Watch the full talk (above), where Devesh Vijay tracks changes in demography, occupations, incomes, consumption patterns in villages and slums on Delhi’s margins using surveys, focus group discussions, interviews and life sketches. The study was constructed in two working class communities within the National Capital Region, in 1988-89, and again in 2013-14.
To listen to the lively discussion that followed, tune in to the Q&A Session.
ACCOUNTABILITY INITIATIVE ANALYSES PUBLIC DELIVERY OF SCHOOL EDUCATION AND NUTRITION IN THE STATE.
SOCIAL SECTOR SCHEMES BUDGET BUREAUCRACY
Context
In partnership with the Chhattisgarh government and UNICEF, the Accountability Initiative (AI) undertook its flagship PAISA (Planning, Allocations and Expenditures, Institutions Studies in Accountability) study to track the use of development funds in the state, with the data collection conducted in 2015.
As a first step, the study compared Chhattisgarh’s performance to its peers. As a result of the implementation of the FFC (Fourteenth Finance Commission) recommendations, designed to enhance fiscal autonomy to states, Chhattisgarh received a significantly higher proportion of untied funds from the Union government in 2015-16 (as per revised estimates or RE) compared with 2014-15 (Actuals) – overall central transfers increased by 65% in this period. Interestingly, Chhattisgarh appears to have used a significant portion of its untied money toward investments in social sector programmes. When compared with 2014-15 (Actuals), investments in social sector increased by 50% in 2015-16 (RE).
The study then took an in-depth view of the implementation of four important Government of India sponsored social sector schemes. These were – Sarva Shiksha Abhiyaan (SSA) for elementary education of children aged 6 – 14; the Midday Meal Scheme (MDM); Rashtriya Madhaymik Shiksha Abhiyaan (RMSA) for secondary education; and the Integrated Child Development Scheme (ICDS). The study evaluated the nature and effectiveness of public service delivery of school education and nutrition in the state. The data was collected from four districts – Rajnandgaon, Surajpur, Janjgir Champa and Bastar – which were decided upon in consultation with the state administration.
A mixed method approach was employed, wherein both quantitative and qualitative data was collected in order to achieve a comprehensive picture of the ground reality. The quantitative data illustrated the existing situation in fund flow and public service delivery and was collected through both primary and secondary sources. Additionally, qualitative interviews were conducted with both frontline workers and senior bureaucrats in charge of implementing the schemes at the block and district levels.
Rigorous analysis of the data reflected some overarching implementation gaps across all four schemes:
Limited human resources and weak internal management resulting in poor supervision;
Insufficient planning capacity and lack of prioritised resource allocation at the grassroots;
Delayed fund flows and a complicated disbursement process.
Key Findings
The key findings specific to each of the schemes are summarised below.
Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan and Rashritya Madhyamik Shiksha Abhiyan
Teacher shortage: Vacant teaching posts, compounded by absenteeism, impacting teacher ‘availability’, was a prominent concern faced by most schools. Multi-grade teaching (students of different grades sitting in the same classroom), particularly in secondary schools, led to an adverse effect on quality of education. This was particularly evident for subjects like Science and Mathematics where the same teachers had to double up to teach both subjects.
Moreover, while the state found it tough to recruit teachers for its secondary schools, those that were hired didn’t necessarily report in schools to teach. Measured as on the day of the survey visit, teacher absenteeism was high especially for subjects like Hindi, English, Science and Social Science, and more so in tribal districts. This was also true for primary school teachers where over 20% of all recruited school teachers were absent on the day of the main survey. Additionally, the study found that under RMSA, salaries of a decentralised teacher cadre – the Shiksha Karmis/Panchayat Shikshaks – were often delayed, and thus they had little incentive to work.
Gaps in infrastructure provision: With high rates of enrolment, Chhattisgarh has the lowest proportion of out-of-school children (4%) both in comparison to other states, as well as the national average. Yet, infrastructure provision remains poor. A survey of SSA in primary and secondary schools in the four districts studied showed that despite several years of the Right to Education being in place, gaps remained in provision of key infrastructure facilities. For instance, lack of usable toilets and absence of boundary walls were common problems.
Secondary schools seemed to fare better on infrastructure provisioning, but that was mostly on account of the older, non-RMSA schools included in the survey sample (31 of the total 62 schools surveyed) which were built by the state, primarily in the 1980s and 1990s (RMSA was launched in 2009). The most significant infrastructure gaps at the secondary school level seemed to be in the provisioning of boundary walls and computer labs. Interestingly, unlike SSA, there were significant variations across districts. For instance, while only 35% of all secondary schools in Surajpur and 58% in Bastar were found to have a separate and usable toilet for girls, such toilets were almost the norm in secondary schools surveyed in Janjgir Champa and Rajnandgaon (80-90% coverage).
