Calcutta HC Judge Faces Impeachment’ Hindustan

Times, 9 Sep 2008

� Caruthers, Renee Wijnen, 'State Bank of India Wins

Developer Award for Central Plan Scheme

Monitoring System', 11 May, 2009,

www.windowsfs.com, 2 November 2009

� ‘Cash and caste playing role in Punjab and UP

elections’, The Financial Express, 13 Feb 2002

� Chandavarkar, Pia , 'Now, RTI in school', Mumbai

Newsline, 19 October 2006

� Chaturvedi, Rakesh Mohan, 'Rural jobs scheme

needs independent social audit, say activists',

Thaindian News, 6 April 2008

� Chaudhuri S, ‘Building democracy: The people’s

campaign for decentralized planning in Kerala’, South

Asia Decentralization Series, The World Bank, Jan

2005

� Chaudhuri, Jay, Yamini Aiyar, Jessica Wallack,

'Outcomes Rule: Getting Development from

Development Expenditure', Centre for Development

Finance, Institute of Financial Management

Research, August 2009

References

APPENDIX - D



52

� Chauhan, Radha, 'National E-Governance Plan in

India', United Nations University, May 2009

� ‘CIC cannot ask information on judges' appointment’,

4 Mar 2009, News Section - AOL Website, 13 Mar

2009

� ‘Citizen service centres in Brazil’, July 2001, World

Bank's e-Government Website, 26 Jun 2009

� ‘Citizens' Charters: Indian Experience’, Department of

Administrative Reforms and Public Grievances

Website, 10 Feb 2009

� ‘Citizens’ Report on Governance and Development’,

Social Watch, 2006

� ‘Competition, targets keep rail TCs on their toes’, The

Times of India, 24 February 2009

� ‘Constitutional Provisions’, Vigilance Manual, Central

Vigilance Commission Website, 8 Feb 2009

� Corney L ‘Sunshine laws: How are States making

lawbreakers pay?’, University of North Carolina, 2004

� ‘Corruption in Judiciary: CMS Study, Mint 3 May 2007

� D Surya, ’Fine collection targets set for traffic police’,

The Times of India, 22 March 2003

� Datar, Arvind, ‘Judicial Appointments -The Indian

Perspective’, Centre for Public Law, University of

Cambridge, 4 Oct 2003

� Datta, Kanika “A vote is more than worth the candle”

