Accountability PDF

Executive voice
culture
agencies
rights
Institutions
media
civic participation
citizens
policy justification hierarchy responsibility literacy
acts bureaucracy
information
improve Public solicit implementation
impartiality
Accountability
involve
Judiciary
tolerance
trust open reform
bills
regulations
democracy
action
decisions control
elections
perform
infrastructure
transfers
Legislature authority
performance
sanction
enforce
monitoring liability
laws
independence transparency enforcement
The Power of Public Accountability
Executive Summary
November 2009
Jay P Desai
Founder & CEO
Universal Consulting India Pvt Ltd
Universal Consulting India Pvt Ltd | Shivsagar Estate D | Dr Annie Besant Rd | Worli | Mumbai 400 018 | India
Tel + 91 22 66222100 | Fax + 91 22 66222111 | www.universalconsulting.com
The Power of Public Accountability, Nov 2009 1 Copyright © Jay P Desai, 2009. All Rights Reserved
CONTENTS
1. Background of our Research Study
2. Summary of Research
3. Introduction to Public Accountability
4. Why Public Accountability is important
5. Factors impacting Public Accountability
6. Strengthening Public Accountability
Appendix
A. Citizen’s Survey
B. Civil Society Organisations interviewed
C. Acknowledgements
D. References
BACKGROUND OF OUR RESEARCH STUDY
In December 2008, triggered by the 26/11 terror attacks in Mumbai, we initiated a year-long
research study to understand the landscape of public accountability in India
Objective
The 26/11 terror attacks in Mumbai brought into sharp focus the absence of public accountability in our country
This research study was designed to increase the awareness and understanding of public accountability, among citizens and
corporates of India
Research Methodology
The study involved an extensive review of the current literature, to help us understand the landscape of public accountability
in India
The study looked at 60-100 democracies around the world, to understand the varying levels of public accountability and
governance among them and correlated this data with key socio-economic factors in these countries
Between Jan-March 2009, we also conducted interviews with individuals at 34 Civil Society Organisations that are actively
involved in the area of public accountability
We conducted a survey of 358 urban citizens of India, to understand their perspective on public accountability
The study identified the foundations of robust public accountability and examined the weaknesses of the existing internal and
external accountability mechanisms, for all three arms of the Indian government, i.e. the Legislature, the Executive, and the
Judiciary
Based on this systems analysis, we recommend several improvement initiatives to strengthen public accountability
We also identify areas where corporations and citizens can provide support, to help improve accountability in our public
administration, over the medium-long term
CONTENTS
Appendix
C. Acknowledgements
D. References
SUMMARY OF RESEARCH
The findings of our year-long research study, suggest the following:
1 The quality of governance in a country is highly correlated with the country’s economic and social
performance. Public accountability is a powerful lever that can be used to improve the quality of governance
2 Public accountability is impacted by socio-economic factors and the institutional structure of a country
3
Some socio-economic factors that are commonly perceived to be the drivers for low public accountability in
India, have only weak to moderate correlation with public accountability
4
Unfortunately, India’s global ranking on those socio-economic factors that have moderate to strong
correlation with public accountability, is low
5
Public accountability rests on four foundations; Appropriate Representation, Citizen’s Participation,
Legitimate Conduct and Liability Enforcement
Internal and external accountability mechanisms exist, but are not implemented effectively, weakening the
6
four foundations of public accountability in India
To reinforce the foundations of public accountability, improvement is required in six areas; Information,
7
Impartiality, Implementation, Infrastructure, Independence and Involvement
A burst of governance reforms, similar to the economic reforms post-liberalisation, is required to gradually
8
raise the level of public accountability in India
Source: UC Analysis
CONTENTS
Appendix
C. Acknowledgements
D. References
INTRODUCTION TO PUBLIC ACCOUNTABILITY
Public Accountability is the responsibility of public officials to justify their conduct

and performance to citizens using accountability mechanisms. It is also the
responsibility of citizens to extract accountability from public officials
Policies or institutions
Accountability through which public
Mechanism officials can be held
accountable
Agents to whom public Public officials working

officials are accountable; Rights Holder Duty Bearer
Agent of
for a Government
Citizens, Civil Society Object of
Accountability Accountability
department or agency
Organisations, Media
Source: Wignaraja, Kanni. “Mutual Accountability Mechanisms: Accountability, Voice and Responsiveness.”, UNDP Development Group (2006); Bovens,
Mark. “Public Accountability.”, The Oxford Handbook of Public Management, E. Ferlie, L. Lynne & C. Pollitt (Eds.), Oxford: Oxford University Press 2005
INTRODUCTION TO PUBLIC ACCOUNTABILITY
Public Accountability in India today, is still influenced by the socio-economic and

institutional structure of our past
3500 yrs 2500 yrs 1500 yrs 200 yrs 62 yrs Years Ago
Vedic Age Ancient India Medieval and Post- Colonial India Independent India
Medieval
Socio-Economic Structure
Social stratification into Caste based Dis-harmony between Increased poverty due Caste has degenerated
four castes discrimination increases Hindus and Muslims to low income, high into an inflexible
Introduction of Arthashastra increased taxes, famines, low hierarchal system
Hinduism, belief in God emphasized on material literacy Nurturing corruption and
Improved role of women
Epics like Mahabharata gain, more than the British discouraged favouritism to climb up in
during this era
emphasized on dharma means to achieve these social practices like sati, hierarchy
(conduct), where gains untouchability etc Tendency to collude with
morality/fair play was powerful instead of
secondary questioning them
Institutional Structure
King was the supreme As kingdoms grew, Corruption in civil Formal mechanisms Democracy has co-
authority, but he public meetings became service increased, as like Auditors and existed with non-
discussed important operationally difficult; monetary tips to Committees to check democratic parties and
matters with public administration was officials in return of a public finance were electoral mal-practices for
through Public Meetings decentralized to reach favour became a norm introduced years
- Sabha and Samiti people Information Citizen’s voice gained Institutions, policies to
Spies/agents were used gatherers/Spies were importance through check accountability
to gather public opinion, appointed to report public movements introduced, but are not
information about state corruption cases of against the wrong implemented effectively
officials officials Government practices Low citizen’s interest and
awareness of politics
Source: UC Analysis, Secondary Research
CONTENTS
Appendix
C. Acknowledgements
D. References
WHY PUBLIC ACCOUNTABILITY IS IMPORTANT
It is imperative to improve governance, to strengthen the economic and social

performance of a country. Public accountability is a powerful lever to improve
governance
Governance Performance
Economic
Performance
Public
Accountability Social
Performance
Governance implies the processes and institutions that guide the functioning of the Government
Public accountability checks and controls governance with mechanisms that ensure accountability
Source: UC Analysis; W. Carrington, J Debuse, H. Lee. “The Theory of Governance and Accountability”, The University of Iowa Centre for International
Finance and Development, 2008
Global cross-country surveys continuously highlight the poor quality of

governance in India, on a comparative basis
Governance Performance Indicators
Institution Index India USA UK China Brazil Russia
Worldwide Governance
World Bank 108 21 16 140 96 162
Indicators (2008)
Transparency Corruption Perception

International Index (2009) 84 19 17 79 75 146
Economist Democracy Index

Intelligence Unit (2008) 35 18 21 136 41 107
How does this poor performance on governance, impact our

economic performance and social performance?
Note: The numbers indicate the ranks of the countries on respective indices.
The quality of governance has a very high correlation with economic performance
Governance & Economic Performance

Governance performance is measured using the World Bank’s
Worldwide Governance Indicator (WGI) Score 2007 (#) World-wide Governance Indicators (WGI) score 2007
12
10 Economic performance is measured using GDP per capita (PPP)

8 r = 0.86
The correlation between Worldwide Governance Indicators and
6
GDP per capita (PPP) shows a very high positive correlation
4 co-efficient (r) of 0.86
2
This indicates a very strong relationship between governance
0
00 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
performance and economic performance of a country
-2
-4
GDP per capita PPP 2007 (‘000 USD) Poor governance in India is reflected in its poor economic
Sample size: 100 countries
performance, in global surveys (see below)
-6
Economic Performance Indicators
Doing Business Index

World Bank 133 4 5 89 129 120
(2008-09)
Global Competitiveness
World Economic Forum 49 2 13 29 56 63
Index (2009-10)
Note: The numbers indicate the ranks of the countries on respective indices
Source: UC Analysis; ’World Development Indicators Database’, The World Bank, 2007; ‘Governance Matters VI: Aggregate and Individual Governance
Indicators’, The World Bank, 2007
The quality of governance also has a high correlation with social performance
Governance and Social Performance Governance performance is measured using the World Bank’s
Worldwide Governance Indicator (WGI) Score 2007 (#) World-wide Governance Indicators (WGI) score 2007
12
10 Social performance is measured using UNDP’s Human

r = 0.72 Development Index score 2007
8
6
The correlation between Worldwide Governance Indicators and
4 Human Development Index shows a high positive correlation
2 co-efficient (r) of 0.72
0
This indicates a strong relationship between governance
-2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.2
performance and social performance of a country
-4 Human Development Index
-6 2007 (#) Poor governance in India is reflected in its poor social
Sample size: 99 countries performance, in global surveys (see below)
Social Performance Indicators
United Nations Human Development