Crucially, the schools were unable to fully exercise their right to demand provision of these facilities from relevant government departments. While there is provision for the School Management Committees or SMCs (primarily meant to represent parents) for making School Development Plans (SDP) – on the basis of which funds are released to schools – most SMC members are not trained in how to prepare these plans. In fact, they feel that developing an SDP is an exercise in futility as funds released are seldom in line with the needs of the school. This is often because the needs of each school are specific to its situation (which may depend on its location, geography, the local politics etc.) while the funds released by the government are often tied to the general perceived requirements of schools. At the same time, planning by government officials at the district level is done in an ad-hoc manner with little or no emphasis placed on the demands of the SDPs that are actually submitted to them.
Mid-Day Meal Scheme
Innovation in delivering mid-day meals: Chhattisgarh has clearly innovated in delivering the MDM within the state. It has introduced an online system of rice provisioning to reduce the time taken to deliver rice to schools and decrease pilferage. The state has also involved local women in the cooking of meals and pays them a higher honorarium to increase their incentive to work.
Delays in receiving money: There are still, however, substantial delays in receiving cooking cost money and Cook-cum-Helper honorariums. These lead to women buying items like vegetables, pulses, oil etc. on credit, a system that is not sustainable. There are district-wide variations too – for instance, the district of Janjgir Champa appears to be performing poorly on most parameters. Given that it is a populous district with significantly more children enrolled per school, the shortfalls warrant attention.
Moreover, official monitoring for MDM, which is closely linked with the overall monitoring of schools, is sparse. Monitoring visits by the last-mile points of government are not just few, but far between. Long distances and unavailability of public transport play some role in poor monitoring. MDM is often seen as an additional responsibility, warranting much vigilance, but with poor resources (both human and financial) being made available for keeping check. Existing mechanisms such as placing a complaint box in each school or providing MDM toll-free helpline numbers do not seem to work – not everyone seems to be aware of them.
Integrated Child Development Scheme
Infrastructure and equipment deficiencies: The survey conducted a census of the 240 anganwadi centres (AWC) present in the four districts. Serious deficiencies were found in infrastructure and equipment availability in anganwadis. The lack of usable toilets, equipment for cooking, essential drugs and material for health monitoring (such as child growth charts, immunisation charts, posters etc.), severely constrained anganwadi workers (AWW) and helpers
On a positive note, nearly all AWCs were found to be open when visited by the survey team. Attendance registers revealed that across districts, anganwadis were (on average) open for 26 days in the month prior to the survey, for 6 hours in a day (from 9/9.30 a.m. to 3/3.30 p.m.)
Overburdening anganwadi workers: The anganwadi workers have to also take on the role of being foot soldiers for delivery of multiple government schemes. This takes away from their focus on ICDS delivery, particularly the provision of pre-school education. In addition to their responsibilities at the anganwadi centre, AWWs and Sahayikas (anganwadi helpers or AWH) are drawn into delivery of social welfare programmes such as the Kishori Shakti Yojana (KSY) to educate teenage girls, and immunisation drives. They are also involved in other state work such as the Census and BPL (Below Poverty Line) surveys, enrollment for Aadhar, and so on. Additionally, to monitor delivery of ICDS and all services promised by it, they have to maintain a series of registers. For many of these activities, the AWW has to step out of the AWC, resulting thereby in noticeable absence, even though she is out for official work.
Moreover, the survey found substantial delays in the receipt of the honorarium for both the AWW and the AWH. These delays in honorariums may be explained by: (1) delays in release of funds out of budgeted allocation; and/or (2) low spending out of total ICDS allocation.
Conclusion
Administrative inefficiencies, poor targeting, high administrative costs and leakages characterise the implementation of many development programmes in India, and consequently, only a small fraction of development resources is said to reach their final destination. Although the problem is well-recognised, there is surprisingly little data or analysis in the public domain on how development funds travel through the system. It is often unclear what the systems and processes employed to implement state schemes are, and what their effectiveness in a given local context is.
This lack of understanding has an impact on public service delivery, which the study has sought to bridge. Chhattisgarh has taken a few steps to address some of the key concerns reported by the study. For instance, involving panchayats in selection of SHGs (Self Help Groups), implementation of civil works, and selection of teachers; having an online monitoring system to streamline grain allocation etc. These have already provided the state with the platform necessary for bringing about further improvements. Focusing on the small details of governance in this way can help the state bring about significant improvements in overall social sector delivery.
However, as per the AI study, these steps must critically be complemented by enhanced transparency in expenditure along with greater autonomy at the district-level. Key recommendations made in the report are as follows:
The full report can be accessed here.
