Blog Archive - Page 61 of 130 - Accountability Initiative: Responsive Governance

Why the Bureaucracy clicks, and doesn’t

A six week drought on the blogging front was not without its compensations; I wandered and connected with people and friends. One of the interesting conversations that I had was on social media groups of my former colleagues in the civil services and the IAS. Social media can be stressful and mind-numbing at its worst and the temptation to walk away is often high. My civil services and IAS group are exceptions, because there is always something to learn, some elevating thought that rises above the usual jokes and banter.

One of the conversations that developed well on these groups was about the successes that were achieved by some of our colleagues. I would not deny that most civil servants are fiercely competitive, driven by the fact that the pyramid narrows at the top, but my colleagues are genuinely generous in their praise of the achievements of others.

That brings me to Kurien.

Anybody who uses the International Airport in Kerala’s commercial capital Kochi, would notice that it is quite an unusual structure. While most airports sport an anonymous façade; of an industrial shed with ultra-luxurious embellishments, Kochi’s airport harmoniously integrates Kerala temple architecture with the needs of a busy airport. The furniture in the domestic terminal comprises cushioned sofas made of wood, which would be more at home in a living room than in a busy air terminal. And busy, it is. Kochi airport is now the fourth busiest international airport in the country in terms of number of international flights and the traffic handled, following Delhi, Mumbai and Bengaluru.

V.J. Kurien is the Managing Director of the Cochin International Airport Limited (CIAL), the Company that owns and manages the airport. He is currently serving his third term as the Managing Director and his name is synonymous with the airport. The story goes that all you need to mention is Kurien’s name to the taxi drivers in Kochi and they will take you to his home, or office.

So how did it all start? From the start of his career, Kurien earned a name not only for his hard work, but for his capabilities as a bridging individual of high integrity. Kerala is not your typical Indian State and hierarchies don’t work too well. People regard leaders only on their intrinsic merit and there is little bowing and scraping to authority. That often means that decisions are delayed, because consensus should evolve beforehand. Ideas and projects, even good ones, cannot be stuffed down the average Malayali’s throat. Kurien’s affable nature, patience and persistence endeared himself to everybody as a team builder.

As district collector of Kochi district, Kurien tried to facilitate the expansion of the Naval airport, built on Willingdon Island, a manmade island in Kochi harbor. However, the project was not feasible, due to limited space. Kurien turned his attention further inland and conceived of the idea of building an airport that would be within striking distance of Kochi and Trissur. To overcome the constraints in financing, he proposed a model of public private partnership, with funding drawn from the considerable Keralite diaspora that would benefit from direct international flights into Kerala. However, it is was not easy to commence the project. People in Kerala are passionately attached to their land, and while they all recognised the need for an international airport, they feared loss of livelihood if they were dispossessed of their land. With its culture of mass movements, local opponents to an airport in their vicinity organised themselves well to prevent the project from taking off.

Kerala is not your typical Indian State and hierarchies don’t work too well. People regard leaders only on their intrinsic merit and there is little bowing and scraping to authority.

Just when a stalemate seemed inevitable, Kurien was able to obtain the support of the local government in the area, the Nedumbassery Panchayat. Local leaders began to see the sense in the airport coming up in their area, as it would enhance property values. Furthermore, the airport assured all those who would lose their lands for the airport, not only adequate compensation, but also stable employment. The airport, contrary to other similar projects elsewhere, agreed to pay property tax to the Panchayat. None of this would have been possible if it were not for Kurien’s credibility as someone who strived for consensus and peoples’ participation in decisions for the common good.

I will continue the story of Kurien’s success next week.

सूचना का अधिकार- एक पहलु यह भी…

This is the third part of an eight-part series on the challenges and life hacks in experiencing and accessing government benefits and services.

वर्ष 2005 से सरकारी निकायों में समाज के लिए पारदर्शिता और जवाबदेही को बढ़ावा देने के मकसद से सूचना का अधिकार क़ानून एक शक्तिशाली उपकरण के रूप में उभरा है। इस कानून का मकसद सरकारी महकमों की जवाबदेही तय करना और पारदर्शिता लाना है ताकि भ्रष्टाचार पर अंकुश लग सके । हालांकि इस क़ानून का उद्देश्य काफी हद तक पूरा भी हुआ है । यह अधिकार आपको ताकतवर तो बनाता है लेकिन साथ में कई बार इस क़ानून से जुड़े ऐसे भी मामले सामने आते हैं जिसमें आवेदनकर्ता को मुख्य मुद्दे से भटकाने के प्रयास किये जाते हैं ।

मैं आज आपसे इसी विषय को लेते हुए अपने मित्र अरुण के साथ हुई एक वास्तविक घटनाक्रम को साझा कर रहा हूँ । अरुण पेशे से स्वयं का डेयरी फ़ार्म चलाते हैं । उनकी पत्नी गाँव के एक सरकारी विद्यालय में मध्याहन भोजन बनाने का काम करती हैं । इसके अलावा आमदनी का और कोई ठोस माध्यम नहीं है ।

यह बात 2 वर्ष पूर्व की है जब पंचायत प्रधान एवं उसके पति द्वारा एक सड़क गाँव से मुख्य सड़क तक जोड़ने के लिए बनायी जा रही थी । अरुण को सूचना मिली कि पंचायत प्रधान का पति JCB मशीन की मदद से एक सड़क बना रहा है । अरुण मौके का मुआयना करने गए तो उन्होंने देखा कि जिस जगह से सड़क निकाली जा रही थी वह एक सरकारी वन भूमि है और जिसमें कुछ पेड़ भी काटे जा रहे थे ।