Development Programme Index (2007) 134 13 21 92 75 71
Prosperity Index
The Legatum Institute 45 9 12 75 41 69
(2009)
Note: The numbers indicate the ranks of the countries on respective indices
Source: UC Analysis; ‘Governance Matters VI: Aggregate and Individual Governance Indicators’, The World Bank, 2007; ‘Human Development Index -
2007’, Human Development Report 2009, UNDP
Unfortunately, in India, governance reforms have been few and sparse over the past
decades, resulting in poor quality of governance and lower public accountability
Key Governance Reforms
Phase I Phase II Phase III
6
5 17
4 12 14 16 32 36
1 2 3 7 8 9 10 11 13 15 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 33 34 35
Pre’50 50 53 56 59 62 65 68 71 74 77 80 83 86 89 92 95 98 01 04 07
1947 - 1970 1970 - 1990 1990-2009
1. Official Secrets 2. First Pay 3. Enactment of the 15. Maintenance of 16. Censorship 17. Political parties 24. Panchayati Raj 25. Alternate Dispute 26. Citizen’s
Act Commission Constitution Internal Security of media were banned Act Resolution Charter
Act formalised
3. Comptroller and 5. Formation of 6. Formation of 18. Controller 19. National 20. Public Interest 27. Judicial 28. Bhagidari 29. Grievance
Auditor General Election Union Public General of Police Litigation Collegium Initiative Redressal
established Service Accounts Commission System
Commission formed
Commission formed
7. First General 8. Programme 9. Law 21. First Lokayukta 22. Anti- 23. Prevention of 30.Mandatory disclosure 31. RTI Act 32. Mandatory
Evaluation established Defection Corruption Act of information by implemented social audit
elections Commission at national as part of
Organisation formed established Law election candidates level NREGS
10. Central Bureau 11.Central Vigilance 12.Central Civil 33. Outcome 34. National e- 35. SC judges
of Investigation Commission Services budgeting Governance declare assets
established established Conduct rules and HC judges
introduced plan
framed agree to
13. 1st Administrative 14. Judges Inquiry disclose assets
Reforms Act 36. Delivery
Commission Monitoring unit
appointed formed
Has positive impact on accountability

Has negative impact on accountability
A burst of high-intensity governance reforms, similar to the economic reforms during

liberalisation are needed to substantially improve public accountability and governance
Key Economic Reforms

Phase I Phase II Phase III
Burst of
economic
reforms
Pre’50 50 53 56 59 62 65 68 71 74 77 80 83 86 89 92 95 98 01 04 07
1947 - 1970 1970 - 1990 1990-2009
Burst of
Key Governance Reforms governance
Phase I Phase II Phase III reforms
???
Pre’50 50 53 56 59 62 65 68 71 74 77 80 83 86 89 92 95 98 01 04 07
1947 - 1970 1970 - 1990 1990-2009
Has positive impact

Has negative impact
Source: UC Analysis
CONTENTS
Appendix
C. Acknowledgements
D. References
FACTORS IMPACTING PUBLIC ACCOUNTABILITY
Public accountability in a country is impacted by socio-economic factors and the

institutional structure
Economic
Performance
Public Accountability
Socio-
Economic
Institutional Social
Structure
Factors Performance
Source: UC Analysis; W. Carrington, J Debuse, H. Lee. “The Theory of Governance and Accountability”, The University of Iowa Centre for International
Finance and Development, 2008
SOCIO-ECONOMIC FACTORS
We examined 12 Socio-Economic factors across 60-100 countries, to understand

their correlation with pubic accountability
Socio-Economic Factors Description
Per Capita Income Gross Domestic Product per capita, as an indicator of economic development
Individualistic Culture Degree to which individuals are integrated/dis-integrated into groups

Extent of inequality of power and wealth, as perceived and accepted by less
Social Hierarchy powerful individuals, or groups
Age of Democracy Number of years since the country attained democracy
Inter-personal Trust Degree of inter-personal trust among individuals in a society
Urbanisation Level Share of total population residing in urban areas
Share of adult population that is literate (adult literacy defined by UNESCO as

Adult Literacy individuals over 15 yrs of age, who can read and write simple statements)
Civic Participation Level of participation (time and money) of citizens in civic affairs
Social Diversity Degree of racial, ethnic, linguistic and religious fragmentation in a country
Tolerance Level Society’s tolerance for uncertainty and ambiguity
Geographic Size Geographic area of the country
Population Size of population of the country
Source: UC Analysis
Adult Literacy - Is the low level of adult literacy in India (~300 mn illiterates), a key
constraint in achieving high public accountability?
Adult Literacy Correlation
Worldwide Governance Indicator (WGI) Score 2007 (#)
Low literacy R2 = 0.25
India 66 level 14
r = 0.5
12
300 Mn
Brazil 90 10
8
China 300 Mn 93
6
4
Russia 99
2
USA 99 0
High literacy 00 20 40 60 80 100 120
-2
level
UK 99 -4
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 -6
Adult Literacy Rate (%) - 2007 Literacy Level (%)
Sample Size: 100 countries
There is a low-moderate correlation between adult literacy levels and public

accountability. India’s low literacy levels should not be a significant barrier to
achieving higher public accountability
Source: UC Analysis; Global Rankings – Adult Literacy Rate (Total)’, UNESCO Institute of Statistics, 2007; ‘Governance Matters
VI: Aggregate and Individual Governance Indicators’, The World Bank, 2007
Social Diversity - Does high linguistic, cultural and religious fragmentation in

India predispose it to lower public accountability?
Social Diversity Correlation
Low social R2 = 0.083
diversity 14
Brazil 0.66 r = (0.29)
12
10
UK 0.85
8
6
China 0.88
4
2
USA 0.96
0
High social 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2
diversity -2
India 0.98
-4
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 -6

Social Diversity Index (#) Social Diversity Index (#)
There is a low correlation between social diversity levels and public accountability.
India’s high social diversity should not be a significant barrier to achieving higher
public accountability
Source: UC Analysis; Okediji, T, ‘Social Diversity Index- The dynamics of ethnic fragmentation: a proposal for an expanded measurement index’,
American Journal of Economics and Sociology, 2005; ‘Governance Matters VI: Aggregate and Individual Governance Indicators’, The World Bank, 2007
Social Hierarchy - Does the high degree of social distance, in terms of power and
wealth, predispose India to lower public accountability?
Social Hierarchy Correlation

Low social R2 = 0.45
UK 35 hierarchy 14 r = (0.67)
12
USA 40
10
8
Brazil 69
6
India 77 4
2
China 80 0
High social
00 20 40 60 80 100 120
hierarchy -2
Russia 93
-4
0 20 40 60 80 100 -6
Hofstede’s Power Distance Index (#) Power Distance Index (#)
There is a moderate correlation between social hierarchy and public accountability.

India’s high social hierarchy could be a significant barrier to achieving higher public
accountability
Source: UC Analysis; ‘Power Distance Index’, Geert Hofstede’s Cultural Dimensions, 2003; ‘Governance Matters VI: Aggregate
and Individual Governance Indicators’, The World Bank, 2007
Individualistic Culture - Is a relatively collectivist society as we find in India, a

barrier to achieving higher public accountability?
Individualistic Culture Correlation

Collectivist R2 = 0.52
China 20 countries 14
r = 0.71
12
Brazil 38
10
8
Russia 39
6
India 48 4
2
UK 89 0
Individualistic 0 20 40 60 80 100
countries -2
USA 91
-4
0 20 40 60 80 100 -6
Hofstede’s Individualism Index (#) Individualism Index (#)

There is high correlation between individualistic culture and public accountability.

