Contrasting Experiences of Decentralization in Two States in India

  • Chihiro Saito
  • Rika Kato


As similar trends towards decentralization in the developing world became apparent in the 1990s, India enacted the Seventy-third and Seventy-fourth Constitutional Amendments in 1993. Direct elections were required in each of the three tiers of local self-government, panchayat (which generally mean rural local government).1 Some of the representation came to be reserved for women and people from low-caste groups. In this way, authority principally over local infrastructure and welfare schemes was devolved in India. However, the details of the new system of local government were left to each state and therefore the systems differ significantly. In reality, the average extent of genuine functional or fiscal devolution remains low, with state bureaucrats continuing to retain control over public services in all but three or four states (Chaudhuri 2006).


Civil Society Civil Society Organization Local Governance Contrasting Experience Schedule Caste 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Shah A (2006) Local Governance in Developing Countries. World Bank, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  2. Aziz A (2000) Democratic Decentralization in Karnataka (International Conference on Democratic Decentralization)Google Scholar
  3. Bardhan P, Mookherjee D et al. (2006) Decentralization and Local Governance in Developing Countries: a comparative perspective, The MIT Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  4. Bhargava BS, Subha K (2004) Panchayati Raj System in Karnataka: Trends, Issues and Strategies. Journal of Karnataka Studies 2:11–31Google Scholar
  5. Chaudhuri S (2006) What Difference Does a Constitutional Amendment Make? The 1994 Panchayati Raj Act and Attempt to Revitalize Rural Local Government in IndiaGoogle Scholar
  6. Directory of Voluntary Organizations in Karnataka (2000) (Bangalore care)Google Scholar
  7. Ford Foundation New Delhi (2000) Exchange Programme for Women Members of Village Panchayats in Kerala and Karnataka. Center for Rural Management Kottayam, KeralaGoogle Scholar
  8. Heller P (2000) Social Capital and the Developmental State: Industrial Workers in Kerala. In: Parayil G (ed) Kerala: The Development Experience. Zed Books, LondonGoogle Scholar
  9. John J (2004) Women in Governance Road to Success. Institute of Social SciencesGoogle Scholar
  10. Jain LC et al. (2005) Decentralization and Local Governance. Orient Longman, New DelhiGoogle Scholar
  11. Karnataka, Government of (2003–2004) Satellite Based Communication and Training Programme for Gram Panchayat Members Report. Abdul Nazir Sab State Institute of Rural Development, MysoreGoogle Scholar
  12. Narayana D (2005) Local Governance without Capacity Building Ten Years of Panchayati Raj. Economic and Political Weekly XLGoogle Scholar
  13. Prahalad CK (2005) The fortune at the bottom of the pyramid. Wharton School Publishing, Upper Saddle River, NJGoogle Scholar
  14. Putnam RD (1993) Making Democracy Work: Civic Traditions in Modern Italy. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJGoogle Scholar
  15. Subha K, Bhargava BS, Nayak MA (2001) Women in Panchayati Raj Institutions: Political Empowerment through Capacity Building. South Asian Journal of Socio-Political Studies 1:74–85Google Scholar
  16. Srivastava SS, Tandon R (2005) How Large Is India’s Non-Profit Sector? Economic and Political Weekly May 7Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Physica-Verlag Heidelberg 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Chihiro Saito
    • 1
  • Rika Kato
    • 2
  1. 1.Faculty of Healthcare ManagementNihon Fukushi UniversityJapan
  2. 2.Planning Section, Planning and Accounting DivisionCivic and Economic Affairs BureauNagoya

Personalised recommendations