अरुण ने मौके पर पहुंचकर इस कार्य के बारे में जानने के लिए प्रधान के पति से बातचीत करनी चाही जिसपर उसने अरुण को धमकाना शुरू कर किया और इस कार्य में हस्तक्षेप न करने की चेतावनी दी । अरुण को यह सब कुछ बहुत अजीब लग रहा था क्योंकि गाँव में पहले से ही सड़क मौजूद थी जो मुख्य सड़क को जोड़ती थी और इस सड़क के बनने के बाद भी मुख्य सड़क की दूरी केवल 1 किलोमीटर ही कम होनी थी तो ऐसे में इस सड़क को बनाने का क्या औचित्य था ? इन्ही सब सवालों के साथ अरुण ने जिला वन अधिकारी के नाम से एक आरटीआई दायर की जिसमें उन्होंने सूचना मांगी कि क्या वन विभाग को इस कार्य की जानकारी है ? यदि हाँ तो क्या मौके पर कार्य का निरिक्षण किया गया है और इसमें क्या-क्या कदम उठाये गए हैं ?

एक सप्ताह के बाद जिला वन अधिकारी द्वारा अरुण को फ़ोन आया जिसमें उन्होंने कहा कि इस कार्य की विभाग को कोई जानकारी नहीं है लेकिन मौके पर जाकर इसका निरिक्षण किया जायेगा और इस पर उपयुक्त कार्यवाई की जाएगी । इसी बीच सड़क निर्माण कार्य को भी रोक दिया गया ।

लगभग 1 महीने के बाद अरुण को जिला वन अधिकारी के दफ्तर से आरटीआई का जवाब और जुर्माना की गयी राशि की छायाप्रति प्राप्त हुई । इसके अनुसार उपरोक्त कार्य का निरिक्षण रेंज ऑफिसर और फ़ॉरेस्ट गार्ड द्वारा किया गया और पंचायत को दोषी मानते हुए उसके ऊपर 15000 रूपए का जुर्माना किया गया है । अरुण जवाब से संतुष्ट नहीं थे क्योंकि वह यह जानते थे कि इस कार्य में बहुत नुकसान हुआ है अतः जुर्माना भी अधिक होना चाहिए था । अरुण को सूत्रों से पता चला कि जिला वन अधिकारी एवं महिला पंचायत प्रधान आपस में रिश्तेदार हैं । अरुण को समझ आ रहा था कि इस वजह से ये लोग क़ानून को ताक पर रखकर अपनी मनमर्जी कर रहे हैं जिसमें ये सभी आपस में बराबर एक दूसरे के संपर्क में थे । अरुण ने इसके बाद वन विभाग के चीफ कन्सर्वेटर अधिकारी के नाम से आरटीआई दायर की जिसमें उन्होंने पिछले आवेदन एवं जिला वन अधिकारी द्वारा दी गयी जानकारी को संलग्न किया । अरुण ने अधिकारी से इस पूरे प्रकरण की पुनः जांच करने का अनुरोध किया ।

कुछ दिनों के बाद चीफ कन्सर्वेटर अधिकारी ने स्वयं अरुण को फ़ोन करके इस कार्य कि जांच कराने का आश्वासन दिया और भरोसा दिलाया कि यदि इसमें किसी भी प्रकार की अनियमितता पायी गयी तो इसमें लिप्त दोषियों के खिलाफ कड़ी कार्यवाई की जायेगी ।

इस बीच एक रात अरुण को अपने घर की गौशाला में बहुत तेज आग की लपटें दिखाई दीं । बाहर आकर अरुण ने आग बुझाने का प्रयास किया लेकिन आग की लपटें इतनी तेज थीं कि काबू पाना मुश्किल हो रहा था । अरुण की पत्नी ने बहुत जल्दी से गाँव के कुछ लोगों को इकठ्ठा करके आग बुझाने की कोशिश की । 1 घंटे तक यह सब चलता रहा और काफी प्रयास करने पर अरुण और कुछ लोगों ने सभी तीन गायों को बाहर निकाला जो बुरी तरह से झुलस चुकी थीं और उनमें से एक गाय की ज्यादा जलने से मौत हो गयी । अरुण ने गायों का इलाज करने के लिए डॉक्टर को बुलाया जिसमें डॉक्टर के अनुसार बची हुई गायें बहुत ज्यादा जलने की वजह से उन्हें ठीक होने में काफी समय लगना था । तीन दिन बीतने के बाद अरुण की एक और गाय ने दम तोड़ दिया । अरुण और उसका परिवार बुरी तरह से सदमे में थे और अरुण के मुताबिक़ उसे समझ आ रहा था कि इस सबके पीछे प्रधान के पति का ही हाथ था । लेकिन अरुण जानते थे कि प्रधान एवं उसके पति के आर्थिक रूप से अधिक संपन्न होने की वजह से वह इस सबमें ज्यादा कुछ साबित नहीं कर पाएंगे ।

कुछ दिनों के बाद वन विभाग के चीफ कन्सर्वेटर की ओर से अरुण को लिखित जवाब और सड़क कार्य में की गयी कार्यवाई वाला दस्तावेज प्राप्त हुआ । जिसके अनुसार पूरी जांच करने के बाद जिला वन अधिकारी एवं रेंज ऑफिसर और फॉरेस्ट गार्ड को इस पूरे प्रकरण में दोषी मानते हुए निलंबित कर दिया और उन पर कुल 1 लाख रूपए का जुर्माना भी किया गया । जिस जगह से सड़क निकाली जा रही थी उसे बाड़ लगाकर सील कर दिया गया ।