DISCUSSION WITH AUTHORS OF THE UPCOMING 6TH ASSESSMENT REPORT OF THE INTERGOVERNMENTAL PANEL ON CLIMATE CHANGE
CLIMATE RESEARCH
On 1 October 2019, the Initiative on Climate, Energy and Environment (ICEE) at the Centre for Policy Research (CPR) and The Energy and Resources Institute (TERI) organised a discussion on climate policy and action with authors of the upcoming 6th Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). This event was held in the backdrop of the second IPCC Lead Author Meeting for Working Group III (Mitigation of Climate Change), in which global experts met in Delhi to assess global progress toward reducing the rate of climate change.
The panelists included Fei Teng (Associate Professor and Deputy Director, Institute of Energy, Environment and Economy, Tsinghua University, China), Harald Winkler (Professor, University of Cape Town, South Africa), Heleen de Coninck (Associate Professor, Department of Environmental Science, Radboud University, The Netherlands), Karen Seto (Frederick C Hixon Professor of Geography and Urbanisation Science, Yale University, USA), and Roberto Schaeffer (Professor, Energy Economics, Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro, Brazil).
The conversation was moderated by Navroz K Dubash (Professor, CPR and Coordinator, ICEE) and Ritu Mathur (Senior Fellow, TERI).
About the Speakers
Fei Teng is Associate Professor and Deputy Director at the Institute of Energy, Environment, and Economy, Tsinghua University, and Lead Author (Chapter 17) for The Working Group III contribution to the IPCC Sixth Assessment Report. His research interests include energy and climate policy analysis using modeling tools, and the international climate regime.
Harald Winkler is Professor, University of Cape Town, and Coordinating Lead Author (Chapter 4) for The Working Group III contribution to the IPCC Sixth Assessment Report.
Heleen de Coninck is Associate Professor in innovation studies at the Environmental Science department at Radboud University, and Lead Author (Chapter 16) for The Working Group III contribution to the IPCC Sixth Assessment Report. Her research interests are international climate policy, energy technology and innovation. Before joining Radboud University, she worked for over 10 years at the Energy Research Centre of the Netherlands (ECN). She was one of the Coordinating Lead Authors of the IPCC Special Report on limiting warming to 1.5°C, which was published in 2018.
Karen Seto is the Frederick C Hixon Professor of Geography and Urbanisation Science at Yale University, and Coordinating Lead Author (Chapter 8) for The Working Group III contribution to the IPCC Sixth Assessment Report. She is one of the world’s leading experts on contemporary urbanisation and global change. Her research has generated insights on the links between urbanisation and land use, food systems, biodiversity, and climate change.
Roberto Schaeffer is Professor in Energy Economics at Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro, and Coordinating Lead Author (Chapter 3) for The Working Group III contribution to the IPCC Sixth Assessment Report. Dr Schaeffer’s main area of competence is in integrated assessment of climate change and coupled energy-economy climate modelling. In 2007, Dr Schaeffer was a co-recipient, with a number of scientists, of the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize for research contributions to the IPCC.
Navroz K Dubash – Professor, CPR, and Coordinating Lead Author (Chapter 13) for The Working Group III contribution to the Sixth Assessment Report. He is the editor of the forthcoming book, India in a Warming World: Integrating Climate Change and Development (Oxford University Press).
Ritu Mathur – Senior Fellow, TERI, and Lead Author (Chapter 4) for The Working Group III contribution to the Sixth Assessment Report. She heads the Centre for Integrated Assessment and Modeling at TERI, and her research focuses on examining and addressing the multiple connections between climate change, energy security and sustainable development.
RTI PAPERS RECEIVED FROM ENVIRONMENT MINISTRY INDICATE LEVYING OF MONETARY PENALTIES FOR ENVIRONMENTAL DAMAGE
ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE RIGHTS
The CPR-Namati team recently received documents related to the proposed amendments to the Environment Protection Act, (EPA) 1986 following a year-long follow up through the Right to Information (RTI) process. The environment ministry has shared information only up to July 2016, indicating that the other documents are with the Law Ministry, undergoing scrutiny.
This information includes two detailed versions of the proposed amendments and note sheets related to the process of drafting the amendments – carried out between August, 2014 and July, 2016.
On 07.10.2015, the Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change (MoEFCC) had made public the Environment Law (Amendment) Bill, (ELAB) 2015, inviting comments. The CPR-Namati Environmental Justice team made a submission to the MoEFCC when the ELAB was put out in public domain. Manju Menon and Kanchi Kohli discuss some of their arguments in this 2015 article in The Wire.