Business Standard 11 Dec 2008

� Dean, Cornelia, ‘Public Outreach, Done Right, Aids

Policy Making’, New York Times 22 Aug 2008

� ‘Delivery Monitoring Unit', GOVERNMENT OF INDIA,

7th July, 2009

� ‘Demographic, Social and Economic Indicators’,

Literacy Rate Data, United Nation Population Fund –

State of World Population, 2007

� Dhar, Aarti, ‘Survey: 3 years into RTI Act, information

is hard to come by’, The Hindu 9 Sep 2008

� Dhavan, Rajeev, ‘Separation of Powers’, The Hindu

18 Mar 2005

� Dwivedi, Anju and John Gaventa, ‘Working on both

sides of the equation: the role of CSOs in

strengthening champions of participation in India’,

Development Research Centre, Apr 2008

� ‘Efficacy of Public Audit System in India: CAG -

Reforming the institution’ Consultation Paper, Jan 8

2001

� ‘e-Lekha - A Stride towards a Core Accounting

Solution', e-India 2009 Awards

� Ensuring Accountability: Role of Parliament’, The

Asian Centre for Democratic Governance, 2001

� ‘Evaluation Report On Sampoorna Gram Rozgar

Yojana (SGRY) Jammu & Kashmir', Population

Research Centre- University of Kashmir, February

2009

� ‘Examples of e-governance’, 3 Aug 2005, UNESCO

e-Governance Capacity Building Initiative Website,

22 Jun 2009

� ‘Finance Accounts 2007-08’, Controller General of

Account, 2008

� ‘Flagship Programmes', Planning Commission -

Government of India

� ‘GDP Per Capita’, World Development Indicators

Database, The World Bank; 2007

� ‘Geert Hofstede Cultural Dimensions’; Geert –

Hofstede Website, 2003

� Geetika and Pandey Neeraj, 'National E-Governance

Plan Revisited: Achievements and Road Ahead',

� ‘Geneva introduces e-voting’, World e-democracy

forum, 10 March 2009

� ‘Global Corruption Report 2007’, India Section,

Transparency International, 2007

� ‘Global Integrity Report’, The Center For Public

Integrity, 2004

� Goetz, Anne Marie and Rob Jenkins. “Hybrid Forms

of Accountability.”, Public Management Review 3.3,

2001

� ‘Government to introduce bill to protect bureaucracy

from political interference’, Business Standard, 06

June 2009

� Gupta, Anand P., 'Outcome budgets and budget

outcomes', Indian Express.com, 08 January, 2007

� Gustavo A R, ‘Case Study: Cristal: A Tool for

Transparent Government in Argentina’, 3 Apr 2001

� Hazra, Arnab, ‘Bureaucrats on the loose’, Hindustan

Times 22 Jan 2009

References

APPENDIX - D



53

� Henderson, Keith, ‘Asset and Income Disclosure for

Judges: A Summary Overview and Checklist’

� Holsen S ‘Freedom of Information in UK, US and

Canada’, Information Management Journal, May-Jun

2007

� ‘HT Drive Against Bribe with Right to Information’, HT

bribe campaign section, July 2006, Hindustan Times

Website, 20 Feb 2009

� India: FPTP on a grand scale’, ACE Encyclopedia, 5

Feb 2009

� ‘India: Lack of accountability has corrupted Judiciary’,

Asian Human Rights Commission, 10 Sep 2008

� ‘India’, Literacy data in People Section, CIA World

Factbook, 24 Dec 2008

� ‘India’s Citizen’s Charters: A decade of experience’,

Public Affairs Centre, 2007

� Iyengar, Jayanthi. “Elections and the funding

conundrum” The Hindu Business Line 10 Apr 2004

� Iyer, Lakshmi and Anandi Mani, ‘Traveling Agents:

Political Change and Bureaucratic Turnover in India’,

July 2008, Social Science Research Network, 13 Feb

2008

� Iype, George. “How much does an election cost.” 26

Mar 2004, Rediff News - Elections 2004 Section,

Rediff Website, 18 Dec 2008

� Jamatia, Hamari “Poll process discouraging.” Indian

Express 12 Nov 2008

� Johnson Craig, 'Decentralisation in India: Poverty,

Politics and Panchayati Raj', Overseas Development

Institute, February 2003"

� Johnson, Craig, ‘Decentralization in India: Poverty,

Politics and Panchayati Raj’, Dept of Political

Science, University of Guelph, Feb 2003

� Joshi, Anuradha, ‘Uncivil servants’, India Today, 25

Sep 2008

� ‘Judiciary comes under RTI ambit, says House

panel’, The Financial Express, 30 Apr 2008

� ‘Justice and Judicial Delay’, The Hindu, 6 Sep 2007

� ‘Justice Ashok Kumar’s Appointment Challenged’,

The Hindu 31 Jul 2007

� ‘Kabir: A communication initiative on Right to

Information’, May 2007, Changemakers Website, 20

Feb 2009

� ‘Kannada Channel to include RTI programme in

telecast’, 16 Jan 2007, RTI Community Portal

Website - rtiindia.org, 20 Feb 2009

� Kapoor, Commi, ‘Parliament taken for granted’, 26

Jan 2009, The Star Online Website, 6 Feb 2009

� Kapur, Devesh and Pratap Bhanu Mehta, ‘The Indian

Parliament as an Institution of Accountability’, United

Nations Research Institute for Social Development,

Jan 2006

� Kaur, Sumandeep, ‘Electoral Reforms in India:

