CHAPTER -1

Introduction

Over the past two decades, ‘governance’ has come to be seen as a core development

problem for developing State like India. There is a widespread concern stimulated by

increasing g inequality along-with growth that has created an impression of weakening

of public policy system and questions are raised about a legitimate administrative

authority to make it effective, accountable public authority.

Globalisation, liberalisation and market reform has been much acclaimed as instrument of

growth and prosperity. This process of reform and emergence of ‘new economy’

paradigm has on one hand contributed to make India a model of “roaring capitalist

success” 1, at the same time the growing inequity and poor performance on human

development index has led to sharp questions being raised on roll- back of State and the

credibility of governance and policies. Globalisation and market liberalization has done

little to lift the rural areas. The rising inequity and failure of State in reaching out to

benefit poor has been echoed by many studies. 2 This is highlighted in most telling

manner in following words “…business-centric view of India suppresses more facts than

it reveals. Recent accounts of the alleged rise of India barely mention the fact that the

country’s $728 per capita gross domestic product is just slightly higher than that of sub-

1
Foreign Affairs, July-August 2006, Vol. 85, No.4.
2
For detail discussion see, Basu, Kaushik(2010), Beyond the Invisible Hand: Groundwork for a New
Economics, New Delhi: Penguin; Bhaduri, Amit(2009), The Face You were Afraid to See: Essays on the
Indian Economy, New Delhi: Penguin; Kabra, Kamal Nayan(2008), High Growth, Rising Inequalities,
Worsening Poverty: India’s Development Experience, Delhi: Book for Change.
1
Saharan Africa and that, as the 2005 United Nations Human Development Report it, even

if it sustains higher growth rates, India will not catch up with high income countries….

Nor is India very fast on the report’s Human Development Index, where it ranks 127, just

two wrung above Myanmar and more than 70 below Cuba and Mexico. Despite recent

reduction in poverty levels, nearly 380 million people live on less than a dollar a day.” 3

In such an environment of growing dissatisfaction over State’s performance and failure in

reaching out to the poor, the response from Indian State has been to create a much larger

role for its public policy and service delivery system by introduction of National Rural

Employment Guarantee Act, 2005{the name changed as Mahatma Gandhi Rural

Employment Guarantee Act (MGNREGA) since an amendment made to the Act in

October,2009} 4. This was the first ever legislation passed by Indian Parliament to confer

legal rights on people to get public service delivered and this has made it unique in

history of public policy mechanism as for the first time it introduced the concept of legal

obligation of State to provide public service in form of employment within a time bound

manner(limited to 100 days per willing household). Prime Minister Manmohan Singh in

his address mentioned the Act as “…a path breaking legislation. It is a landmark in the

economic history of our people in the regime of rights enjoyed by our people and in our

efforts for social equity and justice.” 5 Highlighting the significance of role of public

policy mechanism in implementing the Act the PM said, “We need to translate the legal

3
Mishra, Pankaj, “The Myth of New India”, in The New York Times, July 26, 2006.
4
In present thesis the word NREGA or MGNREGA are used for the same Act and the word NREGS or
MGNREGS is used for the same scheme that have been formulated in the Act.
5
Manmohan Singh’s speech in Rajya Sabha Debates on ‘The National Rural Employment Guarantee Bill,
2005’, August 24, 2005, p.285
2
commitment of the Act into an effective Programme of Action that delivers the benefits as

guaranteed.” 6

Not only legal entitlements for getting service from state was mandated for the first time

with MGNREGA but also the Act provided various other provisions like mandatory role

of Panchayati Raj Institutions (PRIs) in planning and execution, in built mechanism of

transparency, accountability and social audit in delivery mechanism. All these concepts

are very new for the classical Weberian model institutions involved in public policy

delivery.

The status of public policy successful implementation has not been very promising in

developing countries and more so in India. In the same year when MGNREGA was

introduced in Parliament the World Bank Report(Development Policy Review) 7came out

with a detail report on status of implementation of public policy in India and raised its

concern in following words “India’s sterling economic performance has been

accompanied by a curious inversion. In past decades people would fret about economic

performance, but marvel at India’s institutional strengths in the public sector—a vibrant

democracy, an extraordinarily talented top-tier bureaucracy (the “steel frame” of the

Indian Administrative Service), and a set of organizations that could provide law and

order, revenue collection, and a modicum of services in a sprawling poor country. Today,

these concerns are almost inverted: it is easy to be optimistic about India’s economic

prospects, but there is growing concern that the basic institutions, organizations, and

6
PM Address to State Ministers of Rural Development, 27 September 2005,http://pib.nic.in/newsite/
erelease.aspx? relid=12270, downloaded on October 12, 2012.
7
World Bank, Development Policy Review (2006), India Inclusive Growth and Service delivery: Building
on India’s Success.

3
structures for public sector action are failing—especially for those at the bottom.

Statements of the need for institutional reform come from inside and outside of

government, from the left and right of the political spectrum, and from the top to the

bottom.” 8

How public policy and service delivery system has responded to the mandated provisions

and spirit of MGNREGA is a key question in understanding the nature and capacity of

institutions in responding to the aspirations of its people in governance milieu.

This is important to create an analytical and practical framework for using resources more

effectively for making public policy work for poor people as Devrajan and Shah put aptly

in following words, “Society and governments at all levels should learn from their

innovations by systematically evaluating and disseminating information about what

works and what does not. Only then can the innovations be scaled up to improve the lives

of the quarter of a billion poor people in India.” 9

Public policy: A Theoretical and Analytical framework

Defining Public Policy:

Different kinds of goods and services are indispensable for maintaining, promoting

and improving the quality of lives of people. In its simplest sense, ‘policy’ refers to a

broad statement that reflects future goals and aspirations and provides guidelines for

carrying out those goals. Initially, the views about public policy was limited to laws and

rules framed and implemented by the government thus we find Woodrow Wilson, who is

8
Ibid. p 1.
9
Devaranjan Shantayanan and Shekhar Shah(2004), “Making Services Work for India’s Poor”, EPW,
Vol.39, No.-9, February 28, 2004, p.907.
4
arguably the father of modern public administration, contends, “public policy is the laws

and regulations which are made by legislative statesmen and implemented by public

administration personnel” 10. This view is largely state centric where formulation and

implementation of public policy is related to laws and regulation, however, in the modern

era of the “administrative state” (Waldo, 1948) 11, there has been great expansion of role of

the state and the government. It is no longer limited only to formal legal structure but

there are various institutions and civil society actor that play great role in shaping and

formulation of public policy again the concept of modern state as a welfare state has led

to wide range of functions that require not only rule making but various policy decisions

in form of instructions, government orders, policy briefs, reports, etc. Thus it is clear that

decision making is just not limited to political arena and thus we find Paul Appleby

points out that decision-making doesn’t merely belong to politics and “public

administration means decision making” 12.

