Exchange and Environment: Local Officials and Poverty Alleviation Policy in South India

204 Pages·2017·28.74 MB·English

Exchange and Environment:
Local Officials and Poverty Alleviation Policy
in South India
Rita Ingrid Gebert
A thesis submitted for the degree of
Doctor of Philosophy
of the Australian National University.
December 1988
Declaration
Except where otherwise indicated
this thesis is my own work
Rita Ingrid Gebert
December 1988
Acknowledgements
I have many debts of gratitude to pay in Tamil Nadu. First, to my friends and colleagues at the
Madras Institute of Development Studies. At MIDS I am obliged to Dr. C. T. Kurien, Institute Director,
who agreed to have me as an affiliate of the institute in 1985 and extended its facilities to me. A special
thanks to Dr. P. Radhakrishnan who read through and commented extensively on a number of chapters.
Mr. S. Guhan, Dr. K. Nagaraj, Mr. S. Subramaniam, V. K. Ramachandran, and Nasir Tyabji all helped
with discussions, data, and support. In Madras I also extend my thanks to Mr. N. Narayanan, IAS, who
took such great interest in my project.
In Tiruchirappalli my greatest thanks go to Venkatesh Athreya at Bharatidasan University who not
only helped me academically, also and probably more importantly, with Chandra, Hema and Poomima,
gave me a "home" in every sense of the word. Mr. S. Chenthil Kumar was a kind host in Tiruchi in 1985,
despite a busy schedule. Mr. G. Jothi and Mr. G. Majini in Tiruchi were my field assistants in 1985; their
dedication to the work and their good humour, at times in the face of adversity, were invaluable to me, as
was Mr. P. Arockiasamy’s village work in 1986. Thanks also to James Copestake of the Overseas
Development Agency for his friendship ... and his Enfield Mini-Bullet!
To the people we interviewed in the villages of Lalgudi and Thuraiyur in 1985 and 1986, an
enormous debt for their hospitality and their almost endless patience with my questions. Also thanks to
other administrative and non-administrative respondents for their time, patience, and willingness to
divulge information that could get them into trouble.
At the Australian National University I acknowledge gratefully the Faculty of Arts in providing me
funding for two field trips to India. I also thank the Political Science Department for its support, and
Nancy Viviani and others in the department who read and commented on draft chapters. Many thanks to
Harriet Mitchell and her colleagues in the Faculties Computer Unit who answered my queries about
Scribe. I have deep thanks to give to Dr. Robin Jeffrey at La Trobe University. His good-humoured
criticisms of draft chapters helped immeasurably. Thanks also to Drs. John and Merry Wood at the
University of British Columbia for comments and direction. My unlikely host in the United States while
finishing this work was the Chair of Excellence in Plant Molecular Genetics, University of Tennessee
(Knoxville); my thanks especially to Dr. Peter Gresshof, holder of the Chair, for agreeing to help out.
Most of all, however, my thanks go to Amo. His love and support across four continents (at last
count!) have given me the courage to see this project to its conclusion.
This thesis is dedicated to all those villagers who asked me, "What good is your research going to
do for us?" I am still uncertain as to what answer to give them.
iii
Abstract
This thesis examines the local development officials’ implementation in Tamil Nadu of a rural
poverty alleviation policy--the Integrated Rural Development Program (IRDP)--using resource exchange
theory. Resource exchange has not been used previously in the context of local administration. I argue,
however, that it offers a good explanation of the local administrator’s allocation of policy resources
because it sees this allocation in terms of his political and socio-economic environment. The official’s
environment in the community development block gives rise to many, sometimes conflicting, demands
for the resources under his control (thus severely his time). He exchanges policy resources with the
resource rich to satisfy as many of these demands as possible, and to gain valuable resources in return,
such as help in implementing other policies. By exchanging resources the administrator more easily
satisfies demands for resource allocations from politicians (who have some control over administrative
transfers and promotions), and from senior administrators who want program targets achieved.
Importantly, he also minimises the time he needs to spend with each policy.
I argue that the current, "management-style" development policy and administration literature,
which also reflects the attitudes of many senior administrators in India, is both ahistorical and
acontextual. Its authors fail to explain the local official’s implementation of rural development policy,
largely because they view him as acting either "pathologically" or "irrationally," rather than as responding
as best he can to the most important demands arising from his environment.
In terms of IRDP, which seeks to raise people’s incomes above the "poverty line" through
subsidised loans for "productive assets," the block officials have of necessity ignored most of its time-
consuming rules of implementation. They have met IRDP’s targets by trading a large percentage of its
resources to "loan brokers" who choose the program beneficiaries and complete program minutiae for the
officials in exchange for other administratively-controlled resources. These brokers, many of whom have
profited handsomely from IRDP, are little concerned with the poor beneficiaries’ welfare, and the latter
have seldom benefited from taking ERDP loans.
iv
List of Abbreviations
This is a non-exhaustive list of the bewildering array of abbreviations used in both written and
spoken "official English" in Tamil Nadu, and which appear in the thesis.