Proactive Role of Election Commission’ Mainstream

Weekly, 25 Nov 2008

� Kaushik K Ram, 'What ails e-governance in India',

India News Today,13 March 2009

� Kejriwal, Arvind, ‘One year of unfreedom’, 2 May

2007, India Together Website, 10 Feb 2009

� Kesharwani, Madhusudan, ‘Judges and Judicial

Accountability in India with reference to the Judge’s

bill of 2005’, India Laws Website, 16 Mar 2009

� ‘Know your MLA: Did he serve you, or his cronies?’,

The Times of India 31 Oct 2008

� ‘Know Your Parliament’, PRS Legislative Research

Website, 15 Dec 2008

� Kumar Vinay, 'Delivery Monitoring Unit set up in

PMO', The Hindu,6 September 2009

� Kumar, Gaurav, and Mayank Singhal ‘Bhagidari:

Good Intention, Bad Implementation?’, Centre for

Civil Society

� ‘Lack of Staff Key Reason for CIC's Under-

Performance', Outlook India.com, 24 February, 2009

� ‘Loopholes in Right to Information Act’, The Times of

India 19 Jan 2004

� Maddison, ‘The Economic and Social Impact of

Colonial Rule in India’

� Madhawan M R, and Namita Wahi, ‘Measuring the

effectiveness of the Indian Parliament’, PRS

Legislative Research, 18 Nov 2008

� Madhukar, C V, ‘Images that stick’, Indian Express 28

Jul 2008

� ‘Make appointment of judges transparent’, Express

India, 30 Nov 2007

References

APPENDIX - D



54

� Malena, Carmen, Reiner Forster, and Janmejay

Singh. “Social Accountability: An Introduction to the

Concept and Emerging Practice.”, The World Bank,

2004

� Malhotra M, ‘Instrumentality of the CAG and the

Executive’s Accountability’, Mainstream Weekly, 28

Nov 2007

� Mandal, Debaki, ‘Beg Your Pardon, My Lord’ The

Telegraph, 17 Nov 2004

� Marshall, Monty G. and Keith Jaggers; ‘Polity IV

Country Reports 2007’; Center for Systemic Peace;

