P.K. Pal 1, A. Sarkar 2 and D.S. Gupta 3. P.O. Pundibari, Dist. Cooch Behar , WB 1

Transcription

1 J. Agric. Technol., 1(2): (2014) ISSN: Assessment of Panchayati Raj Institutions Performance towards Rural Development in Some Selected Backward Villages of Cooch Behar District of West Bengal P.K. Pal 1, A. Sarkar 2 and D.S. Gupta 3 1 Dept. of Agril. Extension, 2 Dept. of Agril. Economics, 3 Dept. of Agril. Statistics, Uttar Banga Krishi Viswavidyalaya, P.O. Pundibari, Dist. Cooch Behar , WB 1 pkpalubkv@gmail.com The present study was undertaken in the backward villages of Cooch Behar-II block of Cooch Behar district, West Bengal, India to assess the performance of the Gram Panchayats in respect of different development activities undertaken by the same. After the inception of Panchayeti Raj Institutions (PRI) in India and as a consequence of different constitutional amendments undertaken time to time to empower and authorize PRI, the overall development of the rural areas is mostly taken care of by this institution in an integrated manner. The present paper assesses the performance of the PRI in relation to transport and communication facilities, health and sanitation status, success status of government development programmes undertaken by PRI, literacy and employment scenario of the villages, agricultural development status etc. Some proxy indicators like villagers opinion regarding performance of the PRI have also been taken for assessment. The study reveals that the development status of the studied villages is on the lower side and concluded that the performance of the panchayats is not so impressive in the study areas in respect of different rural development aspects. Keywords: PRI, Performance Assessment, Development Indicators, Combine Development Score, Rural Development Aspect INTRODUCTION After the inception of Panchayati Raj Institutions (PRI) in India and as a consequence of different constitutional amendments undertaken time to time to empower and authorize PRI, the overall development of the rural areas is mostly taken care of by this institution in an integrated manner (Kadam, 2012). Plan documents of both the central and state governments and various committees have emphasized the importance of these bodies in the polity. Five-year plans, specially the second five-year plan, laid special emphasis on the role of Panchayats in rural developments. Second five-year plan envisage a panchayat was responsible for village development keeping transformation of social and economic life of rural areas as its goal of development. It says that, the rural progress depends entirely on the existence of an active organization in the village which can bring all the people, including the weaker sections, in to common programmes to be carried out with the assistance of administration. To achieve this objective the second Five year Plan entailed the panchayats to perform civic, developmental, land management, land reform and judicial functions. According to the Ministry of Rural Development (Govt. of India), rural development implies both the economic betterment of people as well as greater social transformation. In order to provide the rural people with better prospects for economic development, increased participation of people in the rural development programmes, decentralization of planning, better enforcement of land reforms and greater access to credit are envisaged. Based on the demographic data of 2001 census, a total number of 4612 revenue villages have been identified by the Panchayat and Rural Development Department, Govt. of West Bengal in 2004 as being the most backward in the state. These identified backward villages are spread over 1140 Gram Panchayats (out of a total of 3354 GPs), and in 245 Blocks (out of a total of 341 Blocks) in the state (Annonymous, 2009). Cooch Behar district also had declared 52 (fifty two) villages of this district as backward in two consecutive phases (Sarkar and Pal, 2010). Some extra developmental impetus has also been given in those villages to facilitate growth 95

