Democracy and human development: recent legislation in India

Abstract

Human Development (HD) requires that development must accompany fundamental human concerns that make life worth living. It is surprising that despite being a democracy, India performs poorly on HD. In this backdrop, four pieces of legislation of different orientations have been passed since 1998–99: ‘Swarnajayanti Gram Swarozgar Yojana’, the ‘Right to Information’, the ‘National Rural Employment Guarantee Act’ and the ‘Right to Education’. Where successful, they have empowered the beneficiaries. Though not expressed as such, nor exclusively directed to this end, these pieces of legislation are bound together with democracy's demand for HD: they are influenced externally by various aspects of globalisation; internally, development is continuously interrogated by democracy, competitive politics and social activism.

Democracy, well‐being, and happiness: A 10‐nation study

“…The inefficiency produced by corruption is part of the reason why the government has failed to address India's poor human development record: problems such as undernutrition, gender inequality (Ghosh, , p. 542), and religious conflict (Migheli, )—to name but a few—persist. Corruption is therefore a clear violation of physical and mental well‐being as well as political freedom and economic security (Ghosh, , p. 544). There is no doubt that it can lead to dissatisfaction and political instability (Chatterjee & Roychoudhury, , p. 404).…”

Opportunities for the development of drowning interventions in West Bengal, India: A review of policy and government programs

“…West Bengal has one of the greatest reaches of SHG programs in the country, with 51-75% of rural households being covered (46)(47)(48)(49). SHGs in West Bengal have been found to be effective in increasing women's income, providing better access to credit, reducing reliance on local money-lenders, reducing physical labour for members, increasing members' autonomy, increasing employment, improving access to health information and services, reducing rural poverty and empowering women with decision making power in their families and communities (18,46,(50)(51)(52)(53)(54)(55)(56)(57)(58).…”

“…This is attributable to the absence of a clear chain of authority and accountability in funding structures (51,61). Secondly, women still bear the brunt of domestic work in rural communities, which may inhibit their ability to be involved in community activities (52,62). Operational issues have also been reported, where regularity of meetings and coordination between members may be poor (50).…”

Financial inclusion through a public works programme: Does left‐wing extremism make a difference?

“…() document that the MGNREGS scheme did not raise the welfare of the most vulnerable groups, although there was an improvement in employment for the marginalized sections. Notwithstanding the shortcomings, Ghosh () points to the fact that the enactment of development programmes such as MGNREGS has been beneficial in influencing human development in the country. In contrast to these studies, we juxtapose district‐level data on LWE violence with data on household access to and use of bank accounts.…”