The documents received indicate that the 2016 version of the ELAB proposed to amend the existing EPA, 1986 by introducing monetary penalties for violations. The environment ministry’s justification is that the current legal structure in place for the protection of the environment is not effective. It is claimed that ‘available remedies under Section 5 and Section 15 are time consuming and not in the larger public interest because industry units have to shut down even in cases where contraventions are minor and reversible.’
The process for making amendments to the EPA had commenced in August 2014, with the appointment of Shri V K Bhasin, a former Law Secretary, as a consultant. It was following the presentation at the Prime Minister’s Office in September 2015, that the Draft Bill was made accessible to the public in October, 2015. The Bill received around 130 comments and Shri Bhasin was appointed for a second term in November, 2015 to revise the draft based on the comments received.
An analysis of the RTI papers by Debayan Gupta reveals that the October, 2015 version of the ELAB has been substantially altered. The earlier version proposed levying penalties for damage and violations based on the extent of the geographic spread of the damage. It also introduced the concept of spot penalties for minor violations, which caused neither substantial nor non-substantial damage to the environment. The April, 2016 version however has done away with both of the above mentioned aspects.
The key proposals of the 2016 version are:
A set of penalties for certain defaults in the Schedule to the Act, to be decided by the Adjudicating Officer;
Types and grades of environmental pollution specified in sections 14H to 14U, the quantum of which is to be determined by the Adjudicating Authority;
Imposition of a lesser penalty on Micro, Small and Medium industries;
The money collected by way of penalties to be credited to the Consolidated Fund of India;
The government can levy fees for carrying out the functions assigned under the Act.
Unlike the earlier draft Bill, the April 2016 version imposes only two sets of penalties with fixed upper limits. The determination of the actual amount is to be done by either the Adjudicating Officer or the Adjudicating Authority, both of whom are to be appointed by the government. It also does away with the idea of spot violations for minor violations and allows for the imposition of a ‘lesser’ penalty based on the size and turnover of the industry.
The RTI application, filed on 31.06.2016 by Kanchi Kohli asking for details of the process remained pending for a year. It was only on 07.6.2017 that the MoEFCC responded agreeing to provide the information within 15 days (the letter disposing the first appeal can be found here). However, only partial information up to July 2016 has been provided, indicating that the most recent file is under scrutiny by the Law Ministry. The documents provided by the MoEFCC include:
The CPR-Namati team has analysed this information an article earlier this month in The Wire.
NOTES FROM THE FIELD
ELECTION STUDIES POLITICS
Neelanjan Sircar, Ashish Ranjan and Bhanu Joshi share their notes from the field based on extensive travel across Bihar to get a sense of how voters are making up their minds.
A spate of contradictory opinion polls and an aggressive campaign between bitter foes, Nitish Kumar and Narendra Modi, and bonhomie between once bitter foes, Nitish Kumar and Lalu Prasad Yadav, have only served to confuse the situation further in the state.
They have focused on constituencies that went to the polls in the first two phases of the election, and tried to tease out what ‘vikas’ means for the people, and how caste influences their decision.
Read the full field notes here: What do voters want?
‘The Hindu’ carried a shorter piece on 28 October: It’s not about caste or beef, but vikas
READ THE BLOG SERIES
ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE
Ministry of Environment, Forests & Climate Change (MoEFCC) issued the draft Coastal Regulation Zone (CRZ) Notification, 2018 on April 18, 2018. The draft came after yearlong indications that the current CRZ Notification, 2011 will be replaced by a new Marine Coastal Regulation Zone (MCRZ) Notification. The proposed changes to the CRZ regulation drastically alter the original provisions of the notification (Read about the changes proposed in the draft CRZ Notification, 2018 here). The draft was open for public comments till June 17, 2018. During this time the ministry received 471 submissions on the draft. Several of these submissions had multiple representations/ signatures in them. If the number of representations is factored into the comments received on the draft CRZ Notification, 2018, the total number of responses received becomes 1965.
Researchers from the CPR-Namati Environmental Justice Program have analysed these comments to understand that most submissions raise serious objections to the ministry’s proposal. On analysing these responses all together, it was found that of these 1965 responses, 1338 (68%) responses have objected to the finalsation of the draft CRZ Notification 2018. About 23% responses have been in favour of the draft CRZ Notification 2018 (see figure below).
Small percentages of responses have suggested changes or sought clarifications to the CRZ Notification and some are inapplicable due to the responses being in regional languages or concerning issues other than coastal regulation.
Specific comments have been received from coastal citizens, fisher groups, political parties, local institutions, government departments and industry associations. The highlights of these comments are presented below:
Representations from coastal citizens:
More than half (250) of the submissions are from coastal citizens. In these 250 submissions there were 414 additional representations/signatures. So total number of responses from coastal citizens becomes 664. Of these 54% (362) demand that the draft CRZ Notification 2018 should not be pursued by the ministry. 32% (216) are in favour of the draft CRZ Notification 2018.