India’s collectivist culture could be a barrier to achieving higher public accountability,
since responsibility is often diffused among groups
Source: UC Analysis; ‘Individualism Index ’, Geert Hofstede’s Cultural Dimensions - 2003; ‘Governance Matters VI: Aggregate
and Individual Governance Indicators’, The World Bank, 2007
Some socio-economic factors commonly perceived to be the drivers for low public
accountability in India, show lower correlation with public accountability
Correlation with
Socio-Economic Factors R2 r
Per Capita Income 0.75 0.86
Strong
Individualistic Culture 0.52 0.71
Social Hierarchy 0.45 (0.67)
Age of Democracy 0.43 0.66
Inter-personal Trust 0.39 0.63

Moderate
Urbanisation Level 0.32 0.56
Adult Literacy 0.25 0.50
Civic Participation 0.25 0.50
Social Diversity 0.08 (0.29)

Commonly
Tolerance Level 0.06 (0.24) perceived drivers
Weak for low
Geographic Size 0.01 0.1 accountability,
based on survey of
358 citizens
Population 0.006 (0.07)
Source: UC Analysis
Unfortunately, India’s ability to leverage the factors that have strong to moderate
correlation with public accountability is low, based on global cross-country rankings
Correlation with Leverage-ability
Socio-Economic Factors India’s Ranking
Public Accountability of Factors
Per Capita Income 83 / 100 Low

Strong
Individualistic Culture 28 / 63 Medium
Social Hierarchy 14 / 63* Low
Age of Democracy 21 / 98 High
Inter-personal Trust 30 / 65 Medium

Moderate
Urbanisation Level 89 / 100 Low
Adult Literacy 91 / 100 Low
Civic Participation 82 / 90 Low
Social Diversity 9 / 78* Low
Tolerance Level 55 / 63 Low

Weak
Geographic Size 5 / 100* Low
Population 1 / 100* Low

* - Higher rank on these factors indicates possibly weaker position for India
Socio-economic reforms, can positively influence the level of public accountability

and governance, thus improving social and economic performance over the long term
Correlation with
Socio-Economic Factors Some examples of Socio-Economic Reforms
Per Capita Income Right to Education Bill (2009)

Strong
National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme (2005)
Individualistic Culture
Bharat Nirman (2005) - focused on rural infrastructure
Social Hierarchy
Jawaharlal Nehru National Urban Renewal Mission (2005)
Age of Democracy
Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan (2001)
Inter-personal Trust
Moderate Bhagidari initiative in Delhi (2000)
Urbanisation Level
Poverty alleviation programmes (part of Five Year Plans)
Adult Literacy
Panchayati Raj Act (1993) - Decentralization
Civic Participation
Twenty Point Programme - focused on poverty eradication,
reduction in social and economic disparities
Social Diversity
Women’s Reservation Bill (Pending)
Tolerance Level
Weak …
Geographic Size
Population

FACTORS IMPACTING PUBLIC ACCOUNTABILITY
Economic
Performance
Socio-
Economic
Institutional Social
Structure
Factors Performance
INSTITUTIONAL STRUCTURE
Our research suggests that public accountability needs four solid foundations to
rest on
1 2 3 4
Appropriate Citizen’s Legitimate Liability

Representation Participation Conduct Enforcement
Representation of citizens Participation of Transparent, fair and Application of sanctions

by capable and reliable stakeholders like citizens, equitable functioning of the based on conduct and
officials for policy CSOs and media, in policy Government to ensure performance of the
formulation and formulation and healthy governance Government
implementation implementation, to assist Regular monitoring and Sanctions could be formal
Electing/ appointing public Government in effective evaluation of the (fees, penal action) or
officials through an functioning performance of public informal (resignation,
objective and transparent officials answerability)
process
Source: UC Analysis, Bovens, Mark. “Public Accountability.”, The Oxford Handbook of Public Management, E. Ferlie, L. Lynne & C. Pollitt (Eds.),
Oxford: Oxford University Press 2005
Mechanisms of public accountability could be internal to the Government (Public

Institutions, Policies), or external (Citizens, Civil Society Organisations, Media).
External accountability mechanisms are critical in India, to improve accountability
Internal Accountability: Accountability imposed

Citizens upon the Government from within
- Intra-Departmental: A government body

External monitoring the performance of its staff internally
Accountability
- Inter-Departmental: A government body
scrutinizing the activities of another government
Government department
External Accountability: Accountability imposed

Legislature Executive Judiciary upon the Government from outside, by citizens, civil
society organisations (CSOs) and media
External External
Accountability Internal Accountability
CSOs Accountability Media
Inter-Departmental Accountability Intra-Departmental Accountability
Source: UC Analysis, Bovens, Mark. “Public Accountability.”, The Oxford Handbook of Public Management, E. Ferlie, L. Lynne & C. Pollitt (Eds.),
Oxford: Oxford University Press 2005; Goetz, Anne Marie and Rob Jenkins. “Hybrid Forms of Accountability.”, Public Management Review 3.3 (2001);
Schacter, Mark. “When Accountability Fails- A Framework for Diagnosis and Action.” Institute of Governance, Ottawa Policy Brief, 2001
Our research assessed the strength of these internal and external accountability
mechanisms, across the Legislature, the Executive and the Judiciary, to examine the
ability of the mechanisms to support the four foundations of public accountability
Citizens
External
Accountability
Government
Judiciary
Le
Exe Jud
gisl
cuti icia
Horizontal
Executive
Representa
atu
External
re
ve ry
External
Accountability
Internal Accountability mechanisms
Accountability
that helpExternal
improve the quality of
Accountability
tionPublic
Civil Society Accountability Internal Accountability
Media
Organisations Accountability
citizen’s representatives
Horizontal
Legislature in the Government
tion
Representa
Accountability
Internal Accountability mechanisms that helpExternal
Accountability
Representat
Conduct of Public Accountability

Accountability mechanisms that help improve the quality of
Accountability
tionPublic
Internal - Internal -
citizen’s representatives in the Government

Inter Departmental Accountability Intra Departmental Accountability
Internal (Intra-Departmental) Internal (Inter-Departmental)
ionPublic
Representa
Accountability mechanisms
citizen’s representatives that
in the help improve
Government the quality
External Accountability of
Representat
Conduct of Public Accountability ion

Mechanisms of Public Accountability
Accountability mechanisms that
Accountability help improve the quality of
Public
Accountability
citizen’s representativesin the in the Government
Public
citizen’s representatives Government
Accountability Foundations of Public Accountability
Representation
Participatio
Accountability
Appropriate
Examine accountability mechanisms that ensure representation
n Public
of citizens citizens’
Accountability participation
mechanisms inthat
the Government
help improve the quality of
Participatio
by capable and reliable officials for policy formulation
n
Participatio
n Public
Foundations of Public Accountability
and implementation
citizens’ participation in the Government
n Public
Accountability
citizens’ mechanisms that help improve the quality of
Participatio
Accountabilityparticipation
mechanismsinthat the help
Government
Participatio
n
Public

Public

Participation
EnforcemenFoundations of Public
Accountability mechanisms that help improve the

Legitimate
Citizen's
Conduct
Examine accountability mechanisms that encourage participation of
performance of the Government officials the
of Public
Accountability
like
stakeholders citizens, CSOs mechanisms
and media, that helpformulation
in policy improve
Legitimate
Foundations
Accountability mechanisms that help improve the

Legitimate
performance
and implementation, to assistofGovernment
the Government officials
in effective functioning
Conduct
Accountability
performance mechanisms that officials the the
help improve
Enforcemen Legitimate
t Foundations
Accountability of the Government

mechanisms that help improve
Legitimate
performance of the Government officials

Conduct

performance of the Government officials
EnforcementFoundations
Accountability mechanisms that help sanction the

Enforceme
Legitimate
Conduct
t Liability
Foundations of Public Examine accountability mechanisms that ensure transparent, fair

Government officials for their performance
Enforcemen
Accountability
functioning mechanisms
Government that help sanction the
nt
and equitable of the

Accountability
t Liability
Accountability
Government mechanisms
officials for that help
their sanction the
performance
t Liability
Enforcemen
Accountability
officials for their that help sanction the
performance
Liability
Accountability
officials forthat helpperformance
their sanction the
Liability
Government officials for their performance

Liability
Examine accountability mechanisms that evaluate the conduct

and performance of the Government and apply sanctions
Source: UC Analysis
Legislature: There are significant constraints that impede the implementation of

public accountability mechanisms
Legislature
External Accountability
Not applicable Lack of authority with the independent Apathy and indifference of citizens
Representation
results in:
Appropriate
agency monitoring elections results in

- Candidates breaking code of - Low participation in elections
conduct (funding, affidavits etc) - Uninformed decision making
- Unethical practices (bribing etc) - Influenced decision making
Lack of any formal mechanism to Lack of an independent agency to Low citizen’s participation due to:
Participation
respond to citizen’s opinions monitor public officials participation in - Low awareness about
Citizens’
- Lack of check on Ministries/ policy making mechanisms

Committees evaluating public - Ad-hoc usage of participation - Low awareness about CSOs
opinion mechanisms by officials facilitating public participation
- Limited time-frame to participate
- Limited access to mechanisms
- Indifferent attitude
Lack of internal checks on Lack of an independent agency to Limited monitoring Parliamentary
Parliamentary proceedings and review and check Parliamentary proceedings due to:
Legitimate
Conduct
behaviour of MPs proceedings - Lack of access to information

