Open Governance and Surveillance: A Study of the National Rural Employment Program in Andhra ...

152 Pages·2015·1.8 MB·English

by  Rajesh Veeraraghavan

Open Governance and Surveillance:
A Study of the National Rural Employment Program in Andhra Pradesh, India

by

Rajesh Veeraraghavan

A dissertation submitted in partial satisfaction of the
requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Philosophy

in

Information Management and Systems

in the

Graduate Division

of the

University of California, Berkeley

Committee in charge:

Professor AnnaLee Saxenian, Co-Chair
Professor Peter Evans, Co-Chair
Professor Paul Duguid
Professor Michael Burawoy

Spring 2015
Open Governance and Surveillance:
A Study of the National Rural Employment Program in Andhra Pradesh, India

Copyright 2015
by
Rajesh Veeraraghavan
1
Abstract

Open Governance and Surveillance:
A Study of the National Rural Employment Program in Andhra Pradesh, India

by

Rajesh Veeraraghavan

Doctor of Philosophy in Information Management and Systems

University of California, Berkeley

Professor AnnaLee Saxenian, Co-Chair
Professor Peter Evans, Co-Chair

This dissertation grapples with the questions: Does transparency lead to accountability?
Is it possible to "democratize" surveillance, turning surveillance into an instrument of
democratic control over state bureaucracy? Can a state bureaucracy combine visions of
surveillance within the state and "openness" to citizens to help police itself? To address
these questions, I studied an "open governance" project located in the Indian state of
Andhra Pradesh and involving the countrywide National Rural Employment Guarantee
Act (NREGA). I raise the questions about transparency and accountability at two
different levels: first at the level of the bureaucracy, and second at the level of the citizens
themselves. Looking at the two inevitably raises further questions of the power relations
both within the bureaucracy and between the state apparatus and the citizens it is intended
to serve. Looking within the bureaucracy, I show that local bureaucrats and politicians
have discovered ways to subvert these formal efforts of control through informal norms.
Looking at relations between the state apparatus and the citizens, I examine the
recruitment of citizens in two different social contexts, a class/caste-divided village and a
tribal community. Between the bureaucracy and the citizenry, I argue that the state has
attempted to construct a state-civil society "sandwich" to squeeze the lower-level
bureaucrats both from the top, using information technology, and from the bottom,
getting testimonies from workers by opening government records. Here, I find that
expectations of participation from below in response to transparency from above are not
met because workers fail to participate as expected. A central part of what follows
explores and delineates the multiple, complex reasons for this failure of the "public
sphere." Overall, these findings illustrate how hard it is to actually eliminate last-mile
corruption, even with sophisticated technological and social strategies. (Nonetheless, I
also find and lay out numerous potential benefits to this program.) In conclusion, I argue
that instead of the prevalent metaphor of "sunlight," open governance is better thought of
as a "flashlight" and that people embrace openness and reject surveillance depending on
whether they are the subject or the object of the "flashlight." This shift in metaphor helps
to raise more directly the inevitable issues of power.
i

  For
 Vidhya
ii

Acronyms, abbreviations and terms

Andhra/AP/Andhra Pradesh/Telugu land: A state in India. The state has three
regions: Rayalseema, Coastal Andhra, and Telangana. The main language is Telugu;
Hindi and Tamil are spoken in some regions.

MLA: Member of Legislative Assembly typically elected for a 5-year term.

Minister: The minister is the political head of a particular portfolio, like rural
development, health, or education.

Chief Minister: The chief minister is the political head of the state.

NREGA: The National Rural Employment Guarantee Act was enacted in 2005 to
guarantee employment (manual labor) for any eligible citizen in rural India. The name
was changed to Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act
(MGNREGA), in 2009, but people still refer to it colloquially as NREGA and hence this
document continues that practice. At the state level, it is referred to as the National Rural
Employment Guarantee Scheme (NREGS).

RTI: The Right to Information Act was passed in 2005, legislating the right of citizens’
to access public records.

Sarpanch: The elected village head.

Mandal: In Andhra, since the 1980s, the boundaries of governance has been shifted
closer to the village, replacing the administrative block used in other regions with the
mandal. A mandal typically represents about 20 villages as opposed to 40 villages in the
case of block.

MPDO: The Mandal Parishad Development Officer (MPDO) heads bureaucratic affairs
at the Mandal level.

Gram Sabha: A meeting of all adults in the village discussing various affairs of the
village. There are many kinds of gram sabha, one is the constitutionally mandated
meeting, which happens (or is supposed to happen) once or twice per year. Under
NREGA, there is also a requirement to conduct a gram sabha to decide the type of work
to be done and to convene the social audit to announce the findings of the work done.

Apna: Andhra Pradesh Non-government Association is a group formed by the rural
development bureaucracy to network.
iii
Reddy: A powerful landed caste in AP.

Untouchable: An English term used to refer to outcastes, that is, to those who are
considered impure and outside properly human caste groups.

Dalit: A contemporary, political term used to refer to those formerly known as
Untouchables. The term means "the oppressed" and signals allegiance to political
movements that fight for the equality of these groups in Indian society. Many young
people among the formerly Untouchable castes self-identify as Dalit.