Of the 216 responses that are in favour of the changes, 207 have even asked for further opening up of the coast for tourism projects, dwellings for locals and commercial constructions among others. Many of these responses are from Goa, Kerala and Maharashtra. While most respondents have only mentioned their names and addresses, a small number have identified themselves as advocates and doctors.
5-7 submissions from Sindhudurg and Malvan in Maharashtra seek clarification on the critically vulnerable area protection for these regions as required by the CRZ Notification 2011. This is especially so because no such special provisions are provided in the 2018 draft.
Comments from local institutions
The local bodies that have sent in their responses are from the states of Goa, Maharashtra, Diu, Karnataka, Kerala and Gujarat.
17 submissions have been received from local institutions that include Gram Panchayats, District Panchayats and Municipalities. Of these 13 have suggested changes in the draft CRZ Notification 2018. Many of these include the suggestion that instead of the proposed No Development Zone (NDZ) of 50 m for thickly populated areas and an NDZ of 200 for thinly populated rural areas, a uniform NDZ of 50 should be applied. In the current CRZ Notification 2011, a uniform NDZ of 200 m has been provided.
Some panchayats have demanded that their villages be turned into urban areas. One has demanded retention of provisions of the current CRZ Notification 2011.
Four submissions from local bodies could not be considered as the ministry noted that they were in regional language.
Responses from the industry
45 responses have been from the sectors of tourism, real estate and construction, mining, ports and harbours and industries. Of these 40 have suggested further dilutions in the draft and two have appreciated the draft. Some of the suggested dilutions are permitting mechanised mining, fish processing plants and storage of chemicals that are allowed to be transported through pipelines and jetties in the CRZ, lifting restriction on land use change for buildings in the CRZ. Remaining three responses have either sought clarifications or sought retention of certain biodiversity protections in the notification.
Submissions from fishing unions and associations
Of 28 fisher groups who have sent in their submissions, 24 have expressed their objections to the draft CRZ Notification 2018. They either ask for the draft to be scrapped or demand continuation of the current provisions. One such submission from Pavity Jinwar Kodi from Mumbai has 120 representations. The submission states that the CRZ Notification 2011 is better than the draft. It demands that the fishers be given importance and no draft should be considered without consulting the fishing community.
These 24 submissions also have 181 additional representations/signatures.
Several submissions suggest that the NDZ in rural areas and around the creeks should not be reduced.
3-4 fisher groups have demanded that CRZ Notification should be turned into an Act.
Comments from government departments
Ten government departments from the state of Maharashtra, one from Kerala, one from Karnataka and two central government departments have also submitted their comments. Of these two didn’t have any specific comments, 11 have sought more dilutions in the draft CRZ Notification 2018. This is with respect to their jurisdictions such as Maharashtra Metro Rail, Urban Development and Mining, Karnataka Tourism, and Coast Guard headquarter. They suggest changes pertaining to approval of buildings according to the local town and country planning norms, metro and allied activities, Indian coastguard stations and associated infrastructure in the CRZ, further reduction of the NDZ and no requirement for maintaining buffer around mangroves on private lands.
Representations from Political Parties
The ministry received six submissions from politicians and political parties. Four are from Daman & Diu offices of Bhartiya Janata Party (BJP), one from a member of parliament from the BJP and one from the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP), Goa. All of them, except AAP have requested for additional easing of the CRZ regulation. The suggested changes relate to further reduction of the NDZ and conversion of rural areas (CRZ III) to urban areas (CRZ II) so they have fewer restrictions for land use change. One submission suggests that mining of all minerals be permitted in water areas of the CRZ.
Besides these, submissions have also been received from academics, researchers, scientific and educational institutions and religions institutions. Find the compilation of comments as received from the MoEFCC here.
Changes to the CRZ Notification, have been under discussion for past four years- a special review by the Shailesh Nayak Committee followed by a series of amendments have been in the news. At CPR, we have continuously brought analysis of the same. For details see here, here and here.
All these efforts of the ministry at altering India’s coastal regulation have been characterised by opacity including a closed-door review and denied opportunities for public comments on amendments. But, such large number of responses on the draft CRZ Notification, 2018 is a reiteration of the fact that coastal regulation is an issue of citizen and public interest.
The above analysis of the comments shows that there is a diversity of viewpoints on the draft. The draft is yet to be finalised and as of October 2018, the MoEFCC had compiled these diverse comments for consideration. While finalising, the ministry is also going to strive to resolve the issues on which a difference of opinion was observed among its officers and ministers and weave those changes in. (Read about those issues here). The lack of consensus within and outside of the ministry is a clear indication that the contentious points of coastal regulation need public engagement larger than what is being practiced currently.