Etymologically, the term “policy” comes to us from Greek, Sanskrit, and Latin

languages. The Greek and Sanskrit root polis (city-state) and pur (city) evolved into the

Latin politia (State) and later, into the Middle English policie, which referred to the

conduct of public affairs or the administration of Government. The etymological origins

of policy are the same for two other important words: police and politics. This is one of

10
Wilson, Woodrow (1941), "The Study of Administration", Political Science Quarterly, vol. LVI
(December 1941), pp. 481-506
11
See Waldo, Dwight (1984 reprint edition), The Administrative State: A Study of the Political Theory of
American Public Administration, reprint edition, New York: Holmes & Meier.
12
Appleby, Paul (1994), Policy and Administration, Alabama: University of Alabama Press, p.27.
5
reason why many of the modern languages, for example German and Russian, have only

one word (politik, politika) to refer both to policy and politics. 13

As one reviews literature on public policy one may find many definitions and

explanations of the concept of the word ‘policy’. Anderson defines policy to be

regarded as “a relative stable purposive course of action followed by an actor or set of

actors in dealing with a problem or matter of concern.” 14 Thus, according to Anderson,

when a government takes a decision or chooses a course of action in order to solve a

social problem and adopts a specific strategy for its planning and implementation, it is

known as public policy. Hill defines ‘policy’ as ‘the product of political influence,

determining and setting limits to what the state does’ 15. In realm of academic literature

many policy analysts have related the study of public policy as study of process 16. As

aptly put by Rose in following words, “policy making is best conveyed by describing it

as a process, rather than as a single, once-for-all act” 17. Similarly, Gilliat argues that

policy decisions are not “something confined to one level of organization at the top, or at

one stage at the outset, but rather something fluid and ever changing.” 18 Dye define

policy as “Whatever governments choose to do or not to do.” 19 According to Brooks,

“Public Policy is the broad framework of ideas and values within which decisions are

taken and actions, or inaction, is pursued by governments in relation to some issue or

13
Dunn, William N. (1981), Policy Analysis: An Introduction, New Jersey: Prentice Hall, p.7.
14
Anderson,James E.(2006) , Public Policymaking: An Introduction, 6th edition, Boston: Houghton
Mifflin, p. 6.
15
Hill, Michael (ed.),(1993) The Policy Process : A Reader, London: Harvester Wheatsheaf. p.47
16
For detail see, Jenkins, W. I.(1978), Policy Analysis: A Political and Organizational Perspective, Oxford
: Martin Robertson; Rose, Richard (1976), The Dynamics of Public Policy, London: Sage Publications Ltd.
17
Rose, Richard (ed.), (1969), Policy Making in Britain: A Reader in Government, Macmillan and Co. Ltd,
p.xi.
18
Gilliat, Stephen (1984), “Public Policy Analysis and Conceptual Conservatism,” Policy and Politics,
Vol.12, No.4,p.345.
19
Dye, T.R.(1972), Understanding Public Policy, New Jersey: Prentice Hall, Englewood cliff, p.18.
6
problem.” 20 According to Daneke and Stesiss ‘Public policy’ is “A broad guide to

present and future decisions, selected in light of given conditions from a number of

alternative; the actual decision or set of decisions designed to carry out the chosen

course of actions; a projected program consisting of desired objectives(goal) and the

means of achieving them.” 21 Hanekom argues that policy is an indication of “a goal, a

specific purpose, a programme of action that has been decided upon. Public policy is

therefore a formally articulated goal that the legislator intends pursuing with society or a

societal group.” 22

Models of Public Policy

Public policy as an academic field of study emerged during the post World War II era and

the concept of policy sciences was introduced in 1951 by Harold Lasswell in his paper

“The Policy Orientation”. 23 The horrific experiences of World War II and advent of

Nuclear Weapon with growing concern of National Security in United States had created

a growing concern in academic field about irrationality of man and future of mankind.

This was an era when in field of politics there was an urge towards nurturing more

rationality and thus need to restructure political decisions and policy with greater role of

knowledge and information. Lasswell’s stated purpose in advocating the notion of a

‘policy science’ framework is that it sets the stage for a comprehensive, integrated

20
Brooks, S.(1989), Public Policy in Canada: An Introduction, Toranto: MeClelland and Steward Inc,
p.16.
21
Danke, G.A and Steiss, A.W.(1978), ‘Planning and Policy Analysis for Public Administration’, in
Sutherland, J.W.(ed.), Management Handbook for Public Administrators, New York: Van Nostrand and
Reinhold Company.
22
Hanekom, S.X.(1987), Public policy: Framework and Instrument for Action, Halfway House: Southern
House Publishers, p.7.
23
Lasswell, H.D.(1951), “The Policy Orientation” in Lerner, D. And Lasswell, H.D. (eds.), The Policy
Science, California: Stanford University Press.
7
understanding concerned with the knowledge of and in the policy making process for the

public and civic order. According to Lasswell, knowledge of the decision process implies

systematic, empirical studies of how policies are made and put into effect. A

commitment to empirical criteria for analysis commits policy studies to the ‘discipline’ of

careful observation, while his emphasis on the decision process underlines the difference

between the policy sciences and other intellectual pursuits.24 According to Lasswell, “By

focusing on the making and execution of policy, one identifies a relatively unique frame

of reference, and utilizes many traditional contributions to political science,

jurisprudence, and related disciplines. However... in the interest of realism... it is

essential to give full deference to the study of official and nonofficial processes.” 25

Therefore, decision-making processes are studied not only at the public level, but at the

civic level as well, assuring that policy sciences are able to distinguish between

functionally and conventionally relevant phenomena. Just as the policy sciences attempt

to account for all the relevant phenomena that help to explain policy decisions, so too do

they attempt to gain functional knowledge in the decision making process of policy

formation. The study of the policy decisions within Lasswell’s frame- work is not limited

to the mere explanation of decision making processes: knowledge of the policy making

process is to be used in the decision making process itself. Such an active ‘practitioner’

approach to decision making is consonant with Lasswell’s overall approach to politics

and policymaking. In his earlier work on policy entitled The Future of Political

24
See for details, McGovern, P., & Yacobucci, Peter (2008), ‘Lasswellian Policy Sciences and the
Bounding of Democracy’, Paper posted on Theory, Policy, and Society, online available at
www.cddc.vt.edu/tps/e-prints/Lasswell.PDF (accessed 3 April, 2013).
25
Ibid.
8
Science 26, Lasswell asserts that it is directly within the scope of political science and its

scientists to identify the factors that impede the realization of policy goals and where

necessary, provide the civic leadershipto negotiate such obstacles and aid in the

implementation of policy programs. 27 Lasswell’s provides an inter-disciplinary approach

to the understanding, description, and practice of the decision making process within

public policy. Analysing the approach of Lasswell in depth we find Mcgovern and Peter

make following important observation- “Lasswell commits his policy sciences framework

to the following attributes: contextuality (the idea that decisions are part of a larger social

process); problem orientation (Lasswell’s recognition that policy scientists should

approach policy making as a rational, purposeful process); and diversity(methods

employed by the policy scientist are not of a limited, narrow range). Contextuality, for

both Lasswell and those wishing to utilize his framework, is of primary importance. For
28
Lasswell, contextuality is an inescapable theme for the policy scientist.” “To be

professionally concerned with public policy is to be preoccupied with the aggregate, and

to search for ways discovering and clarifying the past, present, and future repercussions

of collective action (or in- action) for the human condition. In a world of science-based

technology every group and individual is interdependent with every other participant, and

the degree of interdependence fluctuates through time at the national, transnational, and

subnational level” (Lasswell 1971: 14). 29

The rational approach to study of public policy as enunciated by Lasswell in great, was

rejected in a classic work of Charles E. Lindblom, the leading proponent of the second

26
Lasswell, H.D.(1963), The Future of Political Science, New York: Atherton Press.
27
Ibid.
28
Mcgovern and Peter, op.cit, p.7.
29
As cited in Mcgovern and Peter, op.cit, p. 7.
9
theory of policy decision making—the incremental approach. In his most famous article,

“The Science of ‘Muddling Through”, published in Public Administration Review

(1959) 30. Lindblom took a hard look at the rational models of the decisional processes of

government. He rejected the notion that most decisions are made by rational (total

information) processes. For him the policy-making process is dependent upon small

incremental decisions that tend to be made in response to short-term political conditions.