2007

� Mathaiyan, R, Social Science, Chennai: Tamilnadu

Textbook Corporation 2004

� Mathew, Liz. “Politicians buys a fifth of votes, shows

study” Mint 22 Sept 2008

� Mathur, Dhrupad, Piyush Gupta and A. Sridevi, ‘e-

Governance approach in India - The National e-

Governance Plan (NeGP)’, 2009

� McCandless, Henry, “The Issue of Public

Accountability: a Summary for Citizens”, Jan 2008,

Citizens Circle of Accountability Website, 12 Dec

2008

� Meagher P and Caryn V, ‘Anti Corruption Agencies’,

United States Agency for International Development,

Jun 2006

� Meagher P, ‘Anti-Corruption Agencies: A Review of

Experience’, IRIS Center - University of Maryland,

Aug 2002

� ‘Media and Right to Information: Role and

Significance’, National Implementing Agency - Govt

of India and UNDP Initiative, 2006

� ‘Members' allowance expenditure 2007-08, MPs,

Lords and Offices Section, 24 Apr, UK Parliament

Website, 23 Jun 2009

� Mishra R K, ‘National Civil Service System in India: A

Critical View’, April 2002

� Mitta, Manoj, ‘Standing in for Parliament’, The Times

of India, 28 Dec 2008

� ‘Mobile services in Tartu-Estonia’, Mobi Solutions,

Dec 2005

� ‘Monitoring of Plan Scheme Expenditure' - CPSMS

an e-governance initiative

� Mukul, Akshaya, and Sanjay Dutta “Rs 6000 cr poll

stimulus.” The Times of India 18 Feb 2009

� Nagender, ‘UK, US judges declare assets, Indian

judges don’t want to’, Hindustan Times, 30 Jan 2009

� Narayan, Jayprakash, ‘Decentralisation, Voting and

the Public Good’, Apr 2003, India Together Website,

9 Feb 2009

� Narayan, Khushboo, ‘Application shows RTI is under-

publicized’, Mint 23 Apr 2008

� Nilekani to have Cabinet rank as ID Project head’,

Express India, 25 June 2009

� Okediji, Tade; ‘The Color Of Brazil: Law, Ethnic

Fragmentation, And Economic Growth’, Social

Diversity Index Ratings Section, Chicago-Kent Law

Review; April 2008

� ‘OPEN: Seoul's Anticorruption Project’, 28 Dec 2000,

World Bank's e-Government Website, 25 Jun 2009

� ‘Outcome Budget of Ministry of Steel', Government

of India - Ministry of Steel, 2008-09

� ‘Outcome Budget of Ministry of Steel', Government

of India - Ministry of Steel, 2009-10

� ‘Outcome Budget', Government of India - Ministry of

Home Affairs, 2008-09

� ‘Outcome Budget', Government of India - Ministry of

Shipping, 2009-10

� ‘Overview of Rural Decentralization in India', World

Report 1999-2000, 27 September, 2000

� Pandey, Sandeep, 'Social audit of jobs programme in

UP' , India Together, May 2008

� ‘Party Finance Section, UK Parliament Website, 23

Jun 2009

� ‘Performance Appraisal: Govt takes a cue from

private sector’, Business Standard, 06 June 2009

� ‘Performance-related Pay Policies Across 12 OECD

Countries’, OECD, 2005

� ‘PIL on DGP appointment sparks debate on judicial

activism’, Indian Express, 5 Jan 2008

� ‘Poll panel gets notice over loophole in electoral law”’

15 Apr 2008, Politics Section Samachaar Website 26

Feb 2009

� Porrua M, ‘Colombia's Government Portal’,10 Aug

2001, World Bank's e-Government Website, 25 Jun

2009

References

APPENDIX - D



55

� Porto Alegre, Brazil: Participatory Approaches in

Budgeting and Public Expenditure Management’,

Social Development Notes, The World Bank, Mar

2003

� ‘Prior sanction not needed in corruption cases, says

SC’, The Financial Express, 7 Dec 2006

� ‘Priyasha, ‘Instilling Public Confidence in

Administration: The Need for an Ombudsman-like

Institution in India’, 11 May 2008, Social Science

Research Network, 7 Jan 2009

� ‘PROGRAMME EVALUATION ORGANISATION',

Planning Commission - Government of India

� ‘PROGRAMME OUTCOME RESPONSE

MONITORING DIVISION', Planning Commission -

Government of India

� ‘Public participation in reforms low’ Financial

Express, 14 Feb 2003

� Raghavan, B S, ‘Appointment of Judges’, The Hindu

Business Line 24 Nov 2008

� Raja NK, G Sundararaman, G Vasumathi, and K

Palanisamy, Political Science, Chennai: Tamilnadu

Textbook Corporation 2005

� Rajan, Sudanshu, ‘Judicial appointments and

transfers: need for transparency’ Deccan Herald, 31

Oct 2008

� Ramesh, Jairam, ‘Will Live Parliament mean more

accountability’, The Times of India 2 Jan 2005

� Rana, Ajit, ‘CBI’s impartiality has taken a beating’, 8

Nov 2007, Monster & Critics Website, 9 Jan 2009

� Rao, Aarti, 'Janaagraha: Harnessing the force of the

people', InfoChange News & Features, January 2006

� ‘Report for Delivery Monitoring Unit (DMU) of PMO,

Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan, 2007-08

� ‘Report of All India Seminar on Judicial Reforms’,

Confederation of Indian Bar, Feb 2008

� Roy RR, ‘Key pro-poor schemes miss targets’,

igovernment website, 13 June 2008

� Roy, Bhaskar, ‘Immunity cover for top babus may go’,

The Times of India 14 Oct 2006

� Roy, Rajiv Ranjan, 'Key pro-poor schemes miss

target', i-government, 13 June 2008

� ‘RTI: Public Awareness and Educational

Programmes’, 6 Mar 2007, RTI Community Portal

Website - rtiindia.org , 20 Feb 2009

� S. Abbasi, 'Realization of the e-GP Vision: Role of e-

Bharat', Department of Information

TechnologyGovernment of India, 28 November,

2006"