This is part 2 of a blog series on CRZ revamp in making since 2014.
In the third blog post of the series, views of different members from within the ministry and stakeholders from outside on certain contentious issues will be presented.
FULL VIDEO OF TALK
URBAN ECONOMY URBAN GOVERNANCE URBAN SERVICES
Watch the full video (above) of the talk by Ashwathy Anand, Ajai Sreevatsan, and Persis Taraporevala, where they present their analysis of the accepted smart city proposals and ancillary secondary data.
Given the scale and significance of the mission, the discussion seeks to present an empirical understanding of what India thinks a smart city looks like and examine the potential of achieving its aims of creating more liveable, sustainable and financially secure cities.
Ashwathy Anand is a trained architect from the School of Planning and Architecture, Bhopal; Ajai Sreevatsan is a former investigative reporter with The Hindu; and Persis Taraporevala is a research associate at CPR.
The Q&A session that followed can be accessed here.
FULL VIDEO OF THE TALK
INTERNATIONAL POLITICS
Watch the full video above of the talk on ‘What is Different about US Foreign Policy and Diplomacy in the Trump Era?’ featuring Dr Jon P Dorschner.
Professor Jon Dorschner analysed the changes in both the form and content of US foreign policy during the presidency of Donald J Trump and compared and contrasted it with those of the previous administrations. He discussed Trump’s India policy and how it fits into America’s larger South Asia policy (including Afghanistan), and its impact on US diplomacy in the subcontinent.
Dr Jon P Dorschner is a professor of Political Science at the Center for Government and Public Policy, University of Arizona, Tucson.
The question and answer session that followed can be accessed here.
Kanhu Charan Pradhan from CPR, who was among the first scholars to highlight the specific role of Census Towns in the 2001-2011 period, draws on his earlier research to explain the role of census towns in understanding the pattern of urbanisation in India.
How is the ‘urban’ defined in India?
The definition of what is ‘urban’ in India is relatively complex. The UN ‘Demographic Yearbook 2005’, which compiles the various ways in which urban is defined across the world shows that the Indian definition is unique to the country. All urban areas in India can be broadly classified into three groups on the basis of their manner of governance.
What are the main challenges of the identification methodology of census towns or CTs?
It is important to note that the RGI finalises the rural/urban classification before the census actually happens. This is because the census schedules are different for rural and urban areas. However, there are three main challenges in the methodology used to identify CTs.
How did the debate on census towns start and what is the debate about?
CTs are not new in India. The RGI is classifying settlements as CTs since the 1961 census. I got interested in the subject due to the high increase in the number of CTs in Kerala combined with a high urban population growth. When I found out that almost all the urban population growth in Kerala was explained by the new CTs, I expanded that work. This work was one of the first published papers on CTs in Economic and Political Weekly. The findings of the paper, which showed, inter alia, that one third of the urban population growth during 2001 and 2011 was due to new CTs generated more interest among researchers, and the steep increase in the number of CTs from 1362 in 2001 to 3892 in 2011 was highlighted in newspapers. Some even questioned whether the large increase in the number of CTs was an attempt to inflate the extent of urbanisation. Over time, it has modified our vision of an urbanisation driven only by large cities and opened new debates on topics, such as: how are these CTs spread across India? Are the economic structures and the access to amenities in these CTs different from villages of a similar size? What are the governance challenges of CTs? And, most importantly, what is happening beyond large cities?
Are census towns evenly spread across the country? Are there any other important characteristics you want to highlight?
The concentration of CTs is disproportionately high in few states. West Bengal (780) had the maximum number of CTs in 2011, followed by Kerala (461), Tamil Nadu (376) and Maharashtra (278). Almost the entire growth in urban population in Kerala between 2001 and 2011 was due to additional CTs. This share was also very high in West Bengal.
In terms of their distribution across districts, on an average, the highly urbanised districts and their neighboring districts have a higher number of CTs. It implies that many CTs lie close to existing urban areas. Using different straight line distances according to the size of STs, we found that 42% of the total CTs were close to class-I towns (population greater than 100,000).
The remaining 57% CTs which were not proximate to any class-I STs can further be divided into two separate groups. The ‘clustered’ CTs are not close to Class-I towns but lie close to other CTs or a smaller ST. The remaining CTs, that we can call ‘isolated’ CTs are standalone CTs, and often lie in strategic locations such as in major industrial units or near a national highway or road junction. Of the remaining 57% non-proximate CTs, 68% fall in the first category and 32% fall in the second category. Figure-1 shows a schematic picture of the three different types of CTs.
