Selecting an area for technological intervention in the rural sector in India

Dasgupta, R.; Lahiri, Swati; Jha, A. K.; Murthy, M.V.R.L.

doi:10.1016/j.soscij.2006.12.016

Cited by 2 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Low awareness levels, and low literacy rates make the dynamics more complex (Crook and Manor, 1998;Dasgupta et al, 2007). Non-availability of alternative job opportunities and dependency on un-skilled labor is another impediment for the successful policy implementation (Udayaadithya and Gurtoo, 2013;Crook and Sverrisson, 2001).…”

Section: The Beneficiariesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The argument is that higher social capital reduces cost of monitoring and shrinks principal-agent relationship thereby leading to better government performance (Moe, 1989(Moe, , 1990. Dasgupta et al (2007) highlights that good leadership (social capital), along with procedural restrictions (scheme rules), can significantly influence government efficiency.…”

Section: The Bureaucracymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The degree of elite control was observed to be significantly dependent on the existence of mass participation at the local level (Meenakshisundaram, 1999;Udayaadithya and Gurtoo, 2013). Rising education, intensified political competition, availability of other job opportunities, technological support in agriculture, and group mobilization are other factors that were observed to impact elite capture (Dasgupta et al, 2007;Robinson, 1988;Karuna and Sowmya, 2007). In literature, as we have seen earlier, the government is seen to play a significant role as counter-elite to these local elites, encouraging civic participation (Echeverri-Gent, 1992;Bardhan and Mookherjee, 2005).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Welfare schemes in India: decentralization dynamics and stakeholder influences

Gurtoo

Udayaadithya

2014

International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to provide a background to the special issue on welfare schemes in India. After 25 years of decentralization of governance and structural adjustments implemented in the 1980s and 1990s, have welfare schemes implementation and execution become more accountable and efficient? This paper seeks a critical look at the welfare schemes and its relationship with decentralization and stakeholders’ dynamics. Design/methodology/approach – The paper is based on a review of studies post 1990s. Papers representing all main stakeholders are reviewed, namely, politicians and political parties, bureaucrats, beneficiary, and civil society organizations. The inclusion/exclusion decision for the papers was taken on two criteria: the paper/document had to explicitly investigate decentralization, and had to include welfare scheme as the overall theme under which decentralization was investigated. Findings – The paper summarizes the new complexities in the system. Stakeholder behaviour is driven by several factors external to the traditional social and economic diversities that signify the Indian sub continent. For example, the authors see the lobbying process shifting to the local level, increasing importance of the local politician and the significance of forming local coalitions and partnerships for better resource allocation. Originality/value – The paper attempts to provide an overview by going beyond a critique of development to focus on the perils of operating within a socio-economically complex society.

show abstract

Section: The Beneficiariesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: The Bureaucracymentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Welfare schemes in India: decentralization dynamics and stakeholder influences

Gurtoo

Udayaadithya

2014

International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…So can the negative impacts of the elite capture/control be nullified? Rising educational levels, intensified political competition, availability of other job opportunities, technological support in agriculture, and group mobilization were seen to counter elite capture (Dasgupta et al, 2007;Harris, 1992;Henisz, 2004). However, the most significant counter to elite capture is (Echeverri-Gent, 1992;Mukarji, 1993;Vyasulu and Vyasulu, 1999) • The state government, when it creates relevant institutions and structures like public participation forums, awareness campaigns and affirmative action schemes, and • The local government, when its officials implement these schemes.…”

Section: Decentralization Dynamics: Debates and Explanationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, several complexities govern this effort in India. First, implementation of decentralized systems by involving several official agencies create administrative gaps that lead to lack of coordination and fiscal complexities (Dasgupta et al, 2007;Ghatak and Ghatak, 2002). Second, Indian society is largely agrarian and rural, marked by divisions of class, religion, caste and politics (Deaton and Drèze, 2002;Drèze and Sen, 1997).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Working of Decentralized Governance in Rural India: Social Dynamics or Institutional Rational Choice?

Udayaadithya

Gurtoo

2011

Journal of Asian and African Studies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper critically evaluates the popular representation of rural decision making in India as guided by socio-cultural dynamics and as a resort from various social alignments. It investigates how decisions get taken about a decentralized governance scheme in rural India, what variables impact these decisions – namely, social, political, administrative or economic – and how these variables impact the scheme performance. Case studies and empirical analysis of performance of a decentralized welfare scheme in India, the Andhra Pradesh Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme (APREGS), demonstrates significant influence of agriculture-based economic dynamics and administrative efficiency factors. Local social hierarchies and cultural complexities do not come as the main concerns. These results challenge the traditional understanding of rural dynamics as totally controlled by caste hierarchies and authority of the large land owners and are discussed in the light of the institutional rational choice framework proposed by Elinor Ostrom. The results also call for a fresh and wider debate of whether India is witnessing a longer term indirect developmental outcome of empowerment which actively started in 1993 with the recognition of local governance systems (Panchayati Raj) as a formal democratic body.

show abstract

Selecting an area for technological intervention in the rural sector in India

Cited by 2 publications

References 0 publications

Welfare schemes in India: decentralization dynamics and stakeholder influences

Welfare schemes in India: decentralization dynamics and stakeholder influences

Working of Decentralized Governance in Rural India: Social Dynamics or Institutional Rational Choice?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About