अरुण आज भी डेयरी का ही काम करते हैं लेकिन इस पूरी घटना से अरुण की आर्थिक एवं मानसिक स्थिति पर कितना प्रभाव पड़ा इसका आकलन करना मुश्किल है ।

इस बात से कतई इन्कार नहीं किया जा सकता कि आरटीआई एक बहुत शक्तिशाली उपकरण के रूप में उभरा है लेकिन यह भी सच है कि इस क़ानून के अस्तित्व में आने के बाद से ही कई तरह की घटनाएं सामने आती रही हैं । अतः सरकार को यह शायद सुनिश्चित करने की आवश्यकता है कि जिस प्रकार आवेदनकर्ता को सूचना पाने का हक़ उसका अधिकार है, उसी प्रकार उसकी सुरक्षा के लिए भी इस कानून में संशोधन किया जाना परम आवश्यक है ताकि आवेदनकर्ता भयमुक्त होकर भ्रष्टाचार के खिलाफ अपनी लड़ाई लड़ सके ।

कुछ सुझाव…

आवेदनकर्ता को अंदेशा हो कि उसके जान-माल की हानि हो सकती है तो ऐसी स्थिति में:

वह जहाँ पर अपील कर रहा है वहीं के लिए एक अपनी तरफ से सचेत पत्र भी लिखे । इस पत्र में आवेदनकर्ता स्वयं एवं उन सभी व्यक्तियों के बारे में जानकारी साझा करे जिनसे उसे नुकसान होने की आशंका हो । पत्र की प्रतिलिपि जिला उपायुक्त, उप प्रभागीय न्यायाधीश एवं स्थानीय पुलिस अधिकारी के नाम से अवश्य करें
इस प्रकार के पत्र हमेशा रजिस्टर्ड पोस्ट द्वारा ही भेजे जाने चाहिए जिस पर कोई भी विभाग निश्चित रूप से ध्यान देते हैं
ऐसे किसी भी पत्र, शिकायत एवं अपील की एक कॉपी हमेशा अपने पास संभाल कर रखें ताकि समय आने पर वह काम आ सके
पूरी जानकारी एवं आवश्यक दस्तावेज अपने ख़ास विश्वासपात्र लोगों के साथ अवश्य साझा करने चाहिए ताकि यदि आवेदनकर्ता के ऊपर किसी प्रकार का कोई भी संकट आये तो वे लोग भी दृढ़तापूर्वक उसके पक्ष में अपनी बात रख सकें

Crafting a Meaningful Measure for Corruption: Some Suggestions

My last three blogs have been a critique of a recent study undertaken in India, which attempted to measure both the perceptions and incidence of corruption in India. As explained, the greater attention paid to perception of corruption rather than incidence, and the lack of enough samples to come to any definitive conclusions on the service-wise and state-wise incidence of corruption undermined the value of the Study.

That begs the question then; what would comprise a meaningful study of corruption?

The answer is not an easy one, as it commences with finding answers to another question; what are the boundaries of ‘Corruption’, itself?

These were some of my thoughts when I was invited a few years back, to attend a Workshop on ‘Global Governance by Indicators – Measuring Corruption and Corruption Indices’, conducted by the European University Institute in Florence, Italy. The circulated background note for the Workshop set the tone for the deliberations, as follows:

“The workshop on ‘Global Governance by Indicators – Measuring Corruption and Corruption Indices’ brings together scholars and policy-makers to promote mutual understanding and learning about the role of corruption indicators in evaluating global governance.

It focuses on the measurement of corruption as a phenomenon of political, institutional and social reality and practice that is not inherently “countable”. The measurement of this phenomenon heavily depends on more or less complex aggregations of indicators that construct a certain countable and measurable object. The choice of indicators to measure corruption may vary considerably according to the institutional, political and/or national contexts in which they are developed.

Notwithstanding these uncertainties, corruption indicators are influential. They exert formal or informal pressure on actors’ behaviour and policies, although in a manner and quality somewhat different to authoritative international policy or legal instruments. This particular characteristic directs the workshop’s attention towards important questions concerning the exercise of public authority at global governance level, including: the use of corruption indicators to measure compliance with international norms; legitimacy and accountability for the production of corruption indicators which generate ‘governance’ consequences; political steering and regulation as well as epistemic community-building, policy-learning and (expert) knowledge-sharing related to the measurement of corruption.”

The first sentence encapsulates all the difficulties associated with the task of measuring corruption; that it is not inherently ‘countable’. In spite of efforts to standardize the world view of what constitutes corruption, the legal codes of different countries define corruption differently. Furthermore, if corruption is a deviation from ethical standards, who sets those standards? Does not the social measurement of ethical standards vary considerably across societies? Clearly, therefore, measurement of corruption has to be based on ‘complex aggregations of indicators that construct a certain countable and measurable object’. Thus, indicators for corruption in surveys often trespass into the areas of larger good governance indicators that look at the wider landscape of sustainable development and sustainable public finance. Lastly, the choice of indicators is also driven by the impact desired from such surveys. Is it meant to improve the legal and formal standards, or to improve cultural and social standards through propelling and supporting civil society and raising awareness?