1. Officials 3. InstitutionsIDepartments
AHO-Animal Husbandry Officer DRDA—District Rural Develop­
AO-Agricultural Officer (bank) ment Agency
APO-Assistant Project Officer NABARD-National Bank for
BDO-Block Development Officer Agriculture and Rural
Development
DDO-Divisional Development Officer PEO-Program Evaluation
DRD-Director of Rural Development Organisation
GS-Gram Sevak RBI-Reserve Bank of India
PO--Project Officer RD&LA-Rural Development and
RDO-Revenue Divisional Officer Local Administration Dept.
-Rural Development Officer (bank)
RWO-Rural Welfare Officer 4. Other
UE-Union Engineer AL-Agricultural Labourer
VAO-Village Administrative Officer MF-Marginal Farmer
VLW-Village Level Worker SC-Scheduled Caste
SF-Small Farmer
2. Programs ST—Scheduled Tribe
DWCRA-Development of Women and Children
in Rural Areas
GMF-Grow More Food
IRDP-Integrated Rural Development Program
NMS-Noon Meal Scheme
NREP-National Rural Employment Program
RLEGP-Rural Landless Employment Guarantee
Program
SFDA-Small Farmers Development Agency
SSS-Self-Sufficiency Scheme
TRYSEM-Training of Rural Youth for Self-Employment
Table of Contents
Declaration i
Acknowledgements ii
Abstract iii
List of Abbreviations iv
1. Administering Poverty Alleviation: "Resource Exchange" Versus "Policy 1
Failure"
1.1. Introduction 1
1.2. Problems with ‘Failure’ and ‘Prescription* 6
1.3. Area and Methods 13
2. The Development Administration’s Structure and Function: Room for 16
Exchange
2.1. The Development Administration Cast 18
2.1.1. In The Block 18
2.1.2. The Division, District and Madras 25
2.2. The Development Administration: Structure and Style 28
2.2.1. Hierarchy—Manifestations and Circumvention 28
2.2.2. Targeting, Red Tape, and Staffing 31
2.3. Changing Responsibilities, Past Performance 33
2.3.1. Community Development to Green Revolution 34
2.3.2. Poverty Alleviation to the Fore 35
2.3.3. Family Planning 38
2.4. Conclusion 40
3. Resource Exchange in the Block: BDOs, Contractors and Politicians 41
3.1. Politicians and the Administrative Transfer 42
3.2. Politics and the BDO 45
3.3. The Opening Ceremony: Three Perspectives 47
3.4. The "Contract System" 49
3.4.1. The NREP ”Shelf 52
3.5. The Village: Politics and Administration 53
3.6. Conclusion 59
4. IRDP--Complexity of Design, Simplicity of Implementation 60
4.1. IRDP: Objectives and Program Elements 61
4.1.1. The Subsidy 64
4.1.2. Many Schemes, More Cows 67
4.2. IRDP in the Block: What Happens to the Rules 69
4.2.1. Block Planning 70
4.2.2. Popular Participation 74
4.3. District Officials 75
4.4. The Banks and IRDP 76
4.5. The Poverty Line: Sightings and Crossings 81
4.6. Conclusion 83
5. The Results of Resource Exchange: IRDP in the Villages 85
5.1. Resource Exchange: First Evidence 88
5.2. IRDP in the Villages 91
Vi
5.2.1. Profile One: The Village 91
5.2.2. Profile Two: The Milk Society President> the Milk Society 96
5.2.3. Profile Three: The Milch Animal 105
5.2.4. Profile Four: The IRDP Beneficiary 107
5.3. Non-Milch Animal Loans 124
5.4. A Note on the Non-Beneficiary 126
5.5. Conclusion 126
6. Resource Exchange-Theoretical Applications 129
6.1. The Resource Exchange Approach: Summary and Limitations 131
6.2. The Elements of Exchange 135
6.3. The Local Administrator in a *Perilous* Environment 140
6.3.1. Other Actors in the Block Environment 143
6.3.2. Brokers and Intermediaries 146
6.4. Resources 148
6.4.1. The Resource Bazaar 153
6.5. A Typology of Exchange Transactions 155
6.6. Conclusion 159
7. Conclusion: Room for the Poor? 161
7.1. IRDP: Summary and Future 161
7.2. Local Officials and ‘Development* Administration 163
7.3. Room for the Poor? 166
Bibliography 169
Appendix A. Two Development Officials’ Job Charts 188
Appendix B. The Integrated Rural Development Program and the National 193
Rural Employment Program: A Concise List of Malpractices
vü
List of Figures
Figure 6-1: The Block Development Official*s Environment 142
vni
List of Tables
Table 3-1: Tiruchirappalli District: Number of Operational Holdings and Area 57
Operated by Size Class
Table 4-1: IRDP in India-Performance in the Sixth Plan 62
Table 4-2: IRDP Spending in Tiruchi District, Lalgudi and Thuraiyur 65
Blocks—1980-1985
Table 4-3: The Stages of Block Planning 71
Table 4-4: IRDP in Tamil Nadu-Sixth Plan 82
Table 5-1: IRDP In Lalgudi (1981-85): Top 10 Recipient Villages (Total 89
Subsidies)
Table 5-2: IRDP In Lalgudi (1981-85): Bottom 10 Recipients (Total Subsidies) 90