- Inadequate check on - Judiciary can only check the (Literacy levels, poor computer
attendance validity of the legislations penetration etc)
- Lack of check on participation in - Indifferent attitude of citizens
debates
Expelling MPs for mis-conduct is rare, Lack of action against corrupt MPs Difficulty to challenge functioning of
Enforcement
and is used in extreme cases only due to ineffective Police and Judiciary: MPs
Liability
- Corruption and abuse of power - Lack of understanding of Public

Disqualifying MPs for voting against Interest Litigations (PILs) to
their party (Anti-Defection Law) in the - Political interference
challenge MPs
Parliament hinders constructive - Lack of adequate infrastructure - Ineffective Police and Judiciary
debates - Mis-appropriation of funds system
Source: UC Analysis; Primary Research; Secondary Research

Executive: There are significant constraints that impede the implementation of

Executive
Lack of democratic selection of the Lack of authority with the independent Substandard quality of candidates
Representation
Cabinet Ministers due to: elected due to:

Appropriate
agency monitoring elections

- Political influence
- Lack of transparent process Lack of an independent check on - Low participation in elections
Lack of check on unreasonable transfers - Uninformed decision making
transfers of public officials due to:
- Political interference - Influenced decision making
- Lack of transparency
Lack of internal check on public Lack of an independent agency to Lack of effective citizen’s participation
Participation
officials involved in Government- monitor the involvement of officers in due to:

Citizens’
citizens initiatives Government-citizens initiatives - Lack of awareness

- Lack of interest and motivation
- Lack of decentralized
governance structure
Ineffective performance assessment Ineffective monitoring by independent Lack of monitoring by citizens due to:
- Subjective and non-transparent agencies (CBI, CVC, Lokayukta, CAG)
Legitimate
assessment - Indifferent attitude of citizens

Conduct
- Performance not linked with - Limited power/authority, limited

- Low awareness about rights,
promotions and salaries infrastructure, political influence mechanisms, NGOs
Ineffective internal reporting of Ineffective monitoring by Legislature:
corruption - Proliferation of political parties, - Pitfalls in using the mechanisms
- Inadequate protection to of accountability
whistleblowers poor quality of MPs
Lengthy process of prosecuting Lack of action against corrupt officials Citizens are not able to use PILs to
challenge officers due to
Enforcement
corrupt officials due to ineffective Police and Judiciary:

- Lack of understanding about
Liability
Lack of action against corrupt officials - Corruption and abuse of power PILs
due to corruption - Political interference - Ineffective Police and Judiciary
Citizens are unable to use Lokayukta:
- Lack of adequate infrastructure - Lack of adequate infrastructure
- Mis-appropriation of funds - Lengthy process of prosecuting
corrupt officials
Judiciary: There are significant constraints that impede the implementation of

Judiciary
Lack of an independent and transparent Lack of active check by independent No mechanism to access justification for
Representation
authorities (currently President and appointment of judges

Appropriate
process to appoint judges:

- Inadequate involvement of all Governor) in appointment and transfer
of judges
Collegium members
- Lack of a defined criteria
- Nepotism, lack of non-Judiciary
members in Collegium
Participation
Citizens’
Not applicable Not applicable Not applicable
Lack of monitoring or investigation in Lack of an independent authority to Difficulty in monitoring and challenging
the conduct of Judiciary investigate into complaints against the Judiciary due to:
Legitimate
Conduct
- Collegium inactive in ordering Judiciary and suggest relevant - Lack of open courts for citizens
investigations punitive actions - Threat of contempt of court
- Lack of authority to agencies to
conduct investigations into
Judiciary proceedings
Lack of action against corrupt judges: Lack of action against corrupt judges: Citizens are not able to challenge
Enforcement
- Collegium inactive in ordering - Slow and lengthy process of Judiciary due to:
Liability
action against corrupt judges impeachment - Lack of grievance redressal

authority for Judiciary
- Internal corruption and mis-use - Political interference
of power - Lack of independent authority to
act on PILs against Judiciary

The four foundations of public accountability have been severely weakened by

constraints in the implementation of public accountability mechanisms

Lack of d Subjecti
efined cri Ad-hoc usage of transpare ve and non - Corrupt and lengthy
appointm teria for
ent and tr participation mechanisms nt
assessm performance process of prosecution of
ansfer by public officials ent of off officials
icials
Lack of transparenc Ill-equipped and co
y in rrupt Ill-equi
appointment and tra ent of monitoring agencie pped la
nsfer volvem s enforc w
Low in olicy-making ement
agenci
s in p es
Citizen’s apathy in citizen Low involvement of
selecting appropriate citizens in monitoring
candidates Government te usage of
In-appropria
rity with the
Lack of dec by citizens
Lack of autho ncy (eg: structure o
entralised mechanisms s)
f governanc Loopholes in icies (eg: PIL
selection age ission) e
n of pol
m
Elections Com implementatio TI)
(eg: R
Source: UC Analysis
CONTENTS
Appendix
C. Acknowledgements
D. References
STRENGTHENING PUBLIC ACCOUNTABILITY
To strengthen the foundations of public accountability, initiatives are needed in

six areas (6 Is)- Information, Impartiality, Implementation, Infrastructure,
Independence and Involvement

1 2 3 4 5 6
Information Impartiality Implementation Infrastructure Independence Involvement
Disclosure of Objective and Effective Adequate Adequate Active

reliable data transparent implementation funds, authority and participation of
in a simplified process for of policies and personnel and delegation of citizens
format selection, transfer mechanisms systems power
and evaluation support
Source: UC Analysis
Many types of initiatives are required in each of the six improvement areas, to bring
about a systemic change in the level of public accountability

1 2 3 4 5 6
Information Impartiality Implementation Infrastructure Independence Involvement
1 2 3 4 5 6
6 Is Information Impartiality Implementation Infrastructure Independence Involvement
1.1 Information 2.1 Appointment & 3.1 Audits & 4.1 5.1 Authority to 6.1 Policy
Personnel
Availability Transfers Feedback Agencies Formulation
1.2 Information 2.2 Performance 3.2 Incentives & 4.2 5.2 Delegation of 6.2 Performance
Technology
Initiatives Accessibility Assessment Penalty Power Evaluation
Information
1.3 4.3 6.3 Redressal
Comprehend- Funds
Enforcement
ability
Source: UC Analysis
1 Information: Enhance transparency in government functioning by improving

information disclosure and accessibility
1.1 Information Availability
Provide information about expenses (travel, salaries, allowances etc) incurred by the Ministries
Provide information about amount allocated and utilized for social schemes (education, employment, health etc), and
link it to the quantitative output of these schemes
Allow online tracking of government applications (licenses, ration card etc) to reduce corruption
1.2 Information Accessibility
Leverage technology (internet, mobile, mass media) to increase accessibility to information
Build mass awareness of regulations which help to access information and demand accountability (Right To
Information Act, Citizens Charter etc)
1.3 Information Comprehend-ability
Provide information (candidate affidavits, documents through RTI, policies, budgets etc) in an easy-to-understand
language and format
Provide interactive platforms and search tools to filter and access information (Performance of MPs in Parliament,
expenses incurred by Ministries, budget allocation and utilization by Ministries etc)
Source: UC Analysis, Secondary Research, Primary Research

2 Impartiality: Increase transparency and objectivity in appointment, transfer and

performance assessment of public officials
2.1 Appointments & Transfers
Provide public access to information on reasons and criteria for transfers of public officials, especially in senior posts
Fix tenure of civil servants, atleast for officers in senior posts, to reduce unreasonable transfers by politicians, for
their personal or political gain
2.2 Performance Assessment
Define performance targets for public officials and discuss expectations with them, to make the assessment objective
and result-oriented
Adopt quantitative grading system to evaluate the performance of public officials
Link the performance of the public officials with their salary and/or promotion, to incentivise the officials

3 Implementation: Strengthen implementation of policies by monitoring their

progress and penalizing poor conduct of officials responsible for these policies
3.1 Audits & Feedback
Monitor and audit public schemes and policies (employment, health, education etc), and take immediate action to
improve implementation
Make Social Audits* mandatory for all key policies/schemes
3.2 Incentives & Penalty
Attach incentives and penalties to the performance of officers, to encourage better performance and achieve higher
compliance
* Social audit is a process where details of resources (both financial and non-financial) used by Government agencies, are shared with people through a
public platform (like public meetings). NREGS is the only scheme yet, that has mandatory in-built social audit as a part of the scheme.