He observes, “Making policy is at best a very rough process. Neither social scientists, nor

politicians, nor public administrators yet know enough about the social world to avoid

repeated error in predicting the consequences of policy moves. A wise policy-maker

consequently expects that his policies will achieve only part of what he hopes and at the

same time will produce unanticipated consequences he would have preferred to avoid.

If he proceeds through a succession of incremental changes, he avoids serious lasting

mistakes in several ways.” 31 Lindblom’s thesis essentially held that decision making was

controlled infinitely more by events and circumstances than by the will of those in policy-

making positions. Disjointed incrementalism as a policy course was in reality the only

truly feasible route, since incrementalism “concentrated the policymaker’s analysis on

familiar, better-known experiences, sharply reduced the number of different alternative

policies to be explored, and sharply reduced the number and complexity of factors to be

analyzed.” Moreover, Lindblom argued that incrementalism was more consistent with the

pluralistic nature of American democracy where individuals are free to combine to pursue

common interests, whose contention “often can assure a more comprehensive regard for

the values of the whole society than any attempt at intellectual comprehensiveness.”
30
Lindblom, Charles(1959), ‘the Science of Muddling Through’, Public Administration Review, Vol.19,
no-2, pp.79-88.
31
Ibid.
10
Dror finds Lindblom’s ‘incrementalist model’ of decision making conservative and is

suitable only in those situation where policies are satisfactory, and problems are quite

stable over time. Further, he observes that the approach justifies the status quo and ignore

the possibility of fundamental change. 32 The incrementalist approach to policy making is

indecisive. As Lane puts it: “its deductive power is constrained by the difficulty in

specifying what an increment is whilst its degree of confirmation is reduced by the

typical occurrence of shift points in policy making which defy the interpretation of the

incrementalist equation as stable linear growth models.” 33 Lindblom’s main focus has

been to identify the constraints that shape decision making in the modern policy process.

As he suggests, “Hence anyone who wants to understand what goes wrong in the effort to

use government to promote human well-being needs to comprehend how power relations

shape and misshape public policies and to probe how power relations might be

restructured to produce better policies.” 34

Through time and evolution, Lasswell introduced stages or policy cycle model in the

public policy realm, identifying seven stages; intelligence, promotion, prescription,

invocation, application, termination and appraisal. 35 Until the mid-1980s, the most

influential framework for understanding the policy process particularly among American

scholars was this “stages heuristic,” or what Nakamura (1987) termed the “textbook

32
Dror, Yehezkel (1964), ‘Muddling Through – ‘Science’ or ‘Inertia’?’, Public Administration Review,
Vol.
24, No. 3, , pp. 153-157.
33
Lane, Jane-Erik (2000), The Public Sector, 3rd edition, London: Sage, p. 75.
34
Lindblom, Charles and Woodhouse, E.J.(1993), The Policy Making Process, 3rd edition, Englewood
Cliff: Prentice Hall, p. 76.
35
Lasswell, H.D. (1956), The Decision Process: Seven Categories of Functional Analysis, College Park:
University of Maryland.
11
approach.” 36 In public policy study after Lasswell, this approach has been propounded in

works of Jones (1970), Anderson (1975), and Brewer and deLeon (1983). 37 According to

stage heuristic theorists, the policy process is divided into a series of stages usually

agenda setting, policy formulation and legitimation, implementation, and evaluation—

and discussed some of the factors affecting the process within each stage. The stages

heuristic served a useful purpose in the 1970s and early 1980s by dividing the very

complex policy process into discrete stages and by stimulating some excellent research

within specific stages like agenda setting and policy implementation. The stage heuristic

or policy cycle model has been under criticised for not being a really causal theory since

it never identifies a set of causal drivers that govern the policy process within and across

stages. Referring Nakamura(1987) and other critics other like (Hjern and Hull 1982),

Sabataier suggests that the proposed sequence of stages in policy cycle model is often

descriptively inaccurate. 38 For example, evaluations of existing programs affect agenda

setting, and policy formulation/legitimation occurs as bureaucrats attempt to implement

vague legislation. According to Sabatier, “…the stages heuristic has a very legalistic, top-

down bias in which the focus is typically on the passage and implementation of a major

piece of legislation.” 39 This focus neglects the interaction of the implementation and

evaluation of numerous pieces of legislation none of them preeminent within a given

policy domain. Thus in this model the assumption that there is a single policy cycle

36
Nakamura, T.R.(1987), ‘The Textbook Policy Process and Implementation Research’, Review of Policy
Research, , vol. 7, issue 1, pp.142-154
37
See for details of these works, JONES, C. (1970), An Introduction to the Study of Public Policy,
Belmont, Wadsworth; Anderson, James, E. (1975), Public Policy Making, London: Thomas Nelson and
Sons Limited; and Brewer, G. and P. DeLeon( 1983), The Foundations of Policy Analysis, Brooks/Cole:
Pacific Grove.
38
For detail analysis see, Sabatier , Paul A.(2007), ‘The Need for Better Theories’, in Sabatier , Paul A,
(ed.), Theories of the Policy Process, Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press, pp.3-20
39
Ibid.,p.-7
12
focused on a major piece of legislation oversimplifies the usual process of multiple, inter-

acting cycles involving numerous policy proposals and statutes at multiple levels of

government.

David Easton(1953) who pioneered the systems approach to study of political science

provided a framework for study of policy by arguing that “it is the authoritative values of

allocation for the whole society.” 40 Easton’s ‘political system’ model views the policy

process as a ‘political system’ responding to the demands arising from its environment.

The ‘political system’ as defined by Easton is composed of those identifiable and

interrelated institutions and activities in a society that make authoritative decisions (or

allocations of values) that are binding on society. He explains that the environment

provides inputs to the decision process/political system in the form of demands and

supports. Inputs into the system are provided through outside interests particularly from

pressure groups, consumer groups and interest groups. These environmental inputs are

converted through the political system into outputs or policies. However, Easton’s model

of systems approach has also been criticised for having its own limitations. In a system

what are values and how one identifies values? According to Easton, values involve not

only tangible matters, such as capital, but also intangible matters (e.g., power, reputation,

and service). Critics of Easton have questioned this suggesting that Easton’s definition of

public policy using the term “values” is inherently ambiguous. 41 Renzong Huang

suggests following limitations 42: First, as a philosophic concept, “values” are the function

and utility of object for subject. At the same time, “values” can be understood as all

40
Easton, David (1953), The Political System, New York: Knopf.
41
Huang, Renzong (2002), ‘On the Nature of Public Policy’, Chinese Public Administration Review,
Volume 1, No.3/4 ,pp.275-282.
42
Ibid.,p.277.
13
objects having utility for subjects. Interests are all the resources and conditions which are

necessary for the survival, development, freedom, and happiness of people. As a matter

of fact, the values “for the whole society” are public interests. Since being offered by

neoliberal philosopher John Rawls in the1970s, the thought that individual interests are

prior to public interests has deeply influenced modern government’s public policy.