2 Journal of Agriculture and Technology and prosperity in these villages by the local Gram Panchayat. In this backdrop, the present study was undertaken in selected backward villages in Cooch Behar district of West Bengal to undertake a comparative analysis of the development status of the selected backward villages and thereby to assess the overall performance of gram panchayat with respect to rural development. MATERIALS AND METHODS The present study was undertaken in the declared backward villages of Cooch Behar-II block under Cooch Behar district. The villages included under study were Multiguri, Ghierhari, Karisal and Ichamari- Chapaguri (all villages were declared as Backward by the District administration in 2003) (Sarkar and Pal, 2010). 100 respondents from each village were selected for primary data survey. Both the primary and secondary data were used to assess the development status of the village. Secondary data reported in various gram panchayat, block and district level reports. Primary data were collected through a pre-tested schedule prepared by the experts composed of social scientists from different educational institutions of the district under a project, Survey of Backward Villages sponsored by Uttar Banga Unnoyon Porshod through district administration. Except the schedule some participatory methods like Participatory ranking and scoring and Nominal Group Technique were employed. When a village or a community is exposed to different development interventions of various kinds, a general impact cannot be assessed by a single dimension which focuses on a sectoral benefit only. In such a case, impact assessment in its multifaceted form should be assessed from the quantitative as well as qualitative changes of livelihood factors, which can effectively be addressed by a composite measure/index (Foa and Tanner, 2011). A composite measure has the ability to summarise multi-dimensional issues in a single manner. It is possible to get a representative and tractable sense of the situation with a composite index. They have substantial ease to interpret from multiple benchmarks; or, they can provide scope for point-topoint comparison of two situations so as to identify the most vulnerable areas to concentrate upon. As proposed by Foa and Tanner (2011), the steps to be followed to develop a composite index are: (a) selection of suitable indicators which reflect the measure effectively [indicators may be selected from previous sources of same type of study or from the experts choice from a list of representative indicators selected for the specific study]; (b) assigning the scores to each indicators contributing to the composite measure [different methods for assign weights are (i) theoretically categorised weights (variable), if available for the selected indicators, (ii) use of statistical methods like regression analysis to measure the contribution of each factor (Etwire et al., 2013), or factor analysis methods (to concentrate large number of indicators into key variables ) (Foa and Tanner, 2011), (iii) assigning based on experts opinion, or (iv) simply assign equal weights for each indicator (in case of narrow selection of indicators especially for comparison of different areas) Kaufmann et al. (2007)]. However, the principal problem with the index based approach is that there is a great deal of arbitrariness at each of the stages. This arbitrariness leaves much scope for disputation. The aggregation of a variety of indicators into a single measure poses many difficulties (Planning Commission, 1981), since the choice of indicators does not necessarily reflect a prior analysis of relevant factors, there is as yet not acceptable method of aggregation. To overcome the disputation among the scholars regarding absoluteness of the composite indices, the present study although followed the method recommended by Foa & Tanner (2011) and Kaufmann et al. (2007), the composite measures were developed as composite score in the present study (Table 1). In selection of indicators, the European Evaluation Network for Rural Development (2010) suggested incorporating baseline indicators like educational (literacy rate or retention of girl students); jobs opportunity (labour migration or insitu job creation); road condition; power access; drinking water facilities etc., and programme-specific indicators like functioning of food and social security programmes (Annapurna Yojana, NOAPS etc.); health and sanitation programmes (TSC or immunization); infrastructural development programmes (IAY); Child literacy and nutrition (ICDS or mid-day meal etc.). In the present case, all the development interventions were categorized under the purview of infrastructure, health and sanitation, education and empowerment, employment, social welfare and fair-play politics. Fair-play politics is a new indicator adopted in this study. Political favouritism is one of the most crucial factors for even distribution of benefits for development. Subindicators (Table 1) under each broad indicator were selected from an experts relevancy test conducted prior to the study from a list of indicators collected from literature survey on PRI s development purview. 96