I actually favour the former approach. To me, the value of a study that is primarily faced towards the government is higher than that focused on the people alone. The reason is that a government facing study lends itself better to double duty; it might have great lessons for public action, while something that is directed to raising awareness amongst the people might still be ignored by the government. A government facing study on corruption will also link back easier to the task of improving legal systems, law enforcement processes and government data collection and statistical systems. I also like the idea of scientific and scholarly critiques of indicators feeding back into the policy of making indicators. If we know more about how indicators are formulated, by whom and for what reasons, we will have a stronger focus on enforcement and end results. For example, a pointed set of studies on public procurements, focusing on critical sectors such as energy, mining, land, water, healthcare and pharmaceuticals, construction and infrastructure, engineering, telecommunications, IT, and financial services, banking and investments, will yield far more results than conducting a series of interviews with people to ascertain their views about corruption.

A mere ranking of States or processes on a scale of corruption does not per se improve anything, except providing grist to a media mill.

सच्चाई की जीत

This is the fourth part of an eight-part series on the challenges and life hacks in experiencing and accessing government benefits and services.

कुछ दिन पहले वैशाली जिला के एक पंचायत में अपने अधिकार कि मांग को लेकर ग्रामीण जनआंदोलन कर रहे थे | मुद्दा था, सार्वजनिक जन वितरण प्रणाली (PDS) योजना जो भारत और राज्य सरकार के संयुक्त सहयोग से वर्षो से चलाई जा रही थी | इस योजना से करोड़ो ऐसे परिवार (भूमिहीन कृषि मजदूरों, रिक्शा चालकों) जिन्हें दो वक्त के खाने के लिए अनाज अत्यधिक रियाती दर पर उपलब्ध किया जाता था | सरकार संकल्पित है की प्रत्येक परिवार को उचित दर पर योजना का लाभ पहुचाया जाए | परन्तु जमीनी हकीकत कुछ और था , सरकारी दावे खोखले साबित हो रहे थे | अनाज पूरी तरह उपलब्ध नहीं हो पा रहा था |

पंचायत के कुछ सीमांत किसान और मजदूर राशन कार्ड लेकर सार्वजनिक वितरण प्रणाली केंद्र पर गए | जहां उन्हें उनके परिवार के लिए अत्यधिक रियाती दर 2 रु. प्रति किलो गेहूं और 3 रु. प्रति किलो चावल उपलब्ध कराया जाना था | PDS चलाने वाले डीलर उन्हें अनाज उपलब्ध करवाते थे | परन्तु जितने महीने का राशन उन्हें मिलना चाहिए था और जितना किलो मिलना चाहिए था उतना नही मिल पाता था | यह स्थिति वर्षो से चली आ रही थी | मजदुर और किसानों के द्वारा आवाज उठाए जाने पर भी कुछ असर नही हो रहा था |

हमेशा कि तरह जन वितरण प्रणाली (PDS) के संचालक के द्वारा उन्हें यह बाताया जाता था कि सरकार के द्वारा 12 महीना के लिए अनाज आवंटित नही किया जाता है | साथ ही साथ वजन में भी कम दिया जाता है | अत: संचालक आपको प्रत्येक महीना अनाज उपलब्ध नही करा सकता है | हमेशा की तरह वह व्यक्ति वजन में कम अनाज लेकर वापस अपने घर आ जाता था |

एक दिन वह लाचार और विवश मजदुर शिकायत लेकर (MO) प्रखंड आपूर्ति पदाधिकारी के पास गया | जहां उसे निराशा हाथ लगी | उसे जो संचालक के द्वारा बाताया गया था वही बाते MO के द्वारा भी बताई गयी | इन्होने ने हार नहीं मानी| एक दिन पंचायत के सभी मजदुर मिलकर प्रखंड विकास पदाधिकारी के पास शिकायत लेकर गए , और लिखित शिकायत भी दी | उनके द्वारा किए गए शिकायत पर अमल नही होने के कारण वे सभी सड़क पर बैठ गए | PDS संचालक (डीलर) के खिलाफ जांच की मांग की | सड़क बंद हो जाने से आम से खास व्यक्ति तक की परिवहन व्यवस्था बाधित हो गई | जिसके कारण प्रशासन भी दहशत में आ गए थे |

प्रखंड विकास पदाधिकारी से लेकर जिला स्तर के पदाधिकारी तक को धरना स्थल पर पहुचना पड़ा | स्थिति ऐसी हो गई कि उस संचालक के खिलाफ जांच कि गई| धरना स्थल पर माहौल ऐसा बन गया कि प्रत्येक उपस्थित व्यक्ति के अंदर संचालक के प्रति आक्रोश और शिकायत के भंडार का चिट्ठा खुल गया |

जिला पदाधिकारी के द्वारा जाँच टीम बैठाई गयी | पारदर्शिता और जवाबदेही सुनिश्चित करने के लिए सार्वजनिक वितरण प्रणाली से संबंधित रिकॉर्ड सार्वजनिक करने के लिए सामाजिक लेखा परीक्षा और सतर्कता समितियां बनाई गयी । और अंत में जांच के बाद सबकुछ ठीक हो गया | इस प्रकार से संचालक के द्वारा प्रत्येक महिने उचित दर पर पक्के वजन के साथ अनाज उपलब्ध कराया जाने लगा |

नियमानुसार संचालक को प्रत्येक महिना प्रत्येक व्यक्ति को 5 किलो अनाज देना चाहिए | यदि किसी को प्राप्त नही होता है तो उसे प्रखंड या जिला में शिकायत निवारण केंद्र में शिकायत दर्ज कराना चाहिए | शिकायत दर्ज करने में कितनी ही दिक्कत क्यों न आए लेकिन आपका मुद्दा अगर सही है तो उस पर अमल जरुर होगा |

A Useful Measure of Corruption; how it could be designed

If a mere ranking of States on a scale of corruption doesn’t mean anything, what is the solution to the problem of measuring corruption? A check on some of the approaches adopted worldwide, reveal some interesting ideas.