You have mentioned that the RGI uses the last census data to identify census towns. Is it possible then to predict the number of census towns for the upcoming census?
Yes. It is possible to broadly predict the number of CTs for the 2021 census, but there are few caveats.
First, the RGI includes plantation, livestock, forestry, fisheries and allied activities as farm activity in the CT estimation, but the census data that is publicly released combines them with the non-farm workforce. It requires some adjustment as these sectors are heavily concentrated in some districts (like tea gardens in Assam, fisheries in Kerala etc.). Consequently, the final result depends on the way this adjustment is done.
Second, there are some settlements which might be identified as CTs using the 2011 census data, but may merge into the existing cities or convert to new towns or STs during this period. It is difficult to predict the magnitude of this phenomenon. With these caveats in mind, our estimate suggests that 2149 CTs may come up in the upcoming 2021 census and the broad regional distribution of these CTs would be similar to the existing ones.
You have insisted on the importance of non-farm workforce to define census town. Since the share of non-farm work force is going up, can we expect more census towns in coming years?
It is true that the share of the non-farm work force, on an average, is increasing over time. Hence one would expect more CTs in future. But the process is much more complex than it seems and one should not ignore the dynamics at the micro level. It is not true that the non-farm share is increasing in all settlements. More importantly, Sidhwani (2014) has shown that this process is not uni-directional: many villages do indeed show a decreasing share in the non-farm workforce and some of them are large villages. The amount of research focused on understanding such processes is limited and hence the actual reasons behind these processes are unclear. So, classifying a village as a CT and then again reclassifying it back to a village is not unprecedented. Further, the increase in non-farm work force is not necessarily associated with the expansion of formal employment but is more often due to increase in casual employment in the non-farm sector.
The central government last year asked state governments to convert all census towns into statutory towns. What is your reaction to that move?
I don’t think converting all CTs into STs is the right approach. It should be done on a case by case basis. As I have already mentioned, in India, it is the state government, which decides on the creation of new STs and the minimum criteria is not uniform across states. The minimum population criteria for the smallest type of municipalities ranges from 5,000 (Punjab) to 30,000 (West Bengal). So, unless states use their prerogative power or combine settlements to achieve that population threshold, it is unlikely to convert all CTs into STs. It is instructive to remember that in the last decade only 42 new STs were created.
Further, I have highlighted different types of CTs. Conversion of CTs into STs could be useful for planned governance of some of the CTs, in particular, for some of the larger ones. However, the applicability of this particular mechanism to all CTs is very doubtful and it should be done on a case by case basis. For example, if a CT is in the periphery of a large city, merging the CT into the city could be more helpful. Similarly, if multiple CTs lie close to each other, they can be combined together to make a larger ST.
The other piece in the series can be accessed below:
AMBRISH DONGRE AND HIS COLLABORATORS SHARE FINDINGS IN THE LATEST CO-AUTHORED STATE OF THE NATION REPORT
EDUCATION RIGHTS
Context
This report describes the status of implementation of the section 12(1)(c)of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education (RTE) Act.
This section sets aside at least 25 per cent of the seats at entry level (pre-primary or grade 1) for children from economically weaker and disadvantaged sections of society at no cost to these children in: i) private unaided schools (non-minority) and, ii) special category schools.
The unaided schools that admit children through section 12(1)(c) are reimbursed a stipulated amount based on the comparison between actual amount charged by the school and recurring per student expenditure incurred by the government. This recurring expenditure is notified by the state governments from time to time, and is referred to as ‘notified costs’.
By mandating the inclusion of underprivileged children in private unaided schools, it acknowledges and challenges the existing hierarchies in access to education. Its effective implementation requires the government to create a system providing administrative, financial, and legal support.
What was the research about?
The report documents:
Procedural design of the admissions process and systems – especially online admission processes – followed in Gujarat, Karnataka, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, and Rajasthan, as well as the initial implementation of online portals in Chhattisgarh and Uttar Pradesh;
Concerns and challenges faced by multiple stakeholders in relation to the online admission process;
Parents’ experiences of 12(1)(c) application process, and further experiences once the child is admitted to school through 12(1)(c);
Issues surrounding reimbursements to private schools that admit children under section 12(1)(c) and overall expenditure incurred for 12(1)(c) by the government;
Legal developments in relation to 12(1)(c).
How was the research conducted?
Information about admission processes was obtained from concerned officials in respective states. Attempts were also made to interact with parents who had applied through 12(1)(c); school administrators; and various non-governmental organisations and individuals who work in this space. Capturing parental experiences during the application process and once the child was admitted to a school through 12(1)(c) was the outcome of an extensive data collection exercise carried out in Ahmedabad. Additionally, budget documents were analysed to estimate per child expenditure on children in government schools while legal documents were scrutinised to understand the legal developments around section 12(1)(c).