Table 5-3: IRDP In Thuraiyur (1981-85): Top 10 Recipient Villages (Total 90
Subsidies)
Table 5-4: IRDP In Thuraiyur (1981-85): Bottom 10 Recipients (Total Subsidies) 90
Table 5-5: Lalgudi Villages: General Characteristics 92
Table 5-6: Thuraiyur Villages: General Characteristics 92
Table 5-7: Lalgudi Villages: Loan Distribution 93
Table 5-8: Thuraiyur Villages: Loan Distribution 93
Table 5-9: Population and IRDP Benefits: Top 10 Recipients in Per Capita Terms 94
Table 5-10: Sales of IRDP Milch Animals at Five Villages 107
Table 5-11: IRDP Beneficiaries Above the Poverty Line: Lalgudi and Thuraiyur 109
Table 5-12: ALs and SFs: IRDP Income /Expenditure Variables 114
Table 5-13: Agricultural Labourers* Ownership of IRDP Cattle: Options and
Profits
Table 5-14: Agricultural Labourers* Ownership of IRDP Cattle: The Second Year 116
Table 5-15: ALs * Three Year Options and Incomes 117
Table 5-16: Small Farmers* Ownership of IRDP Cattle: Options and Profits 118
Table 5-17: The Small Farmer: Three Year Incomes 119
Table 5-18: IRDP Cattle: The Impossible Optimum 119
Table 5-19: Non-Beneficiaries* Knowledge about IRDP (N=112) 126
Table 5-20: Non-Beneficiaries* Reasons for not Taking IRDP Loans 127
1
Chapter 1
Administering Poverty Alleviation:
’’Resource Exchange’’ Versus ’’Policy Failure"
The State shall, in particular, strive to minimise the inequalities in income, and endeavour to eliminate
inequalities in status, facilities and opportunities, not only amongst individuals but also amongst groups of
people residing in different areas or engaged in different vocations.
Directive Principle of State Policy
Constitution of India
Article 38, Clause 2
1.1. Introduction
Mrs. Gandhi’s much-publicised election slogan in 1971, "Garibi Hatao/," heralded the first major
political attention to poverty alleviation in India. Rhetorically, poverty alleviation policies are now the
centrepiece of the Government of India’s Five Year Plans, but in the community development blocks of
the country poverty alleviation has received much less attention from local administrators. In this study I
focus on the implementation of the Integrated Rural Development Program (IRDP) in two community
development blocks of Tamil Nadu.1 I use IRDP as a tool to examine the local development
administrator’s (especially the Block Development Officer’s) responses to his political and socio­
economic environment and argue that they lead to a tremendous divergence between rhetoric and reality
in poverty alleviation policy implementation in India.
India’s development administration has been little studied at the block level, although the latter is at
the centre of the Indian state’s rural development activities. The exceptions are Mook (1974) and
Heginbotham (1975) writing on Tamil Nadu, along with some articles in Farmer (1977) arising from the
"Cambridge Project" (based partly in Tamil Nadu’s North Arcot District). Some examples of district
level political and administrative studies are Kothari and Roy (1969), Miller (1972), Rosenthal (1977) and
Bjorkman (1979). The local level studies above were conducted at a time when development
administration in Tamil Nadu and other states was primarily responsible for agricultural extension work.
With the introduction of the World Bank-sponsored "Training and Visit" system for agricultural extension
in Tamil Nadu in 1982, the development administration there lost its jurisdiction over agricultural
extension (which had been its main responsibility) and became primarily responsible for poverty
alleviation policies. There have not yet been, however, any major studies undertaken of the "new look"
block administration. This new focus has meant in effect that senior administrators have made major
changes to the local officials’ responsibilities-from agriculture to poverty alleviation-without trying to
change their existing relations with rural elites.
1This is the development administration’s smallest administrative unit-comprised of anywhere from fifteen to fifty panchayat
villages and a population in a range of about 65,000 to 150,000 in Tamil Nadu—to which funds for development policy
implementation are disbursed. The funding available at the block has increased dramatically in recent years; twenty years ago the
funding available in the block, with agriculture, was seven or eight lakhs, it is now at least 50 to 60 lakhs, and upto a crore (a lakh is
100,000 and a crore is ten million) in some blocks.