Economist Kenneth Joseph Arrow’s “theorem of impossibility” contends it to be

impossible to cultivate a unanimous social choice or to construct hierarchical

arrangement of social interests. In other words, there is no unitary “public interest.” 43

Another limitation of the system approach to policy has been that not all values in society

can be allocated. According to David Easton, values are things that are valuable for

people. Yet, there are too many things that have utility for people, including natural

values like sunshine or rain and human values like power and prestige .Therefore, not all

values in society can be allocated by public policy.

Finally, does public policy only have the function of allocation? Huang argues that

public policy not only needs to allocate values, but also bears the function and mission

of promoting or producing values. In other words, besides the functions of allocating

social values or public interests, public policy has the function of producing,

exchanging, and consuming public interests. 44

John Kingdon (1984) has proposed a the multiple-streams framework. 45 It views the

policy process as composed of three streams of actors and processes: a problem stream

consisting of data about various problems and the proponents of various problem

43
Ibid.,p.277.
44
Ibid.,p.277.
45
Kingdon, John (1984), Agendas, Alternatives, and Public Policies, Boston: Little, Brown.
14
definitions; a policy stream involving the proponents of solutions to policy problems;

and a politics stream consisting of elections and elected officials. In Kingdon’s view,

the streams normally operate independently of each other, except when a “window of

opportunity” permits policy entrepreneurs to couple the various streams. If the

entrepreneurs are successful, the result is major policy change. Mucciaroni (1992)

criticised Kingdon´s model as being indeterminate to provide fully satisfactory

explanations about the attention that some issues receive in the political arena against

others, using two case studies, namely tax reform and deregulation to support his

arguments. 46

Sabatier and Jenkins-Smith has proposed the advocacy coalition framework (ACF)47

that focuses on the interaction of advocacy coalitions—each consisting of actors from a

variety of institutions who share a set of policy beliefs—within a policy subsystem.

Policy change is a function of both competition within the subsystem and events

outside the subsystem. The framework spends a lot of time mapping the belief systems

of policy elites and analyzing the conditions under which policy-oriented learning

across coalitions can occur. The three “foundation” stones of the framework are the

following 48: First, A macro-level assumption that the broader socioeconomic and

political factors affect the behaviour of the policy making specialists within the policy

subsystem. Secondly, a micro-level model a socio-psychological approach to individual

behaviour. Third, a meso-level belief that “advocacy coalitions” are to solution to the

46
Mucciaroni, G. (1992), ‘The Garbage Can Model and the Study of Policy Making: A Critique’,
Polity24(1), pp. 459-482.
47
For detail see, Sabatier, Paul, and Hank Jenkins-Smith (eds.) (1993), Policy Change and Learning: An
Advocacy Coalition Approach, Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
48
Sabatier, P.A. and Weible, C.M.(2007), ‘The Advocacy Coalition Framework’, in Sabatier, P.A. (ed.),
Theories of the Policy Process, 2nd ed., Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
15
successful integration of the multiple actors in the policy subsystem. This multiplicity

of actors can be described as a number of interest groups, which share common policy

beliefs and values, and who support certain interests, which interests are served by a

policy change or not. Thus, they form alliances and/or compete in the policy subsystem,

utilizing the available resources. The role of the policy broker, who is a form of a

mediator, is of particular importance, since he is trying to achieve compromise, in light

of the conflicting beliefs, interests and positions of the coalesced parties.

Baumgartner and Jones has proposed the punctuated-equilibrium (PE) framework 49

and it is argued that policymaking in the United States is characterized by long periods

of incremental change punctuated by brief periods of major policy change. More

precisely, the objective of this framework is to “capture this tendency of political

systems to drift incrementally most of the time, only to be roused to major action when

collective attention became galvanized around an issue”. 50 Furthermore, the role of

institutions in this interchange of stability and crisis is pointed out by other theorists,

who note that the periods of instability and major policy change that perturb the long

periods of incremental change (considered as stability periods), significantly affect the

institutional arrangements, while the new institutions create the basis for a new period

of stability. 51

49
Baumgartner, F. and Jones, B. D. (1993), Agendas and Instability in American Politics, Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
50
Baumgartner, F.R., Green-Pedersen, C., and Jones, B.D. (2006), ‘Comparative studies of policy
agendas’, Journal of European Public Policy, Volume13, Issue 7, pp. 959-974.
51
True, J.L., Jones, B.D. And Baumgartner, F.R. (2007), ‘Punctuated Equilibrium Theory: Explaining
stability and change in policy making’, Sabatier, P.A. (ed.),Theories of the Policy Process, 2nd ed.
Westview Press.

16
The main elements of the punctuated equilibrium framework as proposed by its

exponents are:

•Policy monopoly (policy subsystem, dominated by a single interest and definable

institutional structure responsible for policymaking in an issue area).

•Policy image (empirical information and emotive appeals; driver or change).

•Institutional policy venues (drivers of change; differentiated according to the context .

Parag proposed the Policy Process Networks (PPN) framework 52 that is based on the

combination of systems thinking (especially the concepts of dynamic process and

interdependencies), Policy Cycle and Policy Networks perspectives. The benefits of

this combination lie on the combined neutralization of the individual drawbacks of

each perspective. More precisely, she argues that the policy process involves several

different networks -the Policy Process Networks (PPN), and that each stage of any

policy process is governed by a specific network – the Stage Network. “This network

structure and characteristics are shaped by the institutions and the procedures that

govern the stage and by the interactions between actors who have interest in the

52
Parag, Y. (2006), ‘A system perspective for policy analysis and understanding: the policy process
Networks’, The Systemist, 28(2), pp.212-224.

17
 specific stage and who have access to relevant decision making fora”. 53 The main

steps of the framework as proposed are following:

1. Policy process is disaggregated to its sequence stages

2. For each policy stage the following actions are taken:

a. the essential resources are identified

b. the set of outcomes is detected

c. the network is identified and examined

d. the outcomes are explained by the unique stage’s network characteristics

e. the network characteristics are viewed and explained in the context of the
other stages networks.

On the basis of above discussions and proposed models it is clear that the most well

established approach for Policy analysis is the “stagist” approach. This approach have

been very well enunciated in Hogwood and Gunn who identify the following stages 54 :

 Deciding to decide
 Deciding how to decide
 Issue definition
 Forecasting
 Setting objectives and priorities
 Options analysis
 Policy implementation, monitoring and control
 Evaluation and review
 Policy maintenance, succession and termination

53
Ibid., p.213.
54
Hogwood B.W., and Gunn L.A. (1984), Policy Analysis for the Real World. Oxford University Press,
p.4.
18
Hogwood and Gunn’s approach goes beyond a simple identification of stages to suggest

actions that they think ought to occur. As such, it offers a version of the rational model

of decision making. The advantage of the stage model is that it offers a way of

chopping up, if only for the purpose of analysis, a complex and elaborate process.