4 Infrastructure: Provide adequate infrastructure support in the form of personnel,

technology and funds
4.1 Personnel
Provide adequate personnel to monitoring agencies (Central Vigilance Commission, Lokayukta etc) and law
enforcement agencies (Judiciary, Police)
Provide adequate training (especially behavioural training) to officials implementing schemes/policies
4.2 Technology
Provide platforms (online grievance portals, policy-consultation portals etc) to encourage citizen’s interaction with
Government
Increase use of technology in transactions (online procurement, online elections registration etc) between
Government and citizens
4.3 Funds
Provide adequate funds to monitoring agencies (Central Vigilance Commission, Lokayukta etc) and law enforcement
agencies (Judiciary, Police)

5 Independence: Empower monitoring agencies and decentralize authority, to enable

them to function effectively
5.1 Authority to Agencies
Provide adequate authority to monitoring agencies (Central Vigilance Commission, Comptroller and Auditor General
etc) and law enforcement agencies (Judiciary, Police) to function effectively
5.2 Delegation of Power
Empower local government authorities through administrative and fiscal decentralisation

6 Involvement: Increase involvement and participation of citizens in seeking

accountability for non-performance (1/2)…
6.1 Policy Formulation
Citizens and CSOs should participate in policy and budget formulation, by providing their views or opinions
independently, or by supporting think-tanks/CSOs working in the policy advocacy area
6.2 Performance Evaluation
Citizens and CSOs should track public expenditure and compare it with allocations to expose the leakages
Citizens should evaluate quality of public services through various participatory monitoring and evaluations tools
(public opinion surveys, citizen’s report cards etc) and highlight inefficiencies
6.3 Redressal Enforcement
Citizens should lodge complaints against poor delivery of public services using the online portals and mobile-
messaging facility available for grievance redressal
Citizens should complain about cases of corruption with agencies like Central Vigilance Commission, Lokayukta etc

6 Involvement: Increase support for Civil Society Organisations (CSOs) working in

the area of public accountability (2/2)
Volunteer Your Time
Corporates can encourage employees to volunteer time for CSOs; eg. Infosys employees can opt to work for a year
with a CSO at half the salary
Provide Media Access
Corporates can sponsor media campaigns of CSOs; eg. Tata Tea associated with a CSO in the area of elections
for the Jaago Re! campaign
Provide Knowledge Support
Corporates can conduct small research assignments for CSOs, or share their expertise in areas like legal matters,
budget analysis; eg. Accenture extends its expertise and skills to local CSOs, at no charge sometimes
Provide Infrastructure Support
Corporates can provide CSOs with training, IT infrastructure or physical infrastructure; eg. SP Jain Institute
provides a CSO with office space and lecture room to conduct workshops
Provide Monetary Support
Corporates can provide grants/sponsorships to CSOs or set up dedicated trusts/foundations; eg. Ford Foundation,
set by the Ford Motor Company provides grants to CSOs working for various causes

CONTENTS
Appendix
C. Acknowledgements
D. References
APPENDIX - A
We conducted a survey of 358 citizens, to get their perspective on public

accountability in India
What, according to you, is the level What is your perception (ranking) Do you think that India’s historical
of Public Accountability in India? about impact of factors on current baggage (colonial rule, caste
level of public accountability in system, tendency to avoid
questioning higher authority) has an
India?
impact on Public Accountability?
Rank Factors
Low 88% Strongly Agree 23%
1 Adult Literacy Agree 45%
Medium 11%
2 Civic Participation Neutral 13%
High 2% Disagree 14%

3 Social Hierarchy
Strongly Disagree 5%
0 20 40 60 80 100 4 Tolerance Level 0 20 40 60 80 100
Percent of responses (%) Percent of responses (%)
5 Per Capita Income
Total number of respondents: 358 6 Social Diversity Which branch, according to you, is
currently more accountable to
7 Individualistic Culture
citizens?
8 Inter-personal Trust
Rank Factors
9 Urbanisation Level 1 Judiciary

2 Executive
10 Age of Democracy
3 Legislature
Source: Primary Research
CONTENTS
Appendix
C. Acknowledgements
D. References
APPENDIX - B
Between January-March 2009, we also interviewed individuals in 34 Civil Society

Organisations (CSOs) working in the area of public accountability
Civil Society Organisations (34)
Anti Corruption Movement, Chennai Janaagraha, Bangalore
Association for Democratic Reforms, New Delhi Janhit Manch, Mumbai
Budget Analysis Rajasthan Center, Jaipur Justice Corps, Mumbai

Campaign for Judicial Accountability & Judicial Reforms, New Delhi Liberty Institute, New Delhi
Catalyst Trust, Chennai Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan, Rajsamand

Centre for Budget and Governance Accountability, New Delhi National Centre for Advocacy Studies, Pune
Centre for Budget and Policy Studies, Bangalore National Foundation for India, New Delhi
Centre for Civil Society, New Delhi PRIA, New Delhi
Centre for Good Governance, Hyderabad PRS Legislative Research, New Delhi
Centre for Policy Research, New Delhi People’s Union for Civil Liberties, New Delhi
Centre for the Study of Developing Societies, New Delhi Praja, Mumbai
Centre for Youth and Social Development, Bhubaneswar Public Affairs Centre, Bangalore
Charkha, Gurgaon Sanket, Bhopal
Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative, New Delhi Satark Nagrik Sangathan, Mumbai
CUTS-International, Jaipur Social Watch India, New Delhi

