National Planning takes effect
and yield fruits at the grassroots. It is essential therefore to make
assessment of the efficiency of the government programs at the lower level of administration.
Factual and evidence based research will enable effective policy engagements
with the district and state level political and bureaucratic institutions for
corrective measures as well as making new demands that are needed for the
communities and local stake holders. Public
policy approaches to development are generally limited to levels of India and States.
Given the vast geographic expanse and high population concentrations across
India a meaningful development strategy that address acute poverty,
malnutrition, illiteracy, ill-health must occur at the level of the districts.
Further, hitherto development policy decisions were made using a combination of
district level per capita averages and a small set of indicators such as average
rainfall and agricultural productivity; little information on the quality of
life and human development were available.
In the recent past, however, dependable data on a number of
qualitative aspects of human lives have become available at the level of the
district. Such data can be extracted from the decadal Census (most recent
2011), the annual national sample surveys (large sample size surveys are done
at about five years interval) and district
level household surveys. The ‘US-India
Policy Institute’, Washington D. C and ‘Centre for Research and Debates in
Development Policy’, New Delhi have extracted a number of socio-economic and
human development indicators from such multiple, nationally representative
sample surveys, for all districts of India. They are reviewed to assess and
compute the ‘levels of development’ and ‘equity of access’ to development for
each district. The composite index consists of four dimensions - economic,
enabling material-well being assets, education and health. The final results in
the form of maps are scheduled to be released at New Delhi in January 2015, in
the form of a composite development index and four indices highlighting components
described above.
Continuing this district level
analysis, in the second-stage the development indices are computed to each of
the major socio-religious communities (SRCs) for each district of the state and
all districts of India. The differentials according to SRCs are presented
in graphic format. This analysis is resonant of the Sachar Committee Report
which was completed in 2006; current analysis can be termed as mini-Sachar
report for each district of India. In this context there is scope to elaborate
analysis of data on employment,
financial allocations and measurable outcomes disaggregated by SRCs so as to
operationalise policies for improving diversity in public programs. The
district level mapping and analysis for operationalising diversity in public
and private space cannot be over emphasised.
Generally the district-level reviews
use service statistics drawn from district records which often are dated and
qualitatively poor. The strength of the current research lies in the type and
source of data as well as methodologies used in analysis. Information are
extracted from unit (household) level records from well respected surveys, therefore
estimates are robust and academically sound. These estimates provide the
academics, watchful communities, civil society and people at large
opportunities to find out the pathways to engage the district level bureaucrats
and governance.
The most important issues
confronting the communities at the district level are two: a) to begin with financial
allocations are inadequate; yet huge proportions of the development funds
earmarked for annual expenditures on essential programs such as mass primary/elementary
education, women and child development services, public healthcare and
employment guarantee scheme are never appropriated and spent. b) The inequity
at the level of the district is a serious issue; there are many versions to it
such as based on occupations, education levels and also social identities
expressed in terms of religious and caste affiliation. The last dimension which
important at local level in distribution of welfare benefits; they have become
contentious at national-political level leading to promotion of discrimination
at the grassroots.
The following is a short list of
selected districts at about one hundredth interval. North Delhi is ranked 1
with an index of 0.69. Ideally first rank holder could have taken a value of
1.00 but even the first district has huge scope to develop for example in
health parameters which has only a value of 0.51 although the enabling index is
0.91.
Rank |Dist | State
|
Economic
|
Education
|
Enabling
|
Health
|
Devpt. Index
|
1
- North Delhi (DL)
|
0.68
|
0.66
|
0.91
|
0.51
|
0.69
|
100 - Shimla (HP)
|
0.47
|
0.54
|
0.52
|
0.45
|
0.50
|
200 - Uttarkashi (UT)
|
0.33
|
0.52
|
0.58
|
0.36
|
0.45
|
301 - Saharanpur (UP)
|
0.35
|
0.41
|
0.45
|
0.40
|
0.40
|
308 - Varanasi (UP)
|
0.36
|
0.43
|
0.47
|
0.35
|
0.40
|
400 - Osmanabad (MH)
|
0.33
|
0.41
|
0.40
|
0.36
|
0.37
|
500 - Chandauli (UP)
|
0.34
|
0.43
|
0.25
|
0.22
|
0.31
|
599 - Araria (BI)
|
0.27
|
0.19
|
0.06
|
0.12
|
0.16
|
However, the contrast is
comparing the first ranker and the last. Araira in Bihar has recorded a
development index of only 0.16 compare this with North Delhi which has a value
of 0.69. Note that Araira has no enabling economic environment which can push
development any time near future unless critical policy strategy and
investments are made soon. It is this kind of analysis both within the state
and across the state which gives comprehensive information for upliftment of
communities living in clearly identified districts of India.
It is in this context that the
district level development and development index provide ‘essential empirical evidence
that makes a case for setting up of National and State-level Equal Opportunity
Commissions (EOCs)’. The state level aggregated district-reports will help the
state government in many respects. Besides enabling assessing and monitoring
the levels of development and equity, the indices will make it easy for the state
government to articulate the need to establish 'State Level Equal Opportunity
Commission'. Such EOCs can independently deal with differentiation in access to
public services at the grassroots level, thereby enabling the elected
government and associated institutions to focus their time and energy to the
development of the state. The EOC as an
independent institution will facilitate communities and local stakeholders -
civil society and private investors, to interact with each other as well as
with the government bureaucracy to thrash out contentious issues and strengthen
welfare policies. Further establishing State-EOCs will severe as examples
for setting up a national EOC as well.
To articulate these relationships
better it is essential that development practitioners, government officials,
political leaders and civil society groups come together to discuss and debate
strategies to address district level development and diversity of development. Such
data will also give a comprehensive visual picture of the development of the
nation in a comparative perspective promoting strong sense of nationalism and
patriotism. DDDIx makes a good
case for district level monitoring of development strategy considering the
aspects of equity and social justice.