One of the key mandates of NITI Aayog is to foster co-operative federalism through structured support initiatives. In this spirit, last year, the Prime Minister had constituted three sub-groups of Chief Ministers to advise the central government on Rationalization of Centrally Sponsored Schemes, Skill Development and Swachh Bharat Abhiyaan. This was a case of a reversal of the past approach whereby the erstwhile Planning Commission directed the states on how they should spend the funds provided by it. After deliberations and consultations with different stakeholders, all three sub-groups of Chief Ministers have submitted their reports. While some recommendations have been implemented, others are under consideration.
Taking cue from this process, NITI Aayog recently experimented with a new approach for facilitating the resolution of issues involving states and central ministries. For most projects that states implement, there are permissions and clearances that they must obtain from central ministries. Many times, the process of granting these permissions and clearances get tied up into one or the other bureaucratic hurdle. Poor communication can sometimes lead to unnecessary delay for long periods of time. Bringing the two sides together on a single platform can help resolve these matters swiftly and to the satisfaction of all involved.
Recognizing this problem, NITI Aayog recently took the initiative to seek resolution of several pending issues of the State of Telangana with seven different central ministries. Initially, there were discussions between the State of Telangana government and the Aayog that led to the identification of some 20 issues on which the former needed answers, clearances or permissions from the central ministries. The Aayog first sent a note flagging these issues to the officials in the ministries at the appropriate levels in advance and then with mutual consent called a meeting of the senior state and central government officials under the chairmanship of its Vice Chairman. This process ensured that officials from both Central Ministries and the State Government came prepared.
The 20 issues were spread across ministries of Coal; Petroleum and Natural Gas; Power; Environment, Forests and Climate Change; Culture; Finance and Rural Development. With the benefit of senior officials of all ministries present, each issue could be discussed face-to-face between senior officials of the Government of Telangana and the relevant ministry officials. To the great satisfaction of both sides, one by one, all issues were either resolved or brought much closer to resolution. Some of these issues had been pending for more than six months. The best aspect of the process was that both sides discussed matters in good faith yielding ground where it was warranted and explaining satisfactorily when the outcome desired by the other side was not feasible. The entire meeting took less than two hours and required nudging by the Vice Chairman, NITI Aayog in only a few instances.
Three examples give the flavor of the nature of the issues facing Telangana and outcomes achieved. In implementing the rural housing scheme, Telangana has developed its own online beneficiary payment system that captures information on additional loans taken by beneficiaries and materials such as cement supplied to them. These features are not captured in AwaasSoft, the newly introduced payment system of the Ministry of Rural Development. The state has had difficulty in getting clarity on whether and how it could use its own system without putting the central government requirements in jeopardy. Upon discussion, a solution was found with the Ministry of Rural Development agreeing to Telangana using its own software for disbursement of benefits as long as it fed the relevant data into the national portal through web-server.
The second example concerned the applications by Telangana for allocations of natural gas for its Karimnagar and Shankarpally gas based power projects submitted to Government of India in November 2010 and April 2011, respectively. But the issue remained unresolved. Discussions resulted in the Ministry of Petroleum & Natural Gas informing the state officials that domestic production of natural gas fell far short of the demand. But luckily the price of imported gas had dropped by a wide margin recently and the State Government could import gas from using the existing infrastructure of Government of India. This was acceptable to Telangana officials and the matter was resolved.
The final example involves Bhadradri Thermal Power Project. The Government of Telangana had requested the Ministry of Power in August 2015 to accord approval for establishing 4×270 MW coal based thermal power project with subcritical technology. The Ministry of Power responded that it had adopted the policy of denying permissions to plants with subcritical technology during the 13th Five Year Plan. The state of Telangana argued that they were entitled to clearance of the project because they would complete the project within the 12th Five Year Plan. While NITI Aayog supported the state’s position, the Ministry of Power stood ground that it had already been denying permission to all subcritical plants. The impasse was, however, resolved when the official from the Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change stated that even if the Ministry of Power granted permission on the ground that the project would be completed before the 13th Plan, environmental clearance will not be given. The official advised the State to adopt supercritical technology to ensure that the necessary environmental clearance would be granted. The matter was thus resolved.