The first thing about a good corruption measurement mechanism is that it is inclusive and collaborative. For example, EU’s anti-Corruption reporting mechanisms are managed by a Committee of Ministers, supported by a group of experts selected from a wide variety of backgrounds, including the public and private sectors, law enforcement and the judiciary. These experts are selected through an open and transparent call and act in their personal capacities. The Committee of Ministers is supported by a network of local research correspondents. Surveys are conducted among the general population in any member states every two years, and is based on face to face interviews, covering a sample of about one thousand respondents. There are individual country wise chapters and tailor made recommendations for each country. In addition, one particular sector, say, public procurement across different sectors of the economy, is targeted for thematic focus in each report. The surveys cover both perception and questions on personal experience with corruption.

Another approach is to interlink the measurement studies on corruption with other surveys. For example, one could compare happiness and quality of life with corruption. Transparency International and World Bank have conducted surveys that links control of corruption with indicators of government effectiveness. Similarly, one could link studies on corruption with indices that measure the extent of free and fair competition, or the ease of doing business. However, when linking surveys for different facets of governance with measurement of corruption surveys, one must take care to note that several of these indices use the same sources of information for their data analysis. In such circumstances, correlation between surveys is not advisable, as that would amount to double counting of the same indicator.

A third facet of measuring corruption, somewhat obliquely though, is to use data concerning enforcement of criminal laws against the corrupt. However, here too, data may be misleading. For example, if crime statistics show spikes of anti-corruption complaints and cases, it may not mean that corruption has increased. It may be a reflection of the efficiency of the judicial system rather than the prevalence of crime. Furthermore, the lack of complaints against corruption reflected in the judicial system may be a result of a lack of confidence of the people in whistleblower protection laws. One can overcome these sources of prejudice in research through different methodologies. Thus, for example, Transparency International studies go beyond crime and court prosecution statistics to look into the actual content of court cases; to understand who the passive and active actors are and in what contexts they are engaged in corrupt transactions. However, the moment one goes beyond quantitative indicators to qualitative ones, the methodology of the research becomes complex, increasing its costs in terms of money and time.

We then may be forced to take a second look at perception reports once more, namely, to use soft data to measure the social understanding of corruption. Such surveys are usually culture sensitive and may be misleading. I once heard a person who was experienced in conducting such surveys saying that if one asked people whether they would report instances of corruption, across the world they tend to largely reply in the affirmative, simply because (a) it is politically correct to say so, (b) concealing corruption may invite criminal action and (c) people want to say things that you want to hear. He said that in democracies that were till recently dictatorships, people also thought it was ‘wrong’ to report on others, because dictatorships had given a bad name to the habit of snitching on neighbours. Thus, a lot of people lie in surveys, about their involvement with and knowledge of the phenomenon of corruption. Nevertheless, it is important to pay care and attention to those who answer in the negative to such questions; that would be a measure of the lack of confidence of people in whistleblower protection arrangements.

Cutting across all methodologies, using surveys to measure corruption requires careful consideration of a series of methodological options. How one designs sampling is important; over representation of certain segments may give a distorted view of the problem. The placement of questions is important, because a wrong approach can mean a break in the train of thought of the one surveyed. Scaling of answers is important – a five point scale would invite a large set of people to seek to remain non-committed; in the centre of the scale. The length of the questionnaire and the type of survey procedure (face to face, email, and phone or internet based surveys) all can affect interest of the participant and veracity of the responses. Sadly, in practice, questionnaires are often copied and pasted from existing surveys, without developing and integrating a theoretical model underpinning the data collection process.

Measuring People’s Thoughts, or Corrupt Transactions?

I ended my last blog by observing that questionnaires on corruption related surveys are often cut and paste jobs from earlier surveys, with little thought given to the particular context or environment in which a survey is proposed to be conducted. This is particularly harmful when attempting to measure corruption, because of wide ranging perceptions of which transactions constitute ‘corruption’, held by different cultures, legal systems and nations.

A researcher from Europe once observed in a panel discussion that I was part of, that there is a North/South divide in the definition of corruption. She averred that the distinction between ‘grand’ and ‘petty’ corruption is an artificial one created by the North and is, for the most part, applied to monitor behaviour in the South. There are double standards, she said. Therefore, anti-Corruption campaigns in the South single out relatively less harmful or merely dysfunctional behaviour in the South as ‘corruption’, when such acts are merely controversial in the North. Thus global corruption barometer surveys, comparison of civil society practices and such like, only reveal very broad trends across countries, she said, and could never provide solutions for reducing corruption, process by process.

That was quite a thought provoking statement for me, and took me back to understanding the value of what one had attempted to do, whilst running the ipaidabribe.com website.

For those who don’t know, I used to work in an NGO named Janaagraha that started a website named ipaidabribe.com, in 2010. For two years, I led the team that ran the site and played a key role in designing, rolling out and upscaling the efforts of the site. What the site did was to solicit experiences relating to corruption, from citizens, on a condition of anonymity.

Citizens’ reports were collected under three broad heads, namely, ‘I paid a bribe’, ‘I didn’t pay a bribe’ and ‘I did not have to pay a bribe’ (now named as ‘I met an honest officer’).

Apart from a drop-down menu that covered about 20 departments, 50 plus services and a column for indicating the volume of the bribe paid, the website did not prescribe any format for recording citizens’ experiences. People who logged into the site were able to write in as much detail as they wished. When public reports began to accumulate, we discovered that unstructured reporting had its advantages. People were writing in, describing their emotions when they paid the bribe. Those who successfully resisted corruption wrote in detail about the tactics that they used to beat corruption. Those who had the good fortune to meet an honest officer wrote in volubly about the honest attributes of these officers.