Although there are studies that comprise some less or more stages to study public policy

according to the context however one may agree with Theodoulouand Cahn who

suggest that there are commonly agreed upon stages for public policy formulation which

consist of 55:

Stages in policy formulation Explanation

1. Issue identification and During this stage attention is drawn to
Problem definition circumstances that are potential issues
requiring attention of policymakers.
2. Setting the agenda The issue has generated enough attention to
warrant further action.
3. Policy formulation Steps are suggested as to how the problem
could be addressed; which tools and
instruments could be used and which
institution could be the best place to address the
problem.
4. Policy adoption: Alternatives are considered and one is selected
That could be used in addressing the issue.

5. Policy Action to give effect to the chosen alternative

implementation Is taken.

6. Policy evaluation The impact of the policy in delivering the

Desired result is examined.

55
Theodoulou, Stella Z., & Cahn, Matthew A. (eds.) (1995),Public policy: The essential readings,
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
19
In order to facilitate the understanding of policy processes, this approach divides the

process into a set of phases or steps, from setting the agenda (defining the problem), to

policy design (deciding how to tackle the problem), to implementation, and finally to

evaluation. It is very common to find this stage division in policy process textbooks,

as it offers a clear differentiation of the issue and factors involved in each stage or set of

activities. However, as mentioned earlier some policy scholars have strongly criticised

this approach arguing that, a sequence of stages limits the depth of analysis as stages are

not clear cut in the real world, and it is possible that the proposed stages may overlap or

simply do not have clear boundaries; decisions are taken throughout the process and not

only during policy design as suggested. Despite such criticisms, the stagist approach is

still widely used.

By focusing on policy implementation, the thesis implicitly adopts the “stagist

approach”. Although I agree with its critics, however, the stagist approach helps to easily

identify the issues and activities involved in the discrete parts of the process that

I am interested in observing. The approach may consequently be seen as a useful

analytical tool rather than as a comprehensive causal theoretical model. It is recognised

that policies are still being shaped and redesigned during implementation, even though

the policy “design stage” would have finished long before the “implementation stage”.

Implementation Studies:

The field of implementation studies is a sub-discipline of the wider field of public policy

analysis. It focuses on how policies are put into practice. This stage of the policy process

is easier to identify in political systems that require a level of formality to policy-making.

20
For example, within legislative systems that enact policies after a period of negotiation,

policy implementation starts with the publication of the policy and the definition of

roles of implementing agencies. Hence, agenda-setting and policy design precede

enactment, while policy implementation follows it. Taking into account the view put

forward by Sabatier and Jenkins-Smith(1993) 56,implementation is an on-going part of the

policy-making process where decisions are taken and policy is formulated. Policy design

influences implementation and, conversely, during implementation a policy is usually

redesigned; policies are shaped during implementation. In order to understand the

dynamics of the implementation processes, the analysis has to focus on the actual

carrying out of the policy and leave out processes of agenda-setting and policy

choices. A vast literature on the implementation stages shows the relevance of

understanding how policies are translated into actions, as this in turn affects policy

outcomes. In this section, I will focus on the implementation studies literature.

The study of implementation is about analysing the interplay of politicians,

administrators and service providers. There are different definitions of the term

“implementation” in the literature; however, far from excluding each other, their core

differences lie mainly in the variables they focus on. Howlett and Ramesh(2003), for

example, define implementation as “the process whereby programmes or policies are

carried out, the translation of plans into practice”. 57 O’Toole (2000) understands it as

“what happens between the establishment of a policy and its impact in the world of

56
Sabatier, Paul and Hank Jenkins-Smith, (1993), Policy Change and Learning: An Advocacy Coalition
Approach, Oxford: Westview Press.
57
Howlett, M. and M. Ramesh (2003), Studying Public Policy: Policy Cycles and Policy Sub systems,
Oxford University Press. p.185.
21
action”. 58 These authors focus on processes and actions taking place after a policy has

been enacted. Others, like Mazmanian and Sabatier(1989) 59 emphasise the role of

decision-making, first when addressing a problem, then within the implementing

agencies, and finally in the compliance of target groups. Dunsire(1978), proposed

concepts such as pragmatisation examining what happens when policy intentions are

turned into action. De Leon(1999) emphasises the expected versus the achieved approach

and Barrett and Fudge (1981) apply their approach on the interaction and negotiation

processes. 60

The definition I use for implementation draws on elements of the above perspectives to

highlight the most relevant aspects to look at while studying implementation. In this

thesis, implementation is defined as a process that takes place between policy design and

its observed results or impacts. It includes decisions and interactions among different

actors. Implementation cannot be fully understood without looking also at the

influence of policy design processes on implementation and the underlying values and

beliefs of actors associated with the policy itself. In order to facilitate the analysis and

interaction of actors, I identify two levels in the process of implementation: policy

operationalisation and service delivery. Policy operationalisation refers to the negotiation

and determination by government officials and managers of the rules and procedures

to put the policy into action. Service delivery refers to the provision of services,

58
O’Toole, L. J. (2000), Research on policy implementation: Assessment and prospects, Journal of Public
Administration Research and Theory, 10(2), pp. 263–288.
59
Mazmanian, D.A., & Sabatier, P. A. (1989), Implementation and public policy. Lanham,MD: University
Press of America.
60
See for details, Dunsire, A. (1978), The Execution Process, Volume 1: Implementation in a Bureaucracy,
Oxford: Martin Robertson; DeLeon, P.(1999), ‘The missing link revisited: Contemporary implementation
research’, Policy Studies Review, 16 (3/4): pp.11–38; and Barrett, S.M. and Fudge, C. (eds.) (1981), Policy
and Action: Essays on the Implementation of Public Policy. London: Methuen.
22
including actions by street-level implementers and their interaction with policy

beneficiaries.

Overview of implementation research

Public policy processes have been widely studied, from setting a policy agenda to policy

evaluation. Early studies of public policy were concerned with inputs and outputs; they

focused on the resources needed to achieve predefined goals and did not consider the

influence of bureaucracy and service providers on the effectiveness of a

policy(Parsons1995) 61. It was not until the works of Pressman and Wildavsky(1973)that

attention turned specifically to policy implementation. Focusing on the failure of

government in achieving the stated goals of policy they argued to look into what

happened inside the black box, between goals and actual results. They were concerned

about policies failing to achieve their aims and put the blame not on bad design or poor

evaluation, but on those in charge of carrying them out. 62 Almost in similar tone,

Hargrove (1975) labelled policy implementation as the “missing link” because it had

been so neglected by policy analysts. 63

From the time of this call for a deeper understanding of policy implementation, a vast literature

has been created exploring it. And yet, there is still no consensus among academics or

practitioners about the factors that facilitate or constrain the implementation of public

61
Parsons, Wayne(1995), Public Policy: An Introduction to the Theory and Practice of Policy Analysis,
Cheltenham, U.K.: Edward Elgar Publishing, Inc.
62
Pressman, J.L. and Wildavsky, A. (1973), Implementation, (1st ed.), Berkeley: University of California
Press.
63
Hargrove, E.C. (1975), The Missing Link: The Study of the Implementation of Social Policy, Washington,
DC: Urban Institute.
23
policies .Implementation continues to be discussed as the missing link (Robichau and

Lynn 2009) 64 in study of public policy.