These examples illustrate the unnecessary delays can happen on account of very simple problems that can be readily resolved if the two sides come together at a single platform to speak face-to-face in good faith. The role of NITI Aayog was to make this happen. There are, of course, symmetrical problems that central government projects face in the states and there is scope for taking up those as well at forums such as this one. NITI Aayog stands ready to serve as the forum for similar future consultations to resolve two-way issues between other states and the central ministries. It makes no sense to delay projects on account of matters that are easily resolved by coming together face-to-face.
Thus completing the circle of co-operative federalism complete,in its true sense.
Recent Posts
- In the Large States category (overall), Chhattisgarh ranks 1st, followed by Odisha and Telangana, whereas, towards the bottom are Maharashtra at 16th, Assam at 17th and Gujarat at 18th. Gujarat is one State that has seen startling performance ranking 5th in the PAI 2021 Index outperforming traditionally good performing States like Andhra Pradesh and Karnataka, but ranks last in terms of Delta
- In the Small States category (overall), Nagaland tops, followed by Mizoram and Tripura. Towards the tail end of the overall Delta ranking is Uttarakhand (9th), Arunachal Pradesh (10th) and Meghalaya (11th). Nagaland despite being a poor performer in the PAI 2021 Index has come out to be the top performer in Delta, similarly, Mizoram’s performance in Delta is also reflected in it’s ranking in the PAI 2021 Index
- In terms of Equity, in the Large States category, Chhattisgarh has the best Delta rate on Equity indicators, this is also reflected in the performance of Chhattisgarh in the Equity Pillar where it ranks 4th. Following Chhattisgarh is Odisha ranking 2nd in Delta-Equity ranking, but ranks 17th in the Equity Pillar of PAI 2021. Telangana ranks 3rd in Delta-Equity ranking even though it is not a top performer in this Pillar in the overall PAI 2021 Index. Jharkhand (16th), Uttar Pradesh (17th) and Assam (18th) rank at the bottom with Uttar Pradesh’s performance in line with the PAI 2021 Index
- Odisha and Nagaland have shown the best year-on-year improvement under 12 Key Development indicators.
- In the 60:40 division States, the top three performers are Kerala, Goa and Tamil Nadu and, the bottom three performers are Uttar Pradesh, Jharkhand and Bihar.
- In the 90:10 division States, the top three performers were Himachal Pradesh, Sikkim and Mizoram; and, the bottom three performers are Manipur, Assam and Meghalaya.
- Among the 60:40 division States, Orissa, Chhattisgarh and Madhya Pradesh are the top three performers and Tamil Nadu, Telangana and Delhi appear as the bottom three performers.
- Among the 90:10 division States, the top three performers are Manipur, Arunachal Pradesh and Nagaland; and, the bottom three performers are Jammu and Kashmir, Uttarakhand and Himachal Pradesh
- Among the 60:40 division States, Goa, West Bengal and Delhi appear as the top three performers and Andhra Pradesh, Telangana and Bihar appear as the bottom three performers.
- Among the 90:10 division States, Mizoram, Himachal Pradesh and Tripura were the top three performers and Jammu & Kashmir, Nagaland and Arunachal Pradesh were the bottom three performers
- West Bengal, Bihar and Tamil Nadu were the top three States amongst the 60:40 division States; while Haryana, Punjab and Rajasthan appeared as the bottom three performers
- In the case of 90:10 division States, Mizoram, Assam and Tripura were the top three performers and Nagaland, Jammu & Kashmir and Uttarakhand featured as the bottom three
- Among the 60:40 division States, the top three performers are Kerala, Andhra Pradesh and Orissa and the bottom three performers are Madhya Pradesh, Jharkhand and Goa
- In the 90:10 division States, the top three performers are Mizoram, Sikkim and Nagaland and the bottom three performers are Manipur and Assam
In a diverse country like India, where each State is socially, culturally, economically, and politically distinct, measuring Governance becomes increasingly tricky. The Public Affairs Index (PAI 2021) is a scientifically rigorous, data-based framework that measures the quality of governance at the Sub-national level and ranks the States and Union Territories (UTs) of India on a Composite Index (CI).