Democracy Connect, New Delhi Transparency International India, New Delhi
Indian Institute of Public Administration, New Delhi 5th Pillar, Chennai
CONTENTS
Appendix
C. Acknowledgements
D. References
APPENDIX - C
Acknowledgments
I would like to thank my Universal Consulting colleagues at the UC Center for Strategic Synthesis, for their
unflagging support over the past year. The team, admirably led by Shweta Gadia, worked tirelessly over the
last 12 months. Shweta was well supported by Neha Tulsiani and others, over the course of our research.
I would also like to thank all the Civil Society Organisations who spoke to us in-person, or via telecon, in the
early part of our work. A large number of citizens also responded to our survey request and thanks are due
to them. A number of business associates, also provided inputs to this research.
Lastly, I would like to thank my four Partners at Universal Consulting, for giving me full support to undertake
this research study and other colleagues at Universal Consulting, for their enthusiasm and encouragement.
CONTENTS
Appendix
C. Acknowledgements
D. References
APPENDIX - D
The following literature was referenced for this research study (1/7)
References
‘A City Panchayat based on Sahbhaagi, Yes We ‘Annual Report - Steel', Ministry of Steel, 2008-09 ‘Bindass launches I Change, India Changes
Can’, Lead India Website, 2 Mar 2009 movement’, 26 Feb 2009, Television Point Website,
Ansari, M M, ‘Impact of RTI on Development’, 15 May
‘A concise history of India’, Geographia Asia Website, 2008, Central Information Commission, 20 Feb 2009 10 Mar 2009
30 July 2009 ‘Bogus votes beef up voters' list by 71 lakh’ The
‘Anti-corruption initiative for Asia and the Pacific,
‘A handbook for trainers on participatory local Asian Development Bank Times of India 6 Jan 2009
development: the Panchayati Raj ... ', FAO Corporate
Arora RK, Rajni Goyal, ‘Administration under the ‘Calcutta HC Judge Faces Impeachment’ Hindustan
Document Repository
British Rule’, Section III, Indian Public Administration: Times, 9 Sep 2008
‘A walk through India’s history’, Embassy of India - Institutions and Issues,1996
Moscow Website, 31 July 2009 Caruthers, Renee Wijnen, 'State Bank of India Wins
Backus Michiel, ‘E-governance in Developing
Developer Award for Central Plan Scheme
‘About Election Commission of India: Setup and Countries’, The International Institute for
Monitoring System', 11 May, 2009,
Functions’, Election Commission of India Website, 15 Communication and Development, March 2001
www.windowsfs.com, 2 November 2009
Dec 2008
Baisakh, Pradeep, ‘ Are judges over-reaching?’, 19
Ackerman, John, “Social Accountability in the Public Apr 2007, India Together Website, 2 Feb 2009 ‘Cash and caste playing role in Punjab and UP
Sector: A Conceptual Discussion”, World Bank elections’, The Financial Express, 13 Feb 2002
Banerjee, Chandana, ‘Out to empower’, 12 Mar 2009,
Institute, 2005 Chandavarkar, Pia , 'Now, RTI in school', Mumbai
The HOOT Website, 16 Mar 2009
‘Administrative capacity in the EU8’, World Bank, Newsline, 19 October 2006
‘Bangalore Agenda Task Force’, 1 Dec 2002,
September 2006
Resource Section, Janaagraha Website, 2 Mar 2009 Chaturvedi, Rakesh Mohan, 'Rural jobs scheme
Agarwal, S K, ‘Judicial Corruption Fuels Impunity, needs independent social audit, say activists',
‘Bangalore, India: Citizen Report Cards’, Public
Corrodes Rule of Law’, 24 May 2007, Transparency Thaindian News, 6 April 2008
Affairs Centre, May 2005
International Website, 3 Mar 2009
Bhatnagar S, ‘India’s Economic Development: How Chaudhuri S, ‘Building democracy: The people’s
‘Amend Anti Defection Law to restrict issuing of party
Does E-Government Help?’, Mar 2002 campaign for decentralized planning in Kerala’, South
whips’, Hindu Business Line, 6 Dec 2008
Bhattarcharjya, Satarupa, ‘House In Turmoil’, India Asia Decentralization Series, The World Bank, Jan
Anand, Eshwar, ‘Civil services: The blunted edge’, 2005
Today, 2 Jan 2006
The Tribune 25 Jan 2009
Bhushan, Pratap, ‘Illusion Of Accountability ‘, Outlook Chaudhuri, Jay, Yamini Aiyar, Jessica Wallack,
‘Annual Report - Aviation', Ministry of Civil Aviation, 'Outcomes Rule: Getting Development from
India, 23 Nov 2006
2008-09 Development Expenditure', Centre for Development
‘Bills passed in Parliament without debate’, 24 Dec
‘Annual Report - Home Affairs', Ministry of Home Finance, Institute of Financial Management
2008, NDTV Website, 20 Jan 2009 Research, August 2009
Affairs, 2008-09
APPENDIX - D
References
Chauhan, Radha, 'National E-Governance Plan in ‘Delivery Monitoring Unit', GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, ‘Flagship Programmes', Planning Commission -
India', United Nations University, May 2009 7th July, 2009 Government of India
‘CIC cannot ask information on judges' appointment’, ‘Demographic, Social and Economic Indicators’, ‘GDP Per Capita’, World Development Indicators
4 Mar 2009, News Section - AOL Website, 13 Mar Literacy Rate Data, United Nation Population Fund – Database, The World Bank; 2007
2009 State of World Population, 2007 ‘Geert Hofstede Cultural Dimensions’; Geert –
‘Citizen service centres in Brazil’, July 2001, World Dhar, Aarti, ‘Survey: 3 years into RTI Act, information Hofstede Website, 2003
Bank's e-Government Website, 26 Jun 2009 is hard to come by’, The Hindu 9 Sep 2008
Geetika and Pandey Neeraj, 'National E-Governance
‘Citizens' Charters: Indian Experience’, Department of Dhavan, Rajeev, ‘Separation of Powers’, The Hindu Plan Revisited: Achievements and Road Ahead',
Administrative Reforms and Public Grievances 18 Mar 2005
‘Geneva introduces e-voting’, World e-democracy
Website, 10 Feb 2009 Dwivedi, Anju and John Gaventa, ‘Working on both forum, 10 March 2009
‘Citizens’ Report on Governance and Development’, sides of the equation: the role of CSOs in
‘Global Corruption Report 2007’, India Section,
Social Watch, 2006 strengthening champions of participation in India’,
Transparency International, 2007
Development Research Centre, Apr 2008
‘Competition, targets keep rail TCs on their toes’, The ‘Global Integrity Report’, The Center For Public
Times of India, 24 February 2009 ‘Efficacy of Public Audit System in India: CAG -
Integrity, 2004
Reforming the institution’ Consultation Paper, Jan 8
‘Constitutional Provisions’, Vigilance Manual, Central Goetz, Anne Marie and Rob Jenkins. “Hybrid Forms
2001
Vigilance Commission Website, 8 Feb 2009 of Accountability.”, Public Management Review 3.3,
‘e-Lekha - A Stride towards a Core Accounting
Corney L ‘Sunshine laws: How are States making 2001
Solution', e-India 2009 Awards
lawbreakers pay?’, University of North Carolina, 2004 ‘Government to introduce bill to protect bureaucracy
Ensuring Accountability: Role of Parliament’, The
‘Corruption in Judiciary: CMS Study, Mint 3 May 2007 from political interference’, Business Standard, 06
Asian Centre for Democratic Governance, 2001
D Surya, ’Fine collection targets set for traffic police’, June 2009
‘Evaluation Report On Sampoorna Gram Rozgar
The Times of India, 22 March 2003 Gupta, Anand P., 'Outcome budgets and budget
Yojana (SGRY) Jammu & Kashmir', Population
Datar, Arvind, ‘Judicial Appointments -The Indian outcomes', Indian Express.com, 08 January, 2007
Research Centre- University of Kashmir, February
Perspective’, Centre for Public Law, University of 2009 Gustavo A R, ‘Case Study: Cristal: A Tool for
Cambridge, 4 Oct 2003 Transparent Government in Argentina’, 3 Apr 2001
‘Examples of e-governance’, 3 Aug 2005, UNESCO
Datta, Kanika “A vote is more than worth the candle” e-Governance Capacity Building Initiative Website, Hazra, Arnab, ‘Bureaucrats on the loose’, Hindustan
Business Standard 11 Dec 2008 22 Jun 2009 Times 22 Jan 2009
Dean, Cornelia, ‘Public Outreach, Done Right, Aids ‘Finance Accounts 2007-08’, Controller General of
Policy Making’, New York Times 22 Aug 2008 Account, 2008
APPENDIX - D
References
Henderson, Keith, ‘Asset and Income Disclosure for Johnson Craig, 'Decentralisation in India: Poverty, Kaushik K Ram, 'What ails e-governance in India',
Judges: A Summary Overview and Checklist’ Politics and Panchayati Raj', Overseas Development India News Today,13 March 2009
Institute, February 2003" Kejriwal, Arvind, ‘One year of unfreedom’, 2 May
Holsen S ‘Freedom of Information in UK, US and
Canada’, Information Management Journal, May-Jun Johnson, Craig, ‘Decentralization in India: Poverty, 2007, India Together Website, 10 Feb 2009
2007 Politics and Panchayati Raj’, Dept of Political Kesharwani, Madhusudan, ‘Judges and Judicial
Science, University of Guelph, Feb 2003 Accountability in India with reference to the Judge’s
‘HT Drive Against Bribe with Right to Information’, HT
bribe campaign section, July 2006, Hindustan Times Joshi, Anuradha, ‘Uncivil servants’, India Today, 25 bill of 2005’, India Laws Website, 16 Mar 2009
Website, 20 Feb 2009 Sep 2008 ‘Know your MLA: Did he serve you, or his cronies?’,
India: FPTP on a grand scale’, ACE Encyclopedia, 5 ‘Judiciary comes under RTI ambit, says House The Times of India 31 Oct 2008
Feb 2009 panel’, The Financial Express, 30 Apr 2008 ‘Know Your Parliament’, PRS Legislative Research
‘India: Lack of accountability has corrupted Judiciary’, ‘Justice and Judicial Delay’, The Hindu, 6 Sep 2007 Website, 15 Dec 2008
Asian Human Rights Commission, 10 Sep 2008 Kumar Vinay, 'Delivery Monitoring Unit set up in
‘Justice Ashok Kumar’s Appointment Challenged’,
PMO', The Hindu,6 September 2009
‘India’, Literacy data in People Section, CIA World The Hindu 31 Jul 2007
Factbook, 24 Dec 2008 Kumar, Gaurav, and Mayank Singhal ‘Bhagidari:
‘Kabir: A communication initiative on Right to
Good Intention, Bad Implementation?’, Centre for
‘India’s Citizen’s Charters: A decade of experience’, Information’, May 2007, Changemakers Website, 20
Civil Society
Public Affairs Centre, 2007 Feb 2009
‘Lack of Staff Key Reason for CIC's Under-
Iyengar, Jayanthi. “Elections and the funding ‘Kannada Channel to include RTI programme in
Performance', Outlook India.com, 24 February, 2009
conundrum” The Hindu Business Line 10 Apr 2004 telecast’, 16 Jan 2007, RTI Community Portal
Website - rtiindia.org, 20 Feb 2009 ‘Loopholes in Right to Information Act’, The Times of
Iyer, Lakshmi and Anandi Mani, ‘Traveling Agents: India 19 Jan 2004
Political Change and Bureaucratic Turnover in India’, Kapoor, Commi, ‘Parliament taken for granted’, 26
Jan 2009, The Star Online Website, 6 Feb 2009 Maddison, ‘The Economic and Social Impact of
July 2008, Social Science Research Network, 13 Feb
Colonial Rule in India’
2008 Kapur, Devesh and Pratap Bhanu Mehta, ‘The Indian
Parliament as an Institution of Accountability’, United Madhawan M R, and Namita Wahi, ‘Measuring the
Iype, George. “How much does an election cost.” 26
Nations Research Institute for Social Development, effectiveness of the Indian Parliament’, PRS
Mar 2004, Rediff News - Elections 2004 Section,
Jan 2006 Legislative Research, 18 Nov 2008
Rediff Website, 18 Dec 2008
Kaur, Sumandeep, ‘Electoral Reforms in India: Madhukar, C V, ‘Images that stick’, Indian Express 28
Jamatia, Hamari “Poll process discouraging.” Indian
Proactive Role of Election Commission’ Mainstream Jul 2008
Express 12 Nov 2008
Weekly, 25 Nov 2008 ‘Make appointment of judges transparent’, Express
India, 30 Nov 2007
APPENDIX - D
References
Malena, Carmen, Reiner Forster, and Janmejay ‘Media and Right to Information: Role and ‘OPEN: Seoul's Anticorruption Project’, 28 Dec 2000,
Singh. “Social Accountability: An Introduction to the Significance’, National Implementing Agency - Govt World Bank's e-Government Website, 25 Jun 2009