� Satish, M, ‘Civil Service Reforms’, Centre for Good

Governance, Nov 2004

� ‘SC judges ready to declare assets, but with riders’,

The Economic Times, 17 Mar 2009

� Schacter, Mark, “When Accountability Fails- A

Framework for Diagnosis and Action.” Institute of

Governance, Ottawa Policy Brief, 2001

� Shah Parth, ‘We the free people of India’, The

Economic Times, 15 August 2002

� Shah, Nirav Pankaj, 'RTI's penalised PIOs escape

paying fines', aravinthanlegal.lawyersclubindia.com,

07 September 2009

� Sharma Rajvir, ‘Changing Notions of Accountability:

A Good Governance Perspective’

� Sharma, Tanu, ‘Parliament right to expel errant MPs

but its actions open to scrutiny, says SC ’, Indian

Express 11 Jan 2007

� Singh B P, ‘The Challenge of Good Governance in

India: Need for Innovative Approaches’

� Singh, Mahendra Kumar, 'Govt plans independent

body to evaluate `aam aadmi' schemes', Times of

India, 16 September 2009

� Singh, Sanjay, ‘Bench upholds expulsion of tainted

MPs’, The Economic Times 11 Jan 2007

� Sinha Rajesh, Accountability in Rural Wage

Employment in India, 2007

� Sirker Karen, ‘General Social Accountability

Concepts and Tools’, World Bank Institute, 4 October

2006

� Sirker Karen, 'General Social Accountability

Concepts And Tools' World Bank Institute, 4 October

2006

� ‘Social Accountability Series', Rajasthan, India: An

Assessment of the Mid-Day Meal Scheme in

Chittorgarh District, South Asia Sustainable

Development Department, August 2007

� ‘Social Audit: Gram Sabha and Panchayti Raj’,

Planning Commission, October 2005

References

APPENDIX - D



56

� ‘Socio Cultural Impact under the British Rule’,

Indiannetzone Website, 1 August 2009

� ‘Study on the use of the Common Assessment

Framework in European Public Administrations’,

European Institute of Public Administration, May

2005

� Subrahmanya, A T, ‘Lok Ayukta handicapped by few

powers and fewer personnel’, The Times of India 4

Feb 2009

� Suri Megha, 'Now, Track Driving Licence Status

Online', TNN, 22 February 2009

� Suri, KC, ‘Parties under Pressure: Political Parties in

India Since Independence’, Centre for the Study of

Developing Societies

� Suri, Megha, 'Now, track driving licence status

online', The Times of India, 22 February 2009

� ‘Tell Them You Know’, Express India initiatives

section, Aug 2004, Indian Express Website, 20 Feb

2009

� Thakur, Pradeep, 'Official travel was 75% of

ministers' expenses', The Times of India, 13

September 2009

� ‘The Constitution of India’, Amended as of Dec 2007,

Ministry of Law and Justice Website, 6 Mar

2009Vadivel, V S, ‘Public Interest Litigation: A boon

or a bane, Legal Service India Website, 19 Feb 2009

� ‘The politics of reverse discrimination’, 2 May 2008,

Merinews Website, 5 Feb 2009

� The Right to Information Act, 2005 - A Guide for

Media', NIA, July 2006

� Tinani, Sunil, ‘Sharp claws but no teeth’, 23 Feb 2008, Citizen Matters Website, 8 Jan 2009

� Tiwari A N, ‘Transparency and Accountability in

Administration’, August 2004

� ‘Total and Urban Population’, United Nation

Population Fund – State of World Population, United

Nations, 2007

� ‘Tracking States' Spending Sites’, Mar 5 2009,

ProPublica Website, 26 Jun 2009

� ‘UP IAS Action Group revived’, The Times of India 25 Nov 2003

� ‘UPA mantra: Let’s fix governance’, Business

Standard , 5 June 2009

� Upreti, Deepak. “Election Expenses: Sky is not the

limit.” Deccan Herald 15 Aug 2008

� Vadivel, V S, ‘Public Interest Litigation: A boon or a bane, Legal Service India Website, 19 Feb 2009