From the haze of the unstructured reports, trends and patterns began to emerge, once there were enough reports available for research. For example, from the multitude of reports – about 85 percent of all reports received – of people paying bribes, we began to recognise that those who paid bribes justified their action through reasoning that fell into a pattern. Most of those who paid bribes, felt a need for speed, which was tied to the idea of undertaking a process ‘conveniently’. Some paid because they were ignorant of processes and were unwilling to learn about them. They were taken in by misinformation by middlemen and agents. Many paid out of fear and nervousness, and even out of relief; they were generous when a major transaction in their lives were completed – such as the purchase of a flat – that they generously ‘tipped’ the government staff involved. Some paid in fear of justified, unjustified or excessive punishment. They were often persuaded by peers and mentors (Children who obtained driving licences said that their parents persuaded them to bribe, in order to avoid ‘trouble’).

The worst form of corruption was when people paid to avoid business loss, or paid for mutual benefit, to the detriment of the government’s interests – as in the case of undervaluation of properties to avoid payment of registration fees or property tax. Similarly, from the reports of those who successfully resisted corruption, we distilled 10 behaviour patterns or tactics that were effective in stopping the corrupt in their tracks. We termed these, the ‘Ten Commandments for Fighting Corruption’.

The emergence of patterns in why people paid bribes would not have happened if the crowdsourcing of reports was not through an unstructured manner. The very nature of ipaidabribe.com, as a forum where one could unburden oneself of one’s frustration and confusion at having been compelled to pay bribes, enabled the rich documentation of peoples’ emotional state while they paid bribes. From a survey standpoint, ipaidabribe.com probably unwittingly, stumbled upon the realisation that the indicators for corruption need not be structured, but they could themselves emerge through the process of crowdsourcing. Besides, because the site was a continuous collector of experiences, it enabled a real time monitoring of citizens expectations and experiences. It also had the potential to emerge as a tool by which those involved in process change could constantly obtain feedback on whether their reform efforts in cutting red tape or streamlining processes, were actually bearing fruit.

However, the question is whether the rich database in ipaidabribe.com was actually used to undertake a range of analyses that was possible. That is not for me to judge, but for users of the site. What is beyond doubt is that the potential of crowdsourcing as a survey methodology, remains as huge as it was, when the site was launched.

T R Raghunanadan, an advisor to the Accountability Initiative (AI) at Centre for Policy Research, is a pioneer on corruption work and was the programme head of the first website launched to address the issue called ipaidabribe.com. Understand corruption systemically; break down the different types of corruption and the various ways in which both the state and citizens can tackle it through this podcast.

Empowering Grassroots Governance Institutions

Ever wondered how government initiatives such as the Swachh Bharat Mission are implemented at the village and district levels?

Accountability Initiative’s PAISA Survey tracks the plans, budgets, fund flows, and decision making systems of these schemes.

As a senior official in the Elementary Education Department of Purnia district, Bihar, puts it: ‘The flow of funds through various levels of the government is very similar to the flow of blood from the heart to the various parts of the body. If there is blockage somewhere, it affects the entire body, so in that regard PAISA studies do the work of a physician’.

In late 2016, Accountability Initiative, as part of the PAISA Dialogues, took the results of the survey back to the district-level bureaucracy in 5 key states. These states were Bihar, Himachal Pradesh, Maharashtra, Madhya Pradesh and Rajasthan.

The objective of the PAISA Surveys and PAISA Dialogues have been to help find solutions to pressing challenges faced by ICDS, Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan (SSA) and Swachh Bharat Mission (SBM)

Here are 3 reasons why this process has been so unique:

• The PAISA survey is the country’s largest citizen-led expenditure tracking survey. It is based on rigorous research methods that focus on making the government process in delivering these 3 critical social sector schemes transparent. Many citizen volunteers take part in this effort. Backed by solid research from the PAISA Survey, the PAISA dialogues thus act as a catalyst of change by sparking discussions with the bureaucracy on how implementation of the welfare schemes can be made stronger in their regions.

• Are the schemes reaching the intended beneficiaries: By identifying implementation bottlenecks and the reasons that are contributing to making the schemes weak, the PAISA survey also asks critical questions such as – does the present structure ensure government allocated benefits are reaching the people? If not, what are the challenges and who is accountable to make right?

• Finding solutions, where it counts: Governance has a complex structure in India, and consequently the answers to where the roadblocks lie are not always obvious or simple. By looking at this system and following a bottoms-up approach, the PAISA studies process helps find sustainable solutions.

‘For instance, when we do the PAISA dialogue, we first talk to the teacher, cluster and block officer and then go to the district magistrate or state project director. By doing so, we take suggestions from all of these people to the higher levels of government. That along with our research has a great impact,’ says Dinesh Kumar, a senior PAISA Associate in Bihar.

If there is blockage somewhere, it affects the entire body, so in that regard PAISA studies do the work of a physician.

To know more about the PAISA Dialogues click here. Interested in governance, public policy and decentralisation? Tell us what you think by leaving a comment below!

Right to Whose Education?

This is the fifth part of an eight-part series on the challenges and life hacks in experiencing and accessing government benefits and services.

Sunil* hesitated when asked to take a seat next to me, constantly turning to look at his employer for support. His employer was speaking on his behalf in the beginning but as he started remembering the details of his story, the shyness melted away. I found out that behind the shy smile was a father determined to get his 4-year-old daughter admitted to a school where quality education is imparted.