3 Assessment of Panchayati Raj Institutions Performance towards Rural Development The sub-indicators with relevancy score of more than 0.75 were finally selected to compute composite score of development. Equal weights were assigned for each sub-indicator but weights for broad indicators were developed from the experts view rounded off to nearest half. Where direct quantitative output was not possible, proxy indicators (dummy variables) were taken for measurement. Indicators, variables, scale values and sub-indices adopted for development of combine score has been indicated in Table 1. Combine Development Score is a proxy measure to assess the performance of the PRI. Combine score was calculated here as the weighted average of all the previous scores, viz. infrastructure development score, health and sanitation score, education and empowerment score, employment score, social welfare score and fair-play politics score. The weights for the indicators were fixed through standard scaling technique method (experts assigned averaged score rounded off to nearest half). Weights were assigned only for the broad indicators; sub-indicators were assigned equal score (Kaufmann et al., 2007). RESULTS AND DISCUSSION The performance of gram panchayat was assessed through the development status of the villages. The overall development scenario were grasped from the sectoral development aspects like infrastructure, health and sanitation, education and empowerment, employment, social welfare and fair-play politics. Section-wise Development Status From Fig. 1A on infrastructural development status of the villages, it is found that only one village namely Karisal had crossed the 50% mark (score value = 0.58) on infrastructural development. Karisal was a village which was nearest to the district town (Cooch Behar) among all the villages. Ghierhari was infrastructurally least developed (score value = 0.33) whereas Multiguri and Chapaguri attained moderate development in respect of infrastructure. Fig. 1B depicts the health and sanitation status in the villages. Regarding health and sanitation, all the villages attained moderate status (score value ranges from 0.43 to 0.63). Among the four villages Multiguri and Ghierhari had just crossed the 40% line in the Radar graph. The two villages were surrounded by the river Torsha in their four sides. In the devastating flood in 2001, the river Torsha bifurcated and detached both the villages from the main land which restricted the villages from accessing health facilities in all seasons. It may be the cause for which health and sanitation score value was lower. Fig. 1C presents the education and empowerment status of the villages which depicts the grim situation of the backward villages. In education and empowerment no village could cross the 50% cutline. Villages achieved more or less similar status in educational and empowerment status. Being hardreach, the female members of the villages Table 1: Indicators, Scale Values and sub-indices Adopted to Calculate Composite Score of Development (Adopted and Modified from Pal & Sarkar, 2012) Development Sectors (Broad Indicators) Infrastructural Development (2) Sub-Indicators Considered Method of Quantification Fixation of Scale Value Data Convergence Index Developed in this Study for Point-to- Point Comparison Road communication status Drinking water facility Participatory scoring (Score range 0 to 10) Percentage of people getting quality % 1 Infrastructural Status drinking water Educational Number of educational institute 3 1 infrastructure present in the village (Max No. 3 i.e. in pre-primary, primary and high school level) Power access Village electrified or not Yes = 1; No = 0 Financial infrastructure Existence of credit society Yes = 1, No = 0 Health infrastructure Existence of PHC (=3), Medical 3 1 dispensary(=2) or Quack medical centre(=1) Marketing infrastructure Existence of wholesale market (=3), 3 1 Retail market/hat (=2) or shop (=1) Table 1 (Contd.) 97

4 Journal of Agriculture and Technology Table 1 (Contd.) Health and Sanitation (0.5) Education and empowerment (1) Employment (3.5) Social Welfare status (1) Fair-play politics (2) Access to medical facility Immunisation status Participatory scoring (Score range 0 to 10) Percentage of children got immunised % 1 Health and Sanitation Existence of improved latrine Percentage of families having improved latrine 100% 1 Access to educational Participatory scoring (Score range 0 to 10 1 Education and facility 10) empowerment Score= Women literacy Percentage of literate women 100% 1 Average of scale values Women empowerment Percentage of women associated with 100% 1 for sub-indicators. status different organizations including SHG Marginal and nonworkeworker Percentage of marginal and non- 100% 0 and 0% Employment status 1 Status of MGNREGA Participatory scoring regarding 10 1 performance (Score range 0 to 10) Assistance from Percentage of eligible people getting 100% 1 Social welfare status different social Welfare assistance from different social programmes, welfare schemes (Annapurna, IAY and Old age pension) Satisfaction level of villagers regarding beneficiary selection of welfare programmes, collective decision making and planning and services of panchayet officials Percentage of people fully satisfied(p1) and percentage of people partially satisfied(p2) with these practices [fully = 1; partially = 0.5] Satisfaction(S) = p1+0.5*p2 Composite Development Score (CDS)=Weighted Average of all previous scores S = Fair-Play Politics Score = Average of scale values for sub-indicators. could not access regular education services and could not also form SHG groups significantly in the villages. Employment status was perceived as the most important indicator of development of the village by the villagers. The status of employment was depicted by Fig. 1D. Here also no village could cross the 50% line although the villages attained similar status on an average (score value ranges from 0.38 to 0.46). The villagers neither got regular job nor were they satisfied with the performance of MGNREGA, the Government mechanism for in-situ job creation. Fig. 1E on social welfare score presented a balanced picture on the status of social welfare among the compared villages. The scores range from 0.48 to 0.53 indicates that all the villages attained a moderate and similar welfare. Only Multiguri had crossed the 50% line. Multiguri was visited by the former Governor of West Bengal, His Excellency, Mr. Gopal Krishna Gundhi in 2007 and some extra impetus was given to this village towards the implementation of development activities; and this may be the cause that the village is slightly ahead of other backward villages in respect of access to the welfare programmes. Welfare of the villages were assessed though the access of different welfare programmes like Annapurna Yojana, Old age pension etc. and study revealed that the panchayats were not working satisfactorily in welfare aspects. Fair-play politics is a new indicator adopted in this study. As per the opinion of the villagers, political favouritism is one of the most important phenomena which determine the even distribution of benefits among the villagers. More it is fare more the village will be developed. But the picture revealed from Fig. 1F states that the politics plays negative roles towards development in the backward villages. Picture depicts that only 6% to 25% people perceived that the political play is fare. The panchayets directly control the political situation of the villages and the present study revealed that there was a strong political favouritism in distribution of welfare benefits. 98