Concept and Emerging Practice.”, The World Bank, of India and UNDP Initiative, 2006
‘Outcome Budget of Ministry of Steel', Government
2004 ‘Members' allowance expenditure 2007-08, MPs, of India - Ministry of Steel, 2008-09
Malhotra M, ‘Instrumentality of the CAG and the Lords and Offices Section, 24 Apr, UK Parliament
‘Outcome Budget of Ministry of Steel', Government
Executive’s Accountability’, Mainstream Weekly, 28 Website, 23 Jun 2009
of India - Ministry of Steel, 2009-10
Nov 2007 Mishra R K, ‘National Civil Service System in India: A
‘Outcome Budget', Government of India - Ministry of
Mandal, Debaki, ‘Beg Your Pardon, My Lord’ The Critical View’, April 2002
Home Affairs, 2008-09
Telegraph, 17 Nov 2004 Mitta, Manoj, ‘Standing in for Parliament’, The Times
‘Outcome Budget', Government of India - Ministry of
Marshall, Monty G. and Keith Jaggers; ‘Polity IV of India, 28 Dec 2008
Shipping, 2009-10
Country Reports 2007’; Center for Systemic Peace; ‘Mobile services in Tartu-Estonia’, Mobi Solutions,
2007 ‘Overview of Rural Decentralization in India', World
Dec 2005
Report 1999-2000, 27 September, 2000
Mathaiyan, R, Social Science, Chennai: Tamilnadu ‘Monitoring of Plan Scheme Expenditure' - CPSMS
Textbook Corporation 2004 an e-governance initiative Pandey, Sandeep, 'Social audit of jobs programme in
UP' , India Together, May 2008
Mathew, Liz. “Politicians buys a fifth of votes, shows Mukul, Akshaya, and Sanjay Dutta “Rs 6000 cr poll
study” Mint 22 Sept 2008 stimulus.” The Times of India 18 Feb 2009 ‘Party Finance Section, UK Parliament Website, 23
Jun 2009
Mathur, Dhrupad, Piyush Gupta and A. Sridevi, ‘e- Nagender, ‘UK, US judges declare assets, Indian
Governance approach in India - The National e- judges don’t want to’, Hindustan Times, 30 Jan 2009 ‘Performance Appraisal: Govt takes a cue from
Governance Plan (NeGP)’, 2009 private sector’, Business Standard, 06 June 2009
Narayan, Jayprakash, ‘Decentralisation, Voting and
McCandless, Henry, “The Issue of Public the Public Good’, Apr 2003, India Together Website, ‘Performance-related Pay Policies Across 12 OECD
Accountability: a Summary for Citizens”, Jan 2008, Countries’, OECD, 2005
9 Feb 2009
Citizens Circle of Accountability Website, 12 Dec ‘PIL on DGP appointment sparks debate on judicial
Narayan, Khushboo, ‘Application shows RTI is under-
2008 activism’, Indian Express, 5 Jan 2008
publicized’, Mint 23 Apr 2008
Meagher P and Caryn V, ‘Anti Corruption Agencies’, ‘Poll panel gets notice over loophole in electoral law”’
Nilekani to have Cabinet rank as ID Project head’,
United States Agency for International Development, 15 Apr 2008, Politics Section Samachaar Website 26
Express India, 25 June 2009
Jun 2006 Feb 2009
Okediji, Tade; ‘The Color Of Brazil: Law, Ethnic Porrua M, ‘Colombia's Government Portal’,10 Aug
Meagher P, ‘Anti-Corruption Agencies: A Review of
Fragmentation, And Economic Growth’, Social 2001, World Bank's e-Government Website, 25 Jun
Experience’, IRIS Center - University of Maryland,
Diversity Index Ratings Section, Chicago-Kent Law 2009
Aug 2002
Review; April 2008
APPENDIX - D
References
Porto Alegre, Brazil: Participatory Approaches in Rao, Aarti, 'Janaagraha: Harnessing the force of the Shah, Nirav Pankaj, 'RTI's penalised PIOs escape
Budgeting and Public Expenditure Management’, people', InfoChange News & Features, January 2006 paying fines', aravinthanlegal.lawyersclubindia.com,
Social Development Notes, The World Bank, Mar 07 September 2009
‘Report for Delivery Monitoring Unit (DMU) of PMO,
2003
Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan, 2007-08 Sharma Rajvir, ‘Changing Notions of Accountability:
‘Prior sanction not needed in corruption cases, says
A Good Governance Perspective’
SC’, The Financial Express, 7 Dec 2006 ‘Report of All India Seminar on Judicial Reforms’,
Confederation of Indian Bar, Feb 2008 Sharma, Tanu, ‘Parliament right to expel errant MPs
‘Priyasha, ‘Instilling Public Confidence in
but its actions open to scrutiny, says SC ’, Indian
Administration: The Need for an Ombudsman-like Roy RR, ‘Key pro-poor schemes miss targets’,
Institution in India’, 11 May 2008, Social Science Express 11 Jan 2007
igovernment website, 13 June 2008
Research Network, 7 Jan 2009 Singh B P, ‘The Challenge of Good Governance in
Roy, Bhaskar, ‘Immunity cover for top babus may go’,
‘PROGRAMME EVALUATION ORGANISATION', India: Need for Innovative Approaches’
The Times of India 14 Oct 2006
Planning Commission - Government of India Singh, Mahendra Kumar, 'Govt plans independent
Roy, Rajiv Ranjan, 'Key pro-poor schemes miss
‘PROGRAMME OUTCOME RESPONSE body to evaluate `aam aadmi' schemes', Times of
target', i-government, 13 June 2008
MONITORING DIVISION', Planning Commission - India, 16 September 2009
Government of India ‘RTI: Public Awareness and Educational
Singh, Sanjay, ‘Bench upholds expulsion of tainted
Programmes’, 6 Mar 2007, RTI Community Portal
‘Public participation in reforms low’ Financial MPs’, The Economic Times 11 Jan 2007
Express, 14 Feb 2003 Website - rtiindia.org , 20 Feb 2009
Sinha Rajesh, Accountability in Rural Wage
Raghavan, B S, ‘Appointment of Judges’, The Hindu S. Abbasi, 'Realization of the e-GP Vision: Role of e-
Employment in India, 2007
Business Line 24 Nov 2008 Bharat', Department of Information
TechnologyGovernment of India, 28 November, Sirker Karen, ‘General Social Accountability
Raja NK, G Sundararaman, G Vasumathi, and K 2006" Concepts and Tools’, World Bank Institute, 4 October
Palanisamy, Political Science, Chennai: Tamilnadu 2006
Textbook Corporation 2005 Satish, M, ‘Civil Service Reforms’, Centre for Good
Sirker Karen, 'General Social Accountability
Governance, Nov 2004
Rajan, Sudanshu, ‘Judicial appointments and Concepts And Tools' World Bank Institute, 4 October
transfers: need for transparency’ Deccan Herald, 31 ‘SC judges ready to declare assets, but with riders’, 2006
Oct 2008 The Economic Times, 17 Mar 2009 ‘Social Accountability Series', Rajasthan, India: An
Schacter, Mark, “When Accountability Fails- A Assessment of the Mid-Day Meal Scheme in
Ramesh, Jairam, ‘Will Live Parliament mean more
Framework for Diagnosis and Action.” Institute of Chittorgarh District, South Asia Sustainable
accountability’, The Times of India 2 Jan 2005
Governance, Ottawa Policy Brief, 2001 Development Department, August 2007
Rana, Ajit, ‘CBI’s impartiality has taken a beating’, 8 ‘Social Audit: Gram Sabha and Panchayti Raj’,
Nov 2007, Monster & Critics Website, 9 Jan 2009 Shah Parth, ‘We the free people of India’, The
Planning Commission, October 2005
Economic Times, 15 August 2002
APPENDIX - D
References
‘Socio Cultural Impact under the British Rule’, Tinani, Sunil, ‘Sharp claws but no teeth’, 23 Feb Wignaraja, Kanni, “Mutual Accountability
Indiannetzone Website, 1 August 2009 2008, Citizen Matters Website, 8 Jan 2009 Mechanisms: Accountability, Voice and
‘Study on the use of the Common Assessment Tiwari A N, ‘Transparency and Accountability in Responsiveness.”, UNDP Development Group, 2006
Framework in European Public Administrations’, Administration’, August 2004 ‘Window on State Government', Texas Government
European Institute of Public Administration, May ‘Total and Urban Population’, United Nation Website, 23 Jun 2009
2005 Population Fund – State of World Population, United
Nations, 2007 Yadav, Shyamlal, ‘A lot to hide’, India Today, 27 Mar
Subrahmanya, A T, ‘Lok Ayukta handicapped by few 2008
powers and fewer personnel’, The Times of India 4 ‘Tracking States' Spending Sites’, Mar 5 2009,
ProPublica Website, 26 Jun 2009 ‘1.1 billion people and just 81m internet users in India
Feb 2009
– Pitiful’, 2 Dec 2008, Search India Website, 24 Dec
Suri Megha, 'Now, Track Driving Licence Status ‘UP IAS Action Group revived’, The Times of India 25
Nov 2003 2008
Online', TNN, 22 February 2009
‘UPA mantra: Let’s fix governance’, Business ’10th Report - Refurbishing Of Personnel
Suri, KC, ‘Parties under Pressure: Political Parties in
Standard , 5 June 2009 Administration, ‘chapter 6 – Capacity Building’,
India Since Independence’, Centre for the Study of
Second Administrative Reforms Commissions
Developing Societies Upreti, Deepak. “Election Expenses: Sky is not the
Reports, 2008
limit.” Deccan Herald 15 Aug 2008
Suri, Megha, 'Now, track driving licence status
Vadivel, V S, ‘Public Interest Litigation: A boon or a ’10th Report - Refurbishing Of Personnel
online', The Times of India, 22 February 2009
bane, Legal Service India Website, 19 Feb 2009 Administration, ‘chapter 11– Performance
‘Tell Them You Know’, Express India initiatives Management System’, Second Administrative
section, Aug 2004, Indian Express Website, 20 Feb Viju, B, ‘Use RTI to get court orders copies’ The
Reforms Commissions Reports, 2008
Times of India, 19 Feb 2009
2009
‘Vote now, stop whining’, The Times of India 8 Mar ‘11th Report - Promoting E-governance : The SMART
Thakur, Pradeep, 'Official travel was 75% of Way Forward’, Second Administrative Reforms
2009
ministers' expenses', The Times of India, 13 Commissions Reports, December 2008
September 2009 Waghle, Swarnim and Parmesh Shah, 'An Issue
Paper on Participation in Public Expenditure ‘12th Report-Citizen Centric Administration-the heart
‘The Constitution of India’, Amended as of Dec 2007, Systems', The World Bank of governance’, Second Administrative Reforms
Ministry of Law and Justice Website, 6 Mar
Wasan, Dalip, ‘Voters have got limited choice’, 16 Commissions Reports, December 2008
2009Vadivel, V S, ‘Public Interest Litigation: A boon
Dec 2007, Article Base Website, 22 Dec 2008 ‘15% of Estonians voted by Internet’, World e-
or a bane, Legal Service India Website, 19 Feb 2009
Wasan, Dalip, ‘Voters have got limited choice’, 16 democracy forum, 17 June 2009
‘The politics of reverse discrimination’, 2 May 2008,
Dec 2007, Article Base Website, 22 Dec 2008
Merinews Website, 5 Feb 2009 ‘15,438 RTI appeals pending’, The Times of India, 1
‘What is Outcome Budget?', Rediff News,24 August Jun 2009
The Right to Information Act, 2005 - A Guide for 2005
Media', NIA, July 2006 ‘2008 Performance report of the Federal
Government’, Expect More Website, 24 Jun2009
APPENDIX - D
References (Books) References (Indices)
Arora, Ramesh, and Rajni Goyal, Indian Public Administration: Institutions ‘Corruption Perception Index’, Transparency International, 2009
and Issues, New Delhi: Wishwa Prakashan 1996
‘Doing Business Index’, The World Bank, 2008-09
Ferlie E, L Lynne and C Pollitt (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Public
‘Global Competitiveness Index’, World Economic Forum, 2009-10
Management, Oxford: Oxford University Press 2005
‘Governance Matters VI: Aggregate and Individual Governance Indicators’,
Garner R, Ferdinand P and Stephanie Lawson, ‘Introduction to Politics’,
The World Bank, 2007
Oxford University Press, 2009
‘Human Development Index - 2007’, Human Development Report, UNDP,
Godbole, Madhav, Public Accountability and Transparency, New Delhi:
2009
Orient Longman 2003
‘The Economist Intelligence Unit’s Index of Democracy 2008’; The Economist
Kapur, Devesh and Pratap Bhanu Mehta (Eds.), Public Institutions in India:
Intelligence Unit; 2008
Performance and Design, New Delhi: Oxford University Press 2007
‘The 2009 Legatum Prosperity Index’, The Legatum Institute, 2009
Jain, Ashok, Public Administration, Mumbai: Sheth Publishers 2008
Maheshwari, S R, Indian Administration, New Delhi: Orient Longman 2001
Sahu, Barun Kumar, Unwritten Flaws of Indian Bureaucracy, New Delhi:

