Archives: Journal Articles

The World Bank provides the most commonly available definition of administrative decentralization on the web: ‘Administrative decentralization seeks to redistribute authority, responsibility and financial resources for providing public services among different levels of government. It is the transfer of responsibility for the planning, financing and management of certain public functions from the central government and its agencies to field units of government agencies, subordinate units or levels of government, semi-autonomous public authorities or corporations, or area-wide, regional or functional authorities.’

Where should the government invest if it wants to maximize India’s long-run economic growth, given fiscal and capacity constraints? This was the question posed in the 2015-16 Economic Survey. The short answer – “the highest economic returns to public investment in human capital in India lie in maternal and early-life health and nutrition interventions” (Ministry of Finance, 2016).

It is a well-recognised fact that globally, nutrition-related factors contribute to about 45 percent of child deaths under age 5. India is no exception- 33 percent of the total disease burden was caused by maternal, neonatal and nutritional diseases. (Institute for Health Foundation of India, and Indian Council for Medical Research, 2017)

For the past few decades, India has adopted a lopsided Pakistan policy with engagement as the only means to reorient Pakistan’s foreign policy. India must transition to a realpolitik approach backed by a range of power instruments, along with creatively leveraging the international environment. India should pursue cultural and commercial ties with liberal constituencies inside Pakistan, and remain open to dialogue with political forces that are reconsidering Pakistan’s role in the region.

By using the enormous processing capacity of computing that is now available, we can, it is claimed, improve how cities are governed–make them smart! This review attempts to illuminate how data reveals relationships between citizens and the state and thus facilitates an informed debate on whether data can be deployed to build a more inclusive and constructive relationship between citizens and their government. As urbanisation deepens, we see struggles around who gets to decide what is to be governed and how the data is to be collected and deployed and what technologies and skills are to be deployed for implementation. The papers in this collection can be viewed in three groups, respectively, dealing with three issues: data collection processes, intra-urban spatial inequities and use of new sensing technologies.

In the current sanitation policy discourse, cultural norms of purity and pollution are considered major obstacles to toilet use, leading to an emphasis on behavioural change. A recent study of slums in Angul and Dhenkanal—two small towns in Odisha—shows that culture does not operate in isolation. It is determined by multiple factors such as the availability of physical space in urban areas, the resources to be invested, essential infrastructure such as water, and accessible, cost-effective technology. There are aspects of culture that people compromise on, but certain cultural norms are non-negotiable. This calls for a decoding of the cultural determinants of sanitation.

German V-1 rockets raining over London and Russian self-propelled Katyusha rockets pulverising German forces on the eastern front are enduring images of the Second World War. After 1945, it seemed the rudimentary technologies embodied in these projectiles were poised to take off. Instead, it would take several decades for these rockets to transform into smart and lethal battlefield weapons. Cruise Missiles: Evolution, Proliferation and Future traces the emergence and evolution of this unsung weapon system, and makes a timely and useful contribution to contemporary security literature.

What I require is a convening of my culture’s criteria, in order to confront them with my words and life as I pursue them and as I may pursue them; and at the same time to confront my words and life as I pursue them with the life my culture’s words may imagine for me: to confront the culture with itself, along the lines it meets in me.

– Stanley Cavell

Two weeks of wrangling and grandstanding at the United Nations climate change conference ended with the “Copenhagen Accord”, which was a paper-thin cover-up of what was a near complete failure, though it does enable the process to move forward. These reflections on the climate negotiations first provide a brief encapsulation of events, followed by a discussion of the key negotiation issues that took centre stage. It then provides a political interpretation of the Copenhagen Accord and its future prospects. The reflections locate the process in the context of the larger, and unresolved tensions between the North and the South. The article concludes with an outline of what the Copenhagen experience suggests is needed in the Indian climate debate.

THOSE who had predicted in the lead up to the fifteenth Conference of Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (FCCC) that ‘something rotten awaits us in the Kingdom of Denmark’ were vindicated on December 19 when the international community took note of the Copenhagen Accord. The Copenhagen Accord can plausibly be characterized as ‘rotten’ not just because it is weak and will not contain climate change in its current form, but also because even in this weak form it faces considerable legal and procedural challenges to its operationalization. As a definitive answer to the climate challenge the accord leaves much to be desired.

The Copenhagen Accord was reached among 29 states, including all major emitters and economies, as well as those representing the most vulnerable and least developed.1The Conference of Parties (CoP) neither authorized the formation of this group to negotiate the accord, nor was it kept abreast of the negotiations as they evolved. As this occurred after ten days of repeated procedural irregularities and ill-considered initiatives by the Danish presidency, patience and confidence were wearing thin. Therefore, when the accord was presented to the CoP for adoption late on December 18, it was categorically rejected by, among others, Bolivia, Cuba, Nicaragua, Sudan, Venezuela and Tuvalu. They did so both because of the manifest procedural irregularities in the negotiation of this accord as well as the substantive weaknesses they perceived in it. As CoP decisions require consensus (not unanimity) for adoption, the Conference of Parties, in a night marked by unparalleled histrionics and presidential ineptitude, could only resolve to ‘take[s] note’ of the Copenhagen Accord.

The Convention on Biological ­Diversity (CBD)1 is an international treaty with three main objectives – conservation of biological diversity; sustainable use of its components; and fair and equitable sharing of benefits arising from genetic resources. The convention was tabled at the United ­Nations Conference on Environment and Develop­ment (UNCED), also known as the Earth Summit, in Rio de Janeiro on 5 June 1992 and came into force on 29 December 1993. Its primary objective is to develop national strategies for the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity. It is also seen as a key document on ­sustainable development.

The convention recognises, under inter­national law, that conservation of biological diversity is a common concern and is integral for the sociocultural and economic development of humanity. The agreement covers all ecosystems, species, and genetic resources. It links traditional conservation efforts to the econo­mic goal of using biological resources sustainably. It sets principles for the fair and equitable sharing of benefits arising from the use of genetic ­resources, notably those destined for commercial use. It also covers the rapidly expanding field of biotechnology through its Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety, addressing techno­logy development and transfer, benefit-sharing and biosafety ­issues. Countries that join the convention are obliged to implement its provisions and it reminds decision-makers that biological resour­ces are finite and sets out a philo­sophy of sustainable use. The CBD currently has 193 nations as signatories, known as Parties, to combat the decline of biological diversity throughout the globe