When we look at the implementation studies we find that three generations or waves of

implementation studies have been broadly identified and accepted (Fischer etal.2007;

Goggin etal.1990; M.Hill and Hupe 2006; Howlett and Ramesh 2003) 65. The first

generation is best illustrated by the works of Pressman and Wildavsky, who stress the

need to scientifically explain why policies were not delivering the expected results. The

relevance of the first generation rests mainly in its effort to simply widen the scope of

policy analysis to the implementation phase. The second generation is dominated by a

debate between the so-called top-down and bottom-up approaches, which take opposite

analytical focuses about the implementation process. The subsequent wave of studies –

the third generation - aims to reconcile these approaches and suggest different analytical

stands.

“Top-down” approaches, also called “rational control models”, see implementation as a

logical sequence or chain of activities. If implementation fails, top-down scholars argue,

it is because the strategy or instruments were wrongly selected, operationalisation was

poor, or there was an inadequate response to problems. For these models, what matters

for effective implementation is command and control, making sure that instructions are

64
Robichau, R. W. and Lynn Jr., L. E. (2009), ‘The Implementation of Public Policy: Still the Missing
Link’, Policy Studies Journal, no.37, pp. 21–36.
65
Fischer, Frank, Miller, Gerald J. and Sidney, Mara S.(eds.)(2007), Handbook of Public Policy Analysis:
Theory, Politics and Methods, London: Taylor & Francis Group; Goggin, M.L., A.O’M. Bowman, J.P.
Lester, and L.J. O’Toole, Jr.(eds.), (1990), Implementation Theory and Practice: Towards a Third
Generation. Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman/ Little,Brown; and Howlett and Ramesh, op.cit.,

24
obeyed throughout the chain (Gunn 1978). 66 They place a central role on decisions made

by politicians and see implementation as the follow-up of those decisions by

administrators and service providers. Hill and Hupe(2002) phrase this as the

“implementation follows formulation and decision theorem”. 67 Van Meter and Van

Horn(1975),classic authors of this approach, highlight the role of decision-making

processes by those at the top and see implementation as an administrative process. 68

(Hood 1976) argues that implementation failure is about poor management and

communication. 69

The main criticism of the top-down view is it’s neglect of the influence that actors within

the process have on the effectiveness of implementation. The top-down view disregards

the ideologies, values, beliefs and motivations of implementers. In response, the

“bottom-up” literature focuses on human interaction among actors involved in the

implementation process and those affected by the policy. According to the bottom-up

approach, implementers should be considered in behavioural terms rather than as

elements in lines of command (Elmore 1979). 70 Lipsky’s (1980) work on street-level

bureaucrats is the classic example of the bottom-up approach. 71 He argues that

bureaucrats in charge of delivering services possess a great deal of discretion in their

actions and behaviour, giving them a degree of power to amend or even change policies.

66
Gunn, LA. (1978), ‘Why is implementation so difficult?’, Management Services in Government, no.33,
pp.169-76.
67
Hill, Michael and Hupe, Peter(2002), Implementing Public Policy: Governance in Theory and Practise,
(1st ed), London : Sage, p.-4.
68
Meter, Van and Horn, Van (1975), ‘The Policy Implementation Process: A Conceptual Framework,’
Administration & Society, Vol. 6, No. 4, pp.445-487.
69
Hood, C. C. (1976), The Limits of Administration, London: John Wiley & Sons.
70
Elmore, Richard F. (1979), ‘Backward Mapping: Implementation Research and Policy Decisions’,
Political Science Quarterly, Vol. 94, No. 4, pp. 601-616.
71
Lipsky, Michael (1980), Street-Level Bureaucracy Dilemmas of the Individual in Public Services, New
York: Russell Sage Foundation.
25
 Barrett and Fudge (1981) build on this idea and argue that actors operating a policy

inevitably interpret it and modify it, hence making decisions – and, therefore, policy –

during the implementation stage. 72 For the bottom-up approach, effective implementation

is therefore determined mainly by the knowledge and experience of people in the front-

line of service delivery. 73

The third generation of implementation studies encompasses “hybrid theories” that bring

together elements of both top-down and bottom-up literature in search of a more

comprehensive approach to the subject. This development was led by eminent scholars

like Wildavsky, Sabatier and Elmore, who modified their initial top-down or bottom-up

perspectives. For example, Elmore developed the concept of “forward mapping” to

complement his previous “backward mapping” analysis, where he suggests first taking

into consideration the dynamics of implementers and target groups and then moving up

to policy-makers. Majone and Wildavsky (1978), Browne and Wildavsky (1984),

Bennett and Howlett(1992), Sabatier and Jenkins-Smith (1993) all modified their

understanding of implementation to a learning or evolutionary process, where actors take

their experience of feedback into the process and adapt it to deliver better results. 74

Lowi(1972) identifies “policy types”, namely distributive, regulatory and redistributive,

and suggests looking at different factors influencing implementation according to the

72
Barrett, S. & Fudge, C. (Eds.) (1981), Policy and Action. London: Meuthuen.
73
Parsons(1995), op.cit., p.470.
74
For details on this one may see, Majone, G. and Wildsky, A.(1995), ‘Implementation as evaluation’, in
Theodoulu, S.Z and Cahn, M.A., Public Policy: The essential Reading, Englewood Cliff: Prantice Hall; Brown,
A. and Wildavsky, A.(1984), ‘Implementation as Exploration’, in Pressman, J.L. and Wildavasky, A. (eds.),
Implementation, (3rded.), Berkeley: University of California Press; Bennett, Colin J. and Howlett M. (1992),
‘The lessons of learning: Reconciling theories of policy learning and policy change’, Policy
Sciences, Volume 25, Issue 3, pp. 275-294; and Sabatier and Jenkins, op.cit.

26
policy type. 75 The top-down/bottom-up debate was eventually overcome when policy

scholars acknowledged the value of different theories and frameworks in bringing

different perspectives to understanding the implementation process rather than validating

one approach over another.

One of the most recent contributions to the study of implementation takes the concept of

“governance” as a base. Scholars like Hill and Hupe(2002), and Robichau and Lynn

(2009) put forward a model of governance for implementation studies building on

a managerial approach and incorporating elements of political science. The focus is on

governance that refers “to the way in which collective impacts are produced in a social

system”. 76 The model identifies multiple levels of action and different variables that

influence performance such as citizen preferences, public choice and policy designs,

public management, service delivery, outputs and outcomes. 77

Though much has been written about what makes for effective

implementation, there is still no consensus about what works best under which

circumstances. The different approaches and theories on the issue offer a partial view of

facts - or, as Allison (1971) puts, it, “they offer different lenses to look into policy

processes focusing on some elements while blurring others”. 78 Policy analysis,

75
Lowi, Theodore J. (1972), ‘Four Systems of Policy, Politics, and Choice’, Public Administration Review,
Vol. 32, No. 4., pp. 298-310.
76
Hill and Hupe, op.cit., p.13.
77
Robichau, R., & Lynn Jr., L. (2009), ‘The Implementation of Public Policy: Still the Missing
Link’, Policy Studies Journal, 37 (1), p.23.
78
Allison, Graham (1971), Essence of Decision: Explaining the Cuban Missile Crisis, Boston: Little,
Brown.