States are classified into two categories – Large and Small – using population as the criteria.
In PAI 2021, PAC defined three significant pillars that embody Governance – Growth, Equity, and Sustainability. Each of the three Pillars is circumscribed by five governance praxis Themes.
The themes include – Voice and Accountability, Government Effectiveness, Rule of Law, Regulatory Quality and Control of Corruption.
At the bottom of the pyramid, 43 component indicators are mapped to 14 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) that are relevant to the States and UTs.
This forms the foundation of the conceptual framework of PAI 2021. The choice of the 43 indicators that go into the calculation of the CI were dictated by the objective of uncovering the complexity and multidimensional character of development governance
The Equity Principle
The Equity Pillar of the PAI 2021 Index analyses the inclusiveness impact at the Sub-national level in the country; inclusiveness in terms of the welfare of a society that depends primarily on establishing that all people feel that they have a say in the governance and are not excluded from the mainstream policy framework.
This requires all individuals and communities, but particularly the most vulnerable, to have an opportunity to improve or maintain their wellbeing. This chapter of PAI 2021 reflects the performance of States and UTs during the pandemic and questions the governance infrastructure in the country, analysing the effectiveness of schemes and the general livelihood of the people in terms of Equity.
Growth and its Discontents
Growth in its multidimensional form encompasses the essence of access to and the availability and optimal utilisation of resources. By resources, PAI 2021 refer to human resources, infrastructure and the budgetary allocations. Capacity building of an economy cannot take place if all the key players of growth do not drive development. The multiplier effects of better health care, improved educational outcomes, increased capital accumulation and lower unemployment levels contribute magnificently in the growth and development of the States.
The Pursuit Of Sustainability
The Sustainability Pillar analyses the access to and usage of resources that has an impact on environment, economy and humankind. The Pillar subsumes two themes and uses seven indicators to measure the effectiveness of government efforts with regards to Sustainability.
The Curious Case Of The Delta
The Delta Analysis presents the results on the State performance on year-on-year improvement. The rankings are measured as the Delta value over the last five to 10 years of data available for 12 Key Development Indicators (KDI). In PAI 2021, 12 indicators across the three Pillars of Equity (five indicators), Growth (five indicators) and Sustainability (two indicators). These KDIs are the outcome indicators crucial to assess Human Development. The Performance in the Delta Analysis is then compared to the Overall PAI 2021 Index.
Key Findings:-
In the Scheme of Things
The Scheme Analysis adds an additional dimension to ranking of the States on their governance. It attempts to complement the Governance Model by trying to understand the developmental activities undertaken by State Governments in the form of schemes. It also tries to understand whether better performance of States in schemes reflect in better governance.
The Centrally Sponsored schemes that were analysed are National Health Mission (NHM), Umbrella Integrated Child Development Services scheme (ICDS), Mahatma Gandh National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme (MGNREGS), Samagra Shiksha Abhiyan (SmSA) and MidDay Meal Scheme (MDMS).
National Health Mission (NHM)
INTEGRATED CHILD DEVELOPMENT SERVICES (ICDS)
MID- DAY MEAL SCHEME (MDMS)
SAMAGRA SHIKSHA ABHIYAN (SMSA)
MAHATMA GANDHI NATIONAL RURAL EMPLOYMENT GUARANTEE SCHEME (MGNREGS)