India Policy Watch #1: The Anatomy of Decentralisation Insights on topical policy issues in India — Pranay Kotasthane The human-made floods in some parts of Bengaluru generated much furore. Writing about it in our previous edition, RSJ remarked: The way the political economy is structured right now, it is difficult to see how there will be enough devolution of power and finances to a city. A big city most often is a bankrupt political orphan in India. It doesn’t look like changing any time soon. I share his anguish. However, I remain hopeful because there are many global examples of cities first committing themselves to and then rescuing themselves from the tyranny of half-hearted decentralisation. Decentralisation: Take 1 The term decentralisation is a catch-all term in public policy. There was a time when it was touted as the solution to all ills. But many PhD dissertations, journal papers, and World Bank projects later, we understand it better now. Throwing some light on this concept can help us put a finger on what’s exactly wrong with Indian cities. Let’s begin by understanding the three forms of decentralisation — deconcentration, delegation, and devolution. Deconcentration is the simplest form of decentralisation. As the name suggests, it means decentralising functions and responsibilities. For example, if you can submit a passport application in Mysuru instead of having to come to the state capital, this function can be said to have been deconcentrated. The various government branch offices and grievance centre kiosks are examples of deconcentration. Delegation means that specific functions are carried out by another organisation or the government nearest to the citizen on behalf of the more distant government. In the Indian case, the plethora of state public sector enterprises (SPSEs) for public transport, power distribution, and water distribution are examples of delegation. For example, BESCOM is a Government of Karnataka company tasked with the responsibility of supplying electricity to the state capital. Devolution is the most comprehensive form of decentralisation. Devolved units hold defined spheres of autonomous action. Policy implementation and authority shift to the government nearer to the citizen. This typically means having elections at the subnational level. For example, Indian states are devolved units with clearly defined responsibilities, and tax revenue handles in the Constitution. With these definitions at hand, we have one way to diagnose the dismal performance of our city governments: the Union-State government relationship is characterised by devolution, while the State-local government relation is characterised by delegation and deconcentration. Elections do take place at local government levels. After the 74th Amendment in 1992, some more functions were devolved to urban local bodies. And yet, they hardly enjoy autonomy and authority in any defined sphere. State governments tightly control resources, personnel and plans, treating local governments as deconcentrated implementing agencies. Decentralisation: Take 2 There’s another way to see the Indian experience in light of decentralisation theories. Decentralisation can happen along three dimensions — political, administrative, and fiscal. These dimensions are further characterised by four factors: authority, autonomy, accountability, and capacity. The USAID Democratic Decentralisation Programming Handbook has a helpful framework that combines these three dimensions and four characteristics. In the chart below, here’s how I think India’s urban governments fare on the twelve parameters at their intersection. My crude classification into three categories is subjective and based on my understanding of local government public finances. Even so, this framework can offer valuable insights into India’s urban governments. First, they are characterised by poor capacity across all three dimensions of decentralis