Sunil hails from Jharkhand and has been employed with this South Delhi-based family since the past 17 years. He lives close by with his wife and two daughters aged 4 and 2. An illiterate man himself, he first heard of the Economically Weaker Section/Disadvantaged Group quota (EWS/DG quota) under the Right to Education Act (RTE Act) through his employer. The RTE Act mandates private unaided schools to reserve 25% seats in entry-level classes for students belonging to weaker sections. In Sunil’s case, his employers were and continue to be the primary catalyst in helping him achieve his dream.

It takes a village

To begin with, his employers informed him of the EWS/DG quota and encouraged him to apply. They took the lead on understanding the process – which websites to look at, admission dates, and the documents which would be needed for the admission. With their help, Sunil started preparing for the admission run six months before the admission cycle started. Sunil had to first get an Income Certificate made, something he had never done before, so it took him some time to figure out the process and multiple visits to the relevant office.

He was turned away for various reasons and after repeated attempts to get a certificate made, he had to go through an agent who charged him a high fee to get the job done.

Sunil also reached out to his relative whose child is admitted to the school of his choice through the EWS/DG quota to understand the peculiarities of the school. When the admission portal opened, his employers filled out the form for him since he is not computer literate and the admission form is largely in English.

When he got a call back from the school for document verification, he was asked to furnish his daughter’s Birth Certificate. He thought the other documents would suffice which included his daughter’s Aadhaar card. The official guidelines issued by the Delhi government states, “a written declaration/undertaking from parents about the date of birth is treated as a valid proof of date of birth of the child,” but the school insisted on the original Birth Certificate.

So began Sunil’s ordeal of travelling back to Jharkhand (where his daughter was born) and running pillar to post to get the certificate made. The panchayat offices back in his hometown are riddled with infrastructural issues – internet crashes, frequent power outages, limited capacity of workers.

When Sunil tried to visit the school to explain the situation and give the proof of application, he was turned away at the gate itself. In the meanwhile, the employers got in touch with people close to the Education Department to gain clarifications. They were advised to lodge a formal complaint against the school on the Department portal. They did the same, quoting all the relevant rules, and also wrote an impassioned letter about the challenges that first generation learners have to face. The Department replied promptly although it was a single sentence response – that the school had been directed to comply “as per rules”!

Sunil attempted to visit the school again with the Department’s response and the proof of his daughter’s Birth Certificate application because the office back in Jharkhand was taking longer than anticipated. He was turned away again. Assorted members of the employer’s family then accompanied him on later dates to get past the security guard. This time they were able to handover the file to the receptionist. Shortly after, they got a call from the school stating that his daughter had been given provisional admission on the condition that the Birth Certificate be furnished by July 1 2017.

This ordeal has been going on since March, and he’s yet to get his hands on that certificate even though he’s made multiple visits to his hometown aside from the constant telephonic follow up.

Long way to go

On their part, the Delhi Government has taken several positive steps to ensure EWS admissions take place smoothly – the entire process has been made online to ensure transparency and the grievance redressal portal is active. Last year, the Government spent a considerable sum advertising the dates and process of admission through radio jingles and newspapers. Local booths were also set up which were manned by volunteers who helped parents fill up these forms. A video has been uploaded on the EWS Admissions page which shows how to fill up the form step by step and the instructions are in Hindi.

Sunil’s experience, however, shows that there are many obstacles a poor person has to face even when they have several factors working to their advantage. In his case, the biggest reason why he was able to reach this point was because his employers helped him along the way, including overcoming obvious class biases in trying to gain entry into the school itself.

The challenges don’t just stop there. As Sunil continues to wait for the elusive Birth Certificate, anxious about the status of his daughter’s admission and her future, perhaps the biggest challenge he now faces is to keep himself from giving up.

*Name has been changed to protect identity.

The ‘Avoiding Accountability’ Series – A Case Study of Public Housing in Karnataka

In his series, T.R Raghunandan, author of Raghu Bytes (a collection of blogs on bureaucracy, governance and accountability) unpacks the successes and failures of accountability measures in the public housing sector in India. He does this by investigating how housing policies are designed, passed on and finally reach the beneficiary.

In his first blog, The Public Housing Sector – A Case Study of Karnataka, Raghu takes off the series by setting the context of public housing in Karnataka and the existing housing demands in the state. Further, he describes the subtle politics involved in decision-making for housing programmes and its impact on the programme itself.

The second blog, Beneficiary Selection for Housing Programmes, describes the actual process of beneficiary selection and the various powers at play at the local and state levels.

Rural Housing Wars in Karnataka; the Empire Strikes Back and Gets Shot Down, talks about the battle between Members of Legislative Assemblies (MLAs) and local governments in deciding the scale and character of who should benefit from the programme.

This conversation continues in the next blog, Frontal Assault Turns to Stealth: MLAs Sneak Back, building on how politics intrudes the intentions and implementation of the programme. It also speaks on the counter actions that emerged as a result, enabling a more participatory model of implementation.

The next blog, Law, Technology and Tensions, brings to light measures of accountability put in place, especially with new technology mediums. He offers the mixed impact this has had on the governance of the programme and the potential it could serve.

In his final blog, Saturation and Collaborative Construction; A Way Out of the Conundrum, Raghu brings the story to its finality by sharing learnings on the entire exchange between and within government that eventually led to way in which this programme was delivered at the last mile. He further presents the challenges to expect for this programme bringing the series to a close.