27
especially the field of implementation studies, needs more dialogue within itself in order

to construct a better understanding of relevant issues.

For the purpose of this thesis, several of the perspectives described above are adopted for

the study of policy implementation. Processes are observed from the top

(operationalitation level) and from the bottom (service delivery level). Actors at all levels

are considered, from politicians to street-level practitioners. The thesis is also concerned

with the influence of ideas and beliefs on implementation and, therefore, draws on the

ideas of post-modernist theorists. To include more recent and mainstream

approaches, the thesis framework also looks at managerial practices. By analysing the

implementation of MGNREGA that involves public policy with a pro-active service

delivery, the thesis bridges the policy literature with the service delivery literature and

looks into how services are actually provided to the population and in doing so what are

the constrains and challenges faced by the State. The service delivery literature often

includes citizens’ participation as a desirable feature to improve providers’ performance.

Following the literature on participatory democracy, this thesis adds into the analysis the

role of citizens’ participation in policy processes, therefore bringing this dimension to the

study of implementation.

Statement of the Problem:

The above discussions and a review of public policy studies and implementation research

highlights clearly that implementation of a public policy is of utmost importance,

however, as it has been pointed out that the field of implementation studies has only

emerged recently as an academic research field only during 1970s. Thus, there is a still

28
lack of extensive research in this area and as most of the literature and approach have

been developed in western and developed nations there is an imminent need of research

in this field in developing states like India. The problem is best echoed in following

words of kuldeep Mathur(2013), “The disciplines of political science and public

administration in India have not given the attention that policy analysis deserves.” 79

Within this context my study on “Analysis of MGNREGS from Policy Perspective: A

study of Selected Districts in Uttar Pradesh” has been done. It has been more than five

years since the MGNREGA have been introduced. The goals of MGNREGA has been

defined in operation guidelines issued by Ministry of Rural Development(MORD) as

following 80:

a. Strong social safety net for the vulnerable groups by providing a fall-back

employment source, when other employment alternatives are scarce or inadequate.

b. Growth engine for sustainable development of an agricultural economy. Through

the process of providing employment on works that address causes of chronic

poverty such as drought, deforestation and soil erosion, the Act seeks to strengthen

the natural resource base of rural livelihood and create durable assets in rural

areas. Effectively implemented, NREGA has the potential to transform the

geography of poverty.

c. Empowerment of rural poor through the processes of a rights-based Law.

d. New ways of doing business, as a model of governance reform anchored on the

principles of transparency and grass root democracy.

79
Mathur, Kuldeep (2013), Public Policy and Politics in India: How Institutions Matter, New Delhi: Oxford
University Press, p.1
80
Government of India (2008), MGNREGA Operational Guidelines,3rd edition, New Delhi: Ministry of
Rural Development, p.1.
29
The importance of implementation challenge and focus on making effective public policy

delivery mechanism is enunciated itself in clear terms in Goals of MGNREGA. The

critics notwithstanding the implementation of MGNREGA has been acclaimed as one of

the most pioneering legislation and international institutions like ILO have lauded the

programme for providing employment to poor as it "stands to offset the potential shock to

the poor in this time of recession". 81 World Bank's Country Director Roberto Zagha

highlighted the importance of the programme by commenting "India is fortunate to have

in place a (NREGA) program that people can fall back on to find work in these hard

times”. 82

Since its inception the programme has provided employment for more than seven hudread

crore persondays and asset creation in form 122 lacs work undertaken in the programme

till December 2010(source MORD website). The programme has been inclusive of social

groups as more than fifty percent of employment benefit has been to the group of

Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe. Women Participation in the programme has been also

quite an achievement as National average of women participation in the programme has

been more than forty percent. The introduction of MGNREGA has introduced paradigm

shift for policy implementation by mandating regime of legal rights and entitlements of

people in demanding the service and providing provisions for compensating in case of

failure to deliver the services.

81
ILO(2009), Report . Geneva.
82
Zagha, Roberto(2009), People can fall back on NREGA in these hard times: World Bank, The Economic
Times, June 3, 2009.

30
MGNREGA has been significant to introduce following salient features in concept and

implementation of public policy:

A. Creating a right based regime and legal entitlement for people to demand services.

B. Compensating people in case of failure to provide entitlements in time bound

manner (in form of unemployment allowance, compensation for wages).

C. Provision of dedicated manpower and role definition for various authorities

involved in implementation.

D. Increasing role of Gaon Sabha and PRI in programme delivery by making them

key player in the planning, execution and monitoring of the programme.

E. Creating in-built structure of transparency and proactive disclosure.

F. Creating a provision of Social Audit for ensuring effective accountability in

service delivery.

G. Creating an IT enabled Management Information System(MIS) for monitoring of

the programme.

H. Creating a system of perspective planning, preparation of shelf of work.

I. Creating a pro active grievance redressal mechanism to address the failure of

service delivery in the programme.

J. Creating a system of fund allocation based on outcome and delivery, thus the Act

is designed to offer an incentive structure to the States for providing employment

as ninety percent of the cost for employment provided is borne by the Centre.

There is a concomitant disincentive for not providing employment as the States

31
 then bear the double indemnity of unemployment and the cost of unemployment

allowance.

K. With such new concepts and extensive institutional arrangements envisaged in

MGNREGA, the State Governments have been entrusted to deliver the

programme as per legal mandate, however, this elaborate and comprehensive

arrangement requirement have created various challenges for the policy

implementation.

Within this broad framework of achievements, there has been growing concern about the

leakage, denial of rights as mandated in Act and constrains of the programme being

implemented in its spirit. Not only the Comptroller and Auditor General of India(CAG)

has observed the gaps in programme delivery as major issue but also various other

evaluation studies conducted by MORD itself have suggested that implementation

challenges have been yet to overcome despite five years of the programme. There has

been hardly an instance of unemployment allowance or compensation being given for

delay of wages in entire country. Again, in carrying out its policy mandate for

MGNREGA, the policy implementation institutions have to deal with manifold complex

and interrelated challenges. These include in major ways following key issues:

• internal staffing and capacity including supervision and management;

• streamlining processes for effective, efficient, and equitable delivery;

• interacting and coordinating with other institutions, including state institutions;

• interfacing with a variegated, complex and demanding citizenry; and

32
• responding to the complex contemporary challenges that have been shaped by the

provisions transparency and accountability in for of Right to Information and Social

Audit.

There has been questions about State’s capacity to deliver large scale social safety net

programs such as India’s National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (NREGA) because

of difficulty to implement due to governance challenges related to elite capture, leakages,

and corruption. The ability to identify how the governance challenges of policy

implementation can be met requires detailed insights into the actual process of program

implementation, with clear views on the source of leakage and mismanagement, the

sensitivity of public policy to the influence of different actors, local power structures and

informal bureaucratic processes. In view of the national scenario of implementation, Uttar

Pradesh being the largest state in terms of rural populace has been a significant mirror of

success and challenge of policy implementation issues in the programme. Taking

MGNREGA implementation in Uttar Pradesh as a case study, the study would attempt to

evaluate the issues involved in constrains and opportunities created for public policy

system in present times. This thesis uses experience of implementation of MGNREGA in

Uttar Pradesh, to shed light on these issues and related governance challenges. An attempt

is made to identify the specific features of the MGNREGA implementation process that

have changed a paradigm shift in terms of management, planning, project implementation

by decentralisation and bottom-up approach as envisaged in the Act.