Pustak Mahal 2004
Shah, Parth, and, Bakore, Makarand, Ward Power: Decentralised Urban

Governance, New Delhi: Centre for Civil Society 2006
Sherwood, Dennis, Seeing the forest for the trees – Applying systems
thinking, London: Nicholas Brealey Publishing 2002
Tummala, Krishna, Public Administration in India, New Delhi: Allied

Publishers 1996
Varma Pavan, ‘Being Indian’, Penguin Books, 2004
Mumbai
Shivsagar Estate D | Dr Annie Besant Rd | Worli Mumbai 400 018
| India
Tel + 91 22 66222100 | Fax + 91 22 66222111
growth@universalconsulting.com | www.universalconsulting.com
New Delhi
F0/F6 NewBridge Business Centre 6 Flr| Technopolis Tower B
Golf Course Rd | Sector 54 | Gurgaon
Tel +91 124 4626091/90/111 | Fax + 91 22 66222111
growth@universalconsulting.com | www.universalconsulting.com
The Power of Public Accountability, Nov 2009 Copyright © Jay P Desai, 2009. All Rights Reserved

Accountability PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Accountability PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Executive voice

The Power of Public Accountability

1. Background of our Research Study

3. Introduction to Public Accountability

4. Why Public Accountability is important

5. Factors impacting Public Accountability

6. Strengthening Public Accountability

B. Civil Society Organisations interviewed

1. Background of our Research Study

3. Introduction to Public Accountability

4. Why Public Accountability is important

5. Factors impacting Public Accountability

6. Strengthening Public Accountability

B. Civil Society Organisations interviewed

The findings of our year-long research study, suggest the following:

1. Background of our Research Study

3. Introduction to Public Accountability

4. Why Public Accountability is important

5. Factors impacting Public Accountability

6. Strengthening Public Accountability

B. Civil Society Organisations interviewed

Public Accountability is the responsibility of public officials to justify their conduct

Agents to whom public Public officials working

Public Accountability in India today, is still influenced by the socio-economic and

1. Background of our Research Study

3. Introduction to Public Accountability

4. Why Public Accountability is important

5. Factors impacting Public Accountability

6. Strengthening Public Accountability

B. Civil Society Organisations interviewed

It is imperative to improve governance, to strengthen the economic and social

Global cross-country surveys continuously highlight the poor quality of

Governance Performance Indicators

Institution Index India USA UK China Brazil Russia

Transparency Corruption Perception

Economist Democracy Index

How does this poor performance on governance, impact our

Governance & Economic Performance

10 Economic performance is measured using GDP per capita (PPP)

Economic Performance Indicators

Institution Index India USA UK China Brazil Russia

Doing Business Index

10 Social performance is measured using UNDP’s Human

Social Performance Indicators

Institution Index India USA UK China Brazil Russia

United Nations Human Development

Has positive impact on accountability

A burst of high-intensity governance reforms, similar to the economic reforms during

Key Economic Reforms

Has positive impact

1. Background of our Research Study

3. Introduction to Public Accountability

4. Why Public Accountability is important

5. Factors impacting Public Accountability

6. Strengthening Public Accountability

B. Civil Society Organisations interviewed

Public accountability in a country is impacted by socio-economic factors and the

We examined 12 Socio-Economic factors across 60-100 countries, to understand

Socio-Economic Factors Description

Individualistic Culture Degree to which individuals are integrated/dis-integrated into groups

Age of Democracy Number of years since the country attained democracy

Inter-personal Trust Degree of inter-personal trust among individuals in a society

Urbanisation Level Share of total population residing in urban areas