The series serves as an example of prominent factors that influence the delivery of public programmes (including the power play inherent in its application) as well as gives insight on the importance of participation, efficiency and accountability for publically run welfare programmes in the country.

Water Problems in a South Delhi Slum – Challenges of Access, Usage and Awareness

This is the second part of an eight-part series on the challenges and life hacks in experiencing and accessing government benefits and services.

The problem of acute shortage of clean drinking water is old for the streets of Gola Kuan, Okhla Industrial Area. Supriya (name changed) who works as an Asha (Anganwadi) worker in the community of Gola Kuan has been a witness to this problem since the past five years. The Tanker which is supposed to supply water in that community (a facility which started since Aam Aadmi Party came to power) caters to the basic needs of only twenty families out of a hundred, she explained. “The quality of water is poor and cannot be used for drinking purpose as there are foreign particles in it and it tastes bitter. Also, the water received through the pipeline is contaminated.”

Housewives have to walk some long distances to get water from the bore well. This also increases the economic burden on their families as they have to spend approximately Rs. 1000-1200 per month to buy clean drinking water from private shops. Families thus have to resort to adding chlorine tablets in the water as an alternate measure to keep their water clean (procured and distributed by Asha Workers under ‘family planning’).

The difference between “access to water” and “access to clean drinking water” is often not very well acknowledged by the Babus. Further, the issue is compounded by the fact that there is a lack of awareness on the right departments and authorities to approach in order to register complaints.

“..Vidhayak ke paas jaate hein. AAP sarkaar ke vidhayak ke paas mei 2 baar gayi thi. Likhit roop se kuch nahi diya tha bas bola tha unhe ki dikkat bohot hai. Unhone kaha ‘hum dekhenge’.”

(We went to the MLAs office. I went to AAP Party’s MLA who is in power to register the complaint. I did not submit any letter or form. I verbally communicated the problem and he said that he will look into the problem.)

Yes, approaching the Delhi Jal Board (DJB) would have crossed most of our minds. However, there were some crucial factors that the people of Goal Kuan had to weigh before settling for a course of redressal in this case. Instead, they approached the MLA in the area as a way to navigate the risks and bureaucratic hassles that came with the DJB (such as spending the whole day at the adhikaari’s office without the assurance of getting redressal and losing a day’s wage).

“..Vidhayak yahi ilaake mei rehte hein. Unke paas jana zyada araamdayak lagta hai. Vaise bhi madam itne saal hogaye koi dhang se toh kuch karta hai nahi. Agla MLA aayega toh election ke time pe suvidhayein mil jayengi uske baad ka koi nahi dekhta. Tanker ki suvidha bhi election ke baad AAP Party ke aane par hue thi. Usse pehele kabhi kuch nahi hua.”

(The MLA lives in this area. It is more convenient to approach him. Madam, it’s been so long since anyone addressed this problem – no one takes proper action to address it. We’ll get some services around elections but no one looks after the service once the election phase passes. The tanker facility also started after elections when AAP Party came to power.)

Where is the solution?

The Delhi Jal Board promises to supply sufficient quantity of water to its people. Approximately 1000 liters of water is to be provided to each family at a gap of 2 days or a week depending on the requirement, explained the DJB ‘helpline’ spokesperson when I phoned in. Talking about this particular area, pipelines are spread across the whole zone and tankers have been sent ‘hamesha se’ to cater to the needs of its people, explained an adhikari of DJB.

Well, it might sound easy at first to just pick up your phone, dial the toll free number and reach out to the authorities, as it has been advertised. But is it as convenient as it sounds? When I finally got through to the Delhi Jal Board’s ‘helpline’ the spokesperson suggested that I contact the Executive Engineer of that area. Navigating the matrix of zones and departments (like Water, Water sewer, Water maintenance etc.) listed on the DJB website and deciphering the confusing acronyms to finally get the appropriate phone number was a challenge to a comparatively technically sound person like me. The Executive Engineer further directed me to contact the Junior Engineer, without fully acknowledging the concern and information that I needed. On learning that I was no victim of this problem the Junior Engineer nullified the questions raised by saying:

“..Madam kya baat kar rahe ho aap. Yahan koi dikkat nahi hai. Paani properly supply hota hai. Aap office mei jaake baat karo.”

(Madam, what are you saying? There is absolutely no water problem (with respect to quality or quantity) in this area. Sufficient water is supplied. You please go to the office and have a conversation with the concerned person.)

Can a family of five living in a small room with an open drain right at the entrance of the room struggling to meet the need of ‘do waqt ki roti’ be expected to go through this whole maze for a ‘quick and easy redressal’? The lack of awareness on the ‘redressal systems’ and the problem of approachability attached to it doesn’t make for a very clear cut and convenient option for many. This is especially so for those who have to anyway fight daily battles of managing ‘dihaadi’, ‘paisa’ and ‘beemari’.

Possible measures to address water woes in Delhi

DJB Helpline Number: 1091 (Toll-free)
DJB Website: Homepage – http://bit.ly/1BqF6uh Contact address – http://bit.ly/2rWWixc
Other links: Citizen’s Charter charting out all possible procedural steps to be undertaken in case of water related troubles – http://bit.ly/2shyL7F
DJB representatives actively acknowledge problems and respond to complaints on their social media page (Facebook) – https://www.facebook.com/delhijalboardofficial/
In case the Citizen is aware of the ‘Zone Number’ of his/her area, then he/she can directly contact the ‘Junior Engineer’ associated with that area (number available on http://bit.ly/1CrOvAN)
Other contact persons: MLA or local representative of that area can be personally contacted regarding such issues.