Who Should Be at the Top of Bottom-Up Development? A Case Study of the National Rural Livelihoods Mission in Rajasthan, India

Abstract

Vijayendra Rao (World Bank) March 2017 It is widely acknowledged that top-down support is essential for bottom-up participatory projects to be effectively implemented at scale. However, which level of government, national or sub-national, should be given the responsibility to implement such projects is an open question, with wide variations in practice. This paper analyzes qualitative and quantitative data from a natural experiment of a large participatory project in the state of Rajasthan in India comparing central management and state-level management. We find that locally managed facilitators formed groups that were more likely to engage in collective action, be politically active, with higher savings and greater access to subsidized loans. The authors are indebted to Radha Khan for supervising the qualitative fieldwork, Ritwik Sircar and Anirvan Chowdhury for outstanding research assistance, SRI-IMRB for collecting the quantitative data for this study, the Government of Rajasthan for sharing valuable data, PRADAN for valuable initial conversations, and the staff of PRADAN, PEDO, SERP and the Rajasthan SHG federations for their support. We are grateful to Georgetown University and the South Asia Food and Nutrition Security Initiative for their financial support. For excellent comments and conversations we thank the two anonymous referees, Radha Khan, Sanjay Sharma, Irfan Nooruddin, Milan Vaishnav, Anders Olofsgard and participants of the India Politics Workshop in Washington DC. This paper reflects the individual views of the authors and does not in any way represent the official position of the World Bank or its member countries.

Interventions for sustainable livelihoods: a review of evidence and knowledge gaps

“…The findings point towards the significant role of contextual intricacies in determining the impact of interventions on sustainable livelihoods (Ert€ or-Akyazi, 2019;Joshi and Rao, 2017). These contextual factors are interactive in nature (Ozturk, 2017;Devereux, 2016;Islam and Sato, 2012).…”

“…The review suggests that there is a significant role of trade and market policies and importance of local institutions and practices in shaping rural and community livelihoods (Joshi and Rao, 2017;Wang et al, 2017;Tezzo et al, 2018;Allison and Horemans, 2006). One of the key syntheses of this review point towards the ongoing debates between formal and informal institutions (Ert€ or-Akyazi, 2019; Frey et al, 2019;Babulo et al, 2009).…”

“…Livelihoods goes beyond looking rural people as farmers or fisherfolks; and incorporate a broad understanding of rural activities functional in several domains. Various kinds of interventions such as food security (Clay, 1986), social security (Devereux, 2016), facilitating credit markets (Patnaik and Prasad, 2014), local institutional support (Joshi and Rao, 2017), promoting participatory forest activities (Islam and Sato, 2012) and strategizing for sustainable tourism (Tao and Wall, 2009) are utilised to address issues of sustainable livelihoods. A wide range of mechanisms are adapted to increase livelihood choices.…”

Oral Democracy

“…However, what is considered "North" India also has five times as many people as the South and is extraordinarily diverse. For instance, the state of Rajasthan has a long history of civic movements (Joshi and Rao 2017) and village councils that have been active for a long time (Krishna 2002). Rural citizens in Rajasthan make claims on the state in much the same way as rural citizens in the South by expanding their repertories of action that work across traditional networks (Krishna 2002;Krusk-Wisner 2018).…”

Development Policies and Subjective Economic Wellbeing: Evidence From India

“…This study contributes to the literature on development policy discourse as well as quantitative assessments of SEWB. One stream of literature focuses on perceived utility and explains the role of relative incomes and inequalities (Asri, 2019;Das, 2016;Joshi & Rao, 2017;Piketty, 2014), while another stream of literature underscores ambiguous association between economic development and perceived economic wellbeing (e.g., Easterlin, 1974;Rajan, 2019;Stevenson & Wolfers, 2013). The insights are combined and then concluded that while development policy does matter in driving SEWB, integrated policy design could perhaps more likely to enhance the sense of SEWB.…”