Tribals: the aboriginals or the adivasis of the land.

Kamma: The other powerful caste in AP, mainly in the coastal districts of Andhra.

Congress Party: The current ruling party both of the Centre (federal) and the AP state
governments.

TDP: Telugu Desam party, formed in 1982 when the Congress Party monopoly was
broken in AP. Its leaders are from the Kamma caste.

CPM: Communist Party (Marxist).

CPI: Communist Party of India.

CPI (ML): The banned Communist party (Naxalite/Maoist).

MKSS: Mazdoor Kisan Shakthi Sanghatan, is a social movement in Rajasthan.

JJSS: Jan Jagaran Shakti Sangathan, is a registered trade union of unorganized sector
workers in Bihar.

Temporary field staff (bureaucrats) at the mandal level for NREGA:

Field Assistant (FA): The field assistant, as of this writing, is entrusted with the
responsible of giving work to the workers at the village level. The FA typically hails
from the same village where he works.

Technical Assistant (TA): The TA operates at the mandal level, as the technical person
in assisting with defining and measuring the work and monitoring the FA.

Computer Operator (CO): As the name indicates, operates the computer and is also at
the mandal level.

Engineering Consultant (EC): The EC supervises the TAs and are involved in
controlling work budgets.
iv
Table
 of
 Contents

Acronyms, abbreviations and terms.....................................................................................ii

Prologue....................................................................................................................................ix

1

 Introduction..........................................................................................................................1

1.1
 Openness
 and
 Transparency....................................................................................................................2

1.2
 Openness
 and
 Surveillance.......................................................................................................................3

1.3
 Participation
 and
 Public
 Sphere.............................................................................................................5

1.4
 Technology
 and
 Politics.............................................................................................................................9

1.5
 Method............................................................................................................................................................10

1.6
 The
 Structure
 of
 the
 Dissertation........................................................................................................16

2:
 The
 Case:
 NREGA
 in
 Andhra
 Pradesh.........................................................................18

2.1
 India's
 Political,
 Economic
 and
 Agricultural
 Context.................................................................18

2.2
 NREGA.............................................................................................................................................................21

2.3
 Andhra
 Pradesh’s
 Political
 and
 Administrative
 Context...................................................23

2.4
 Andhra
 Model
 of
 Governance:
 State-­‐Civil
 Society
 “Sandwich”..............................................29

3:

 Governmentality
 and
 Panopticism............................................................................30

3.1
 Introduction.................................................................................................................................................30

3.2
 Framework...................................................................................................................................................30

3.3
 The
 High-­‐Level
 Solution:
 Technology-­‐Mediated
 Adaptive
 Panopticon..............................31

3.4
 Seeing
 the
 Lower-­‐Level
 Bureaucrat...................................................................................................32

3.4.1 Digitizing the Muster Roll...............................................................................................................32

3.4.2 Live Capture and Uploading the Muster Roll to the "Cloud"..............................................32

3.4.3 Forcing Location-Enhanced Muster Roll....................................................................................33

3.5
 Micro-­‐Practices...........................................................................................................................................33
v
3.5.1 Controlling the Document Remotely............................................................................................33

3.5.2 Modify Circulars Through Software Patches............................................................................34

3.6
 Weapons
 of
 the
 “Corrupt”......................................................................................................................35

3.6.1 Partial Digitization..............................................................................................................................35

3.6.2 Patches Interrupted.............................................................................................................................35

3.6.3 Political Interference..........................................................................................................................36

3.6.4 Hiding Behind the Computer..........................................................................................................36

3.6.5 Location-Based Tracking Reports.................................................................................................37

3.7
 Conclusion:
 Surveillance
 as
 a
 Desirable
 Measure.......................................................................37

4:
 Creation
 of
 the
 Social
 Audit
 Institution.....................................................................41

4.1
 Introduction.................................................................................................................................................41

4.2
 The
 Rationale
 and
 Rhetoric
 of
 Social
 Audits..................................................................................42

4.3
 Bootstrapping
 Social
 Audits
 in
 Andhra
 Pradesh..........................................................................48

4.3.1
 The
 “Food
 for
 Work”
 Pilot
 Program...............................................................................................48

4.3.2
 The
 Anantapur
 Social
 Audit...............................................................................................................52

4.3.3
 The
 Current
 Institutional
 Audit
 Structure...................................................................................55

5:

 The
 Politics
 of
 Open,
 Social
 Audit
 Meetings............................................................59

5.1
 Introduction.................................................................................................................................................59

5.2
 Fully
 Bureaucratized:
 State-­‐Mandated
 Gram
 Sabha...................................................................60

5.3
 A
 Political
 Party
 Meeting:
 Raccha
 Bandha
 (RB)
 Meeting..........................................................65

5.4
 A
 Social
 Audit
 Meeting:
 Breaking
 the
 Script...................................................................................67

5.5
 The
 Fight
 Over
 Control
 of
 the
 Gram
 Sabha.....................................................................................77