Key findings
Non-implementation of 12(1)(c)
Out of 36 States and Union Territories (UT) in India, only 1 Union Territory and 11 States initiated action as evidenced by their seeking funds from the Central Government for implementation of this mandate, as the rules allow them to. These States include Chhattisgarh, Delhi, Gujarat, Jharkhand, Karnataka, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, Odisha, Rajasthan, Tamil Nadu, Uttarakhand, and Uttar Pradesh. Despite more than five years of the RTE coming into force, more than half of the States/ UTs have not implemented this section.
Of the states that are implementing this mandate, a number of them implement section 12(1)(c) through a centralised online admission process (details given below).
Admission Processes
The report finds that the centralised admission process has improved administrative control and transparency in the admission process. However, the process, with its reliance on internet and absence of support structure, has also created access barriers.
The report describes experiences of applicants in Ahmedabad (Gujarat) where centralised online application process was implemented for the first time in admissions through section 12(1)(c) for the academic year 2017-18. Though the centralised online application potentially allows for a number of improvements over a paper-based system, the implementation of it highlighted many problems.
Lack of internet access, heavy reliance on cyber cafes and consequently higher expenses incurred for the application process, combined with problems faced by applicants in filling application forms were the direct fallout of the online process. In addition, complete absence of or inadequately equipped help-centres; lack of effective grievance redressal mechanisms; confusion around eligibility criteria; lack of synchronisation with admission cycle for seats, which are not reserved i.e. rest of the 75% seats exacerbated the complexity of the application process. Some of these problems were evident in other states as well.
The report offers a range of recommendations to improve this situation.
Lottery mechanisms
The report also compares the logic (of lottery) used for allotment of seats to applicants. Based on interviews with concerned officials from four states, the researchers found systematic differences in the logic used across these states. There were differences on accounts of public disclosure, ordering of applicants’ preferences for schools, and format of result declaration. For example, in some states (like Madhya Pradesh, Karnataka and Gujarat) applicants received allotment to only one school whereas in Maharashtra, an applicant could receive a confirmed allotment to multiple schools, of which one would be selected by the applicant. On the other hand, applicants in Rajasthan received priority numbers for each school applied.
Evidence from Ahmedabad based on a large scale survey
The report also presents findings from a child tracking study of over 1600 households in Ahmedabad.
The child-tracking study finds that although most eligible households are likely to apply if informed about the provision, information alone is insufficient to successfully navigate the various stages of the application and admission process. There are barriers in the form of transaction costs and information access, which prevent the more disadvantaged households from applying and receiving allotment of a seat. For example, many households need to procure documents such as caste certificates and income certificates for the process, which is both time consuming and costly.
More educated households and those with local language (Gujarati) as their mother tongue, which increases the access, may be at an advantage, as suggested by higher application and allotment rates of households with these characteristics.
Further, in a first attempt of this kind in the context of section 12(1)(c), the data shows that over 96% of those who had admitted their child through the policy in June, 2015 continued to attend the same school in December, 2016 (when the data was collected).
Once children are admitted to schools through 12(1)(c), preliminary findings suggest that fewer of them participate in extracurricular activities such as sports and cultural activities compared to those enrolled in private schools without the provision. Such challenges are a cause of concern and merit further exploration.
Issues around reimbursement
Analysis of budget documents reveals that there is discrepancy between notified per student reimbursement costs and actual per student expenditure by government as estimated by the researchers. Sources of this discrepancy are difficult to locate due to lack of clarity on how these notified costs are derived in the first place. Analysis, detailed in the report, also points to the possibility that most of the schools admitting children under 12(1)(c) are low cost/fee private schools. What that means for inclusion and learning needs to be analysed.
Legal Developments
The chapter on legal developments draws attention to issues related to Section 12(1)(c). The researchers find that while the courts have resisted efforts to narrow the eligibility criteria (like using the criteria of having a Below Poverty Line (BPL) card as the only way of identifying Economically Weaker Section (EWS) candidates), they have generally stayed away from ruling on administrative procedures like the mode of admissions. The courts have been particularly proactive with regard to ensuring the benefits of the mandate reach children with needs.
Way forward
The report makes specific and detailed recommendations on various aspects of the implementation of section 12(1)(c) such as clarity in rules regarding eligibility criteria; not relying exclusively on GPS for defining neighbourhoods; more time for application process; building a robust Management Information System to manage expenditure and reimbursement effectively; creative and informative communication campaigns; online and offline modes of application; timely and adequate reimbursements; and child tracking. More broadly though, the report calls upon government officials, judiciary, and private stakeholders for their active participation in ensuring effective implementation of 12(1)(c).