An attempt would be made to understand the limits of the public policy (for example,

institutional capacity, elite capture in the definition of work and capacity limitations due

to staff shortages and lack of training and capacity) and create scope for the

33
misappropriation/leakage of funds. The insights gained can be used to identify policy

options for reforming the administrative process of right based programme and public

service delivery system.

The key questions that would be addressed are as following:

A. How far the right based programme mandated by an Act has affected the nature of

public policy. Has it changed the governing structures and administrative process? What

kind of capacity constrains been there in public policy delivery mechanism and what

attempts have been made to overcome these constrains?

B. Grass root planning and bottom-up approach is hall-mark of MGNREGA. Has the

arrangements outlined in the Act been followed in giving voice to Gaon Sabha or in turn

to people? How far the decentralisation as aimed in theory as actually worked and what

have been the impediments in the process?

C. How far the implementation has helped in better access of services and

entitlements for vulnerable communities specially it would be analysed to understand the

extent to which gender-specific risks and vulnerabilities are considered in policy design

and implementation.

D. The issue of monitoring of MGNREGA with use of IT, web enabled MIS, Social

Audit, RTI and other innovations have been unique as monitoring- reporting tools,

however, the efficacy and limits of these tools need to be analyzed to understand the key

question of leakage and corruption in a public policy programme.

34
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY:

This study is basically focused on providing an analytical framework to understand the

enhanced role of public policy and challenges in meeting this through processes,

institutions, mechanisms created and outcomes achieved in implementation of

MGNREGA. The approach and strategies applied in this research depend on not only

analyzing the theoretical foundations and need of enlarging scope of delivery of public

policy in governance structure but it also seeks to understand the constrains and

challenges before public policy implementation mechanism in present times. Thus the

study would require an understanding of role of public policy in welfare state and factors

that influence or limit its functionality. How far the external environment in modern

democratic polity with emerging role of Decentralized Governance, Mass-Media, an

active Civil Society and other institutions like Judiciary play a role in affecting various

mechanism evolved by state for policy implementation and service delivery is to be

analysed in the context of the study.

Within this broader external environment the internal setting of programmed design and

implementation issues would be analyzed and it would require the deconstruction of

policy notes, government orders, MIS reports reading of the programme.

To achieve this, “descriptive and analytical” research design shall be carried out. The

descriptive research design helps to describe the current practices and events.

Furthermore, analytical research design enables us to establish relationship between

variables.

35
Research Method:

There are two major methods used while conducting scientific research i.e. qualitative and

quantitative method. The research method applied to conduct this research was mixed

method. Mixed method overcomes the disadvantages of qualitative and quantitative

methods while utilize benefits from the advantages of each. A basic description of a

mixed methodology is simply that it is a methodology with methods that have

comparisons between quantitative and qualitative data. In this study apart from broader

general analytical framework of public policy and MGNREGS the field level

implementation and experience would be analysed in five selected districts(Sonbhadra,

Sitapur, Gorakhpur, Barabanki and Jhansi). The selection of these districts is based on the

geographical diversity, socio-economic condition and financial allocation of the

MGNREGS.

Sources of Data:

Both primary and secondary sources of data shall be collected in order to achieve the real

facts from this research. The data for the study are obtained from various sources

including policy documents, articles, programme evaluation reports, interviews and

observation etc. The particular sources which shall be used for this study are:

a. Primary data:

Primary data are original data gathered by researcher for the research project at hand. The

primary data needed for this study are to be collected through questionnaire survey with

different respondents involved in public policy processes of MGNREGA in selected

districts of UP. Interview of stakeholders like policy makers(Minister/Legislatures/

36
Government officials from Senior level), programme implementing machinery (the

cutting edge of officials involved in service delivery, junior level officials/PRI

representatives), and the service seekers would be conducted in the study process to

gather the primary data in form of their response/opinion and answers.

b. Secondary Data:

Secondary data are often in the form of raw data and published materials. The secondary

data for this study shall be collected from various policy notes, issued government orders,

circulars books, publications, journals and reports on websites and government documents

etc.

Hypotheses:

In this study the following hypotheses are proposed to be tested:

H1 : Public policy and its implementation has emerged as a key governance challenge
. in present times for State.

H2 : Introduction of MGNREGA has redefined public policies formulation by legally

mandating the provisions of entitlements to be extended by the State.

H3 : MGNREGA has created a vast opportunity for public policy implementation and
service delivery to reach out poor and create a proactive role for State in welfare
of people challenging the thesis of roll-back of state in liberalised economy.

H4 : Public policy enactments such as MGNREGA create many challenges in

implementation of the policy by key Institutions leading to gaps in delivery
mechanism.

H5 : Transparency and monitoring regime is essential for effective public policy.

H6 : Experience of MGNREGA would play key role in formulation of legally

mandated public policies in other social sectors like education, food security and
health.
37
Organisation of the study:

The study is organised as follows. The first chapter has been aimed towards highlighting

the theoretical perspectives of the public policy and its implication for the study. An

attempt has been made to outline the various theoretical arguments related to study of a

public policy and its implementation. In the second chapter, the research methodology for

the study has been elaborated in detail. The interaction of case study method and the

qualitative interpretations from the interviews of the stakeholders and other sources of

data is explained to develop the arguments of the study.

The third chapter deals with the enactment of MGNREGA from policy formulation

perspective. The agenda setting and the socio-political environment is discussed. Role of

principal actors, institutions and the civil society in formulation of the policy and the

limitations these institutions in finalising the policy leading it to the enactment of the Act

is discussed.

Finally the concluding chapter resummarises some of the central contents of the

argument. I also make an attempt to comment on the significance of this study for cases

other than MGNREGA. Some specific suggestions related to public policy is made for

improvement and better policy design related to public policies in general and rights

based public policies in particular.

38
Conclusion and limitation of the study:

1. The study shall be significant in explaining the changing role and importance of

public service delivery system in “Governance” of State.

2. This study would highlight the opportunities for development State to evolve

mechanisms for reaching out poor and thus minimize the crisis of legitimacy of

it’s authority.

3. The study would be significant also to highlight the importance of enacting legal

rights for citizens and its challenge in delivery of those services. The lessons of

this study would be extremely important as there is already bill passed for right to

education and an act for food security is introduced. Various State Governments

like Delhi, Madhya Pradesh, Uttar Pradesh have recently passed public service

guarantee bills and in view of growing importance of public service the study

would provide a valuable source of information for policy making and programme

design in delivery of public services.

The limitation of the study is related to its scope in analysing primarily one programme

MGNREGS for public service delivery and looking at the institutions, processes,

mechanism evolved in State of Uttar Pradesh primarily. To minimize the limitation factor

an effort would be made to compare the other legally mandated services evolving and

compare the delivery mechanism of other states in implementation of MGNREGS as

secondary data.

39