5.6
 Conclusion.....................................................................................................................................................82

6:

 Caste,
 Class
 and
 NREGA
 in
 Kurnool............................................................................84
vi
6.1
 Introduction.................................................................................................................................................84

6.2
 An
 Overview
 of
 the
 Village.....................................................................................................................86

6.3
 The
 Reality
 of
 NREGA
 Work
 in
 the
 Village......................................................................................88

6.4
 The
 Reddy
 Perspective
 on
 NREGA.....................................................................................................90

6.5
 The
 Workers’
 Perspective
 on
 NREGA...............................................................................................94

6.6
 The
 Local
 Bureaucracy
 Prepares
 for
 the
 Audit.............................................................................98

6.7
 Encounter
 with
 the
 Auditors..............................................................................................................102

6.8
 Conclusion...................................................................................................................................................104

7: Tribal Communities and Meaningful Work..............................................................107

7.1
 Introduction...............................................................................................................................................107

7.2
 The
 Tribal
 Context...................................................................................................................................108

7.3
 The
 State
 "Seeing"
 the
 Tribals............................................................................................................110

7.4
 The
 Work
 Culture
 of
 the
 Tribals........................................................................................................113

7.5
 Tribal
 NREGA
 Work................................................................................................................................115

7.6
 Conclusion...................................................................................................................................................117

8: Conclusion: Democratizing Surveillance....................................................................119

8.2
 Using
 the
 Flashlight
 Within
 the
 State..............................................................................................122

8.3
 Democratizing
 Surveillance
 by
 Embedded-­‐Autonomous
 Institutions.............................123

8.4
 Politics
 (or
 lack
 thereof)
 in
 Public
 Meetings................................................................................124

8.5
 Disaggregating
 Citizens.........................................................................................................................125

8.6
 Community
 Solidarity
 as
 Opposed
 to
 Openness........................................................................126

8.7
 Theoretical
 Contributions....................................................................................................................126

Bibliography.........................................................................................................................131
vii
Acknowledgments

I want to first thank (and blame) a few people who were responsible for planting the
desire in me to pursue a Ph.D. I want to thank Eric Brewer who first planted the seed of
research in my mind. Kentaro and Anandan hired me at Microsoft Research (MSR) on
"faith" and seduced me to pursue a career in research. Kentaro has been my supporter,
mentor, and friend over this past decade, always challenging me forward. I want to thank
Keniston and Balaji who showed me the promise of doing in-depth field work. I want to
thank Rikin, Udai, Aishwarya, Indrani, Vibhore, Sean, Jonathan, Prasad, Sriram,
Kumaran, Joseph, Neeharika, Rohan, Anmol, Deepak, Dhilip, Renee, Savita, Saurabh
and many others at MSR who made my initial foray into research a pleasurable endeavor.
I want to thank Rikin for showing me that research could lead directly to practice. The
main reason I chose to come to Berkeley was Joyojeet, who continues to be a great
inspiration for me and has been a solid person to counsel with and always a "chat" away!

At Berkeley, I have been lucky to have the incredible support of my committee members.
I want to thank Anno who has been such a generous, warm champion always managing
to be always optimistic about my growth as a scholar. I still fondly remember her
statement about how the Ph.D. is just an institutionalized process that gives a cover to
engage in field work and to think deeply about the world. She has been a guiding light
through the process. I want to thank Michael for being the "fearsome" Burawoy that he
is, teaching me so much about social theory and for instilling in me a set of theoretical
lenses that have shaped my work. I want to thank Paul and Peter, for going above and
beyond any reasonable advisor would possibly go to support a student. They were truly
the apostles! They were there every step of the way - qualifying exams, teaching how to
think analytically and write, being there to work through the difficulties of fieldwork, and
finally the last push for getting this out. Thank you Paul for reading multiple drafts of the
dissertation and giving me extensive comments on each draft. Thank you Paul for your
banter about cricket in a land where that word seems to only resonate with bugs. Thank
you Peter for grasping the essence of what needs to be done in each draft and guiding me
forward. I want to thank Coye, Tapan, Jenna and John for supporting me. Coye you were
right about asking me about "trust" in the qualifying exam. I fondly remember my
formative theory course with Gill that led me on this journey. I also want to thank the
support team at I School, particularly Meg and Lety for helping me with many
administrative matters over the years with such ease. I want to thank Rachel and Ursula
for their editing help.

I want to thank Bob who has been a supportive fellow dissertation writer. I am so lucky
to have met you and so grateful for everything. Knowing you was the highlight of my
stay at Berkeley. I want to thank Vivek for being there to support me intellectually
through this process. Thank you for all those discussions over the past years.

I want to thank my friends and "cohort" who have shaped my intellectual journey here at
Berkeley. I want to thank Janaki, who has been a trailblazer for me. Thanks for all the
discussions over the years. I want to thank Dilan, Josh, Yuri, Elisa, Ashwin, Neha,
Megan, Becky, Gabe, Edwin, Ben, Zach, Dan, Judd, Liz, Melissa, Laura, Galen, Christo,