� Viju, B, ‘Use RTI to get court orders copies’ The Times of India, 19 Feb 2009

� ‘Vote now, stop whining’, The Times of India 8 Mar 2009

� Waghle, Swarnim and Parmesh Shah, 'An Issue Paper on Participation in Public Expenditure Systems', The World Bank

� Wasan, Dalip, ‘Voters have got limited choice’, 16 Dec 2007, Article Base Website, 22 Dec 2008

� Wasan, Dalip, ‘Voters have got limited choice’, 16

Dec 2007, Article Base Website, 22 Dec 2008

� ‘What is Outcome Budget?', Rediff News,24 August 2005

� Wignaraja, Kanni, “Mutual Accountability

Mechanisms: Accountability, Voice and

Responsiveness.”, UNDP Development Group, 2006

� ‘Window on State Government', Texas Government

Website, 23 Jun 2009

� Yadav, Shyamlal, ‘A lot to hide’, India Today, 27 Mar

2008

� ‘1.1 billion people and just 81m internet users in India

– Pitiful’, 2 Dec 2008, Search India Website, 24 Dec

2008

� ’10th Report - Refurbishing Of Personnel

Administration, ‘chapter 6 – Capacity Building’,

Second Administrative Reforms Commissions

Reports, 2008

� ’10th Report - Refurbishing Of Personnel

Administration, ‘chapter 11– Performance

Management System’, Second Administrative

Reforms Commissions Reports, 2008

� ‘11th Report - Promoting E-governance : The SMART

Way Forward’, Second Administrative Reforms

Commissions Reports, December 2008

� ‘12th Report-Citizen Centric Administration-the heart

of governance’, Second Administrative Reforms

Commissions Reports, December 2008

� ‘15% of Estonians voted by Internet’, World e-

democracy forum, 17 June 2009

� ‘15,438 RTI appeals pending’, The Times of India, 1

Jun 2009

� ‘2008 Performance report of the Federal

Government’, Expect More Website, 24 Jun2009

References

APPENDIX - D



57

� Arora, Ramesh, and Rajni Goyal, Indian Public Administration: Institutions

and Issues, New Delhi: Wishwa Prakashan 1996

� Ferlie E, L Lynne and C Pollitt (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Public

Management, Oxford: Oxford University Press 2005

� Garner R, Ferdinand P and Stephanie Lawson, ‘Introduction to Politics’,

Oxford University Press, 2009

� Godbole, Madhav, Public Accountability and Transparency, New Delhi:

Orient Longman 2003

� Kapur, Devesh and Pratap Bhanu Mehta (Eds.), Public Institutions in India:

Performance and Design, New Delhi: Oxford University Press 2007

� Jain, Ashok, Public Administration, Mumbai: Sheth Publishers 2008

� Maheshwari, S R, Indian Administration, New Delhi: Orient Longman 2001

� Sahu, Barun Kumar, Unwritten Flaws of Indian Bureaucracy, New Delhi:

Pustak Mahal 2004

� Shah, Parth, and, Bakore, Makarand, Ward Power: Decentralised Urban

Governance, New Delhi: Centre for Civil Society 2006

� Sherwood, Dennis, Seeing the forest for the trees – Applying systems

thinking, London: Nicholas Brealey Publishing 2002

� Tummala, Krishna, Public Administration in India, New Delhi: Allied

Publishers 1996

� Varma Pavan, ‘Being Indian’, Penguin Books, 2004

References (Books)

APPENDIX - D

� ‘Corruption Perception Index’, Transparency International, 2009

� ‘Doing Business Index’, The World Bank, 2008-09

� ‘Global Competitiveness Index’, World Economic Forum, 2009-10

� ‘Governance Matters VI: Aggregate and Individual Governance Indicators’,

The World Bank, 2007

� ‘Human Development Index - 2007’, Human Development Report, UNDP,

2009

� ‘The Economist Intelligence Unit’s Index of Democracy 2008’; The Economist

Intelligence Unit; 2008

� ‘The 2009 Legatum Prosperity Index’, The Legatum Institute, 2009

References (Indices)

the power of public accountability - the wall street...

Documents