5 Assessment of Panchayati Raj Institutions Performance towards Rural Development Fig. 1: Section-wise Development Status. A) Status of Infrastructural Development, B) Status of Health and Sanitation, C) Status of Education and Empowerment, D) Status of Employment, E) Status of Social Welfare, F) Status of Fair-play Politics Overall Development Status Table 2 represents the value of Composite Development score (CDS) of the backward villages under study. From the table it is found that the CDS values for Multiguri, Ghierhari, Karisal and Ichamari- Chapaguri are 0.432, 0.374, and 0.382, respectively. So, taking all the development aspects into account it is seen that no village could achieve 50% mark in the scale of overall development. Table 2: Overall Development Status of Backward Villages Among these four backward villages, Multiguri and Karisal attained highest CDS values whereas Ghierhari attained the least score in the development scale. However, the non-parametric ANOVA, the Kruskal-Wallis Test (H-value = 3.592) with associated p-value (0.309) indicates that the development status of all the backward villages are at par which is lower-moderate in rank. Villages Multiguri Ghierhari Karisal Ichamari-Chapaguri Composite Development Score Kruskal-Wallis Test H-value = (p=0.309) The study reveals that the overall development status of the studied villages are on the lower side and in all the development aspects undertaken, all the villages attained a low to lower-moderate status of development. Although in other aspects of development (infrastructure, health and sanitation, education and empowerment, employment, social welfare) the villages attained moderate development, but political favouratism as per the perception of the villagers plays negative role which hindered to attain good status of development and welfare. So, it can be concluded that the performance of the panchayats is 99

6 Journal of Agriculture and Technology not so impressive in the study areas in respect of different rural development aspects. From the results it may be recommended that the panchayats should be more careful in implementing developmental and welfare programmes without political favouritism. REFERENCES Anonymous (2009), Development Initiatives in the Backward Villages in West Bengal. Accessed from (accessed on ) European Evaluation Network for Rural Development Working paper (final manuscript) on Approaches for assessing the Impacts of the Rural Development Programmes in the Context of Multiple Intervening Factors. Accessed from html (accessed on ) Etwire, P.M., Al-Hassan, R.M., Kuwornu, J.K.M. and Osei- Owusu, Y. (2013), Application of Livelihood Vulnerability Index in Assessing Vulnerability to Climate Change in Northern Ghana, J Envn Earth Sci., Vol. 3(2), pp Foa, R. and Tanner, J.C. (2011), Methodology of the Social Development Indices. Accessed from resources/ Methodology of the Social Development Indices_jan11.pdf. (accessed on ) Kadam, R.N. (2012), Role of Gram Panchayat in Rural Development: A Study of Uttur Village of Mudhol Taluka, Bagalkot District (Karnataka), Int J Res Finance Marketing, Vol. 2, pp Kaufmann, D., Kraay, A. and Mastruzzi, M. (2007), Governance Matters VI: Aggregate and Individual Governance Indicators World Bank Policy Research Working Paper 4280, Washington, D.C. Pal, P.K. and Sarkar, A. (2012), Success Status of Government Development Programmes: An Experience from Cooch Behar District, West Bengal, India, Asian Rev Social Sci., Vol. 1(1), pp Planning Commission (1981), Report on General Issues Relating to Backward Areas Development (National Committee on the Development of Backward Areas). Planning Commission, Government of India, New Delhi. Sarkar, A., Pal, P.K. (2010), Relative Backwardness of Villages-a Case Study in West Bengal, Asian J Extn Edu., Vol. 28(1&2), pp