INTRODUCTION:

The concept of district has defined by an Oxford concise dictionary as a territory marked off for special administrative purposes. It has also defined the concept of administration is the management of public affairs. Thus, district administration is the management of public affairs within a territory marked off for that purpose. In simple words, it is that portion of public administration which functions within the territorial limits of a district (S.S. Khera (1979)).

The notion of Decentralisation can be defined as the transfer of power, authority or responsibility for decision making, planning, management or resource allocation from the central government to its field units, district administrative units, local governments, regional or functional authorities, semi-autonomous public authorities, parastatal organisations, private entities and non-governmental private or voluntary organisations. ‘A government has not decentralized unless the country contains autonomous elected subnational governments capable of taking binding decisions in … some policy areas’ (Kempe Ronald Hope Snr (2010),p.520). Decentralization is a process of state reform composed by a set of public policies that transfer responsibilities, resources, or authority from higher to lower levels of government in the context of a specific type of state (Tulia G. Falleti (2005), 328).

Decentralization, or decentralizing governance, refers to the restructuring or reorganization of authority so that there is a system of co-responsibility between institutions of governance at the central, regional and local levels according to the principle of subsidiarity, thus increasing the overall quality and effectiveness of the system of governance, while increasing the authority and capacities of sub-national levels. … Decentralization could also be expected to contribute to key elements of good governance, such as increasing people's opportunities for participation in economic, social and political decisions; assisting in developing people's capacities; and enhancing government responsiveness, transparency and accountability (UNDP(1999),p.2). As per the European Charter of Local Self Government, Part I, Art. 3, “Local self-government denotes the right and the ability of local authorities, within the limits of the law, to regulate and manage a substantial share of public affairs under their own responsibility and in the interests of the local population” (United Cities and Local Governments (2008)p.19). The concept of Decentralisation can also be defined from a public choice perspective. Standard public literature provides both ex-ante and ex-post arguments for decentralisation. However, the general basic definition in this literature is that decentralisation can be regarded as a situation in which public goods and services are provided primarily through the revealed preferences of individuals by market mechanisms. Decentralized governments are regarded as having better knowledge of local preferences, either in the sense of having access to information denied to central governments, or in the sense of observing preferences with less noise (Kempe Ronald Hope Snr (2010),p.520).

The primary objectives of decentralisation include, but are not limited to overcoming the indifference of government bureaucrats to satisfying the needs of the public; improving the responsiveness of governments to public concerns; and increasing the quality of services provided (Kempe Ronald Hope Snr(2010),p.520). The Decentralisation can be either horizontal or vertical. The horizontal decentralisation disperses power among institutions at the same level, while vertical decentralisation, which is more useful, allows some of the powers of a central government to be delegated downwards to lower tiers of authority. Decentralisation can be differentiated further into the types such as de concentration, delegation, devolution, top–down principal agency and bottom–up principal agency (Kempe Ronald Hope Snr(2010), p.521). Decentralisation below the state level involves making a choice between bureaucracy and democracy in the sense that it can mean either the delegation of administrative powers to district officers or the devolution of authority to district governments. Further, decentralisation below the state level cannot be viewed in isolation from the larger issue of reordering relations between the centre and the states. Democratic decentralisation as an idea has gained wide acceptance (Nirmal Mukarji(1989), p.467). However, in a country decentralisation below the state or province level means both the administrative and political executives exists.

Although human civilization from its incipient stage has conceived several types of administrative system, a sound theory for territorial administration has yet to be evolved. From the days of Plato and Aristotle, the state has been viewed perhaps as an organism or a mammoth Leviathan and its sum is greater than its parts, but the formation of its administrative units or the territorial spans of its various levels is by and large determined by natural factors or more precisely by geographic compulsions rather than by the free will of its rulers. Of the various territorial divisions big and small, the one that has become the principal unit of administration and has an equivalent in almost every country except for semantic variation is the district. Its original constitution is as old as the organization of agricultural communities and it is indubitably a contribution of the Mauryas to the world civilization, especially to the global administrative culture(S.N. Sadasivan(1985)). Though the desire for decentralisation seems to be almost universal, the concept does not evoke the same unanimity as regards its meaning, scope, significance, contents, or even limits. It means different things to different people. At times it acquires ideological overtones. The differing environmental factors have their own effect, be it as an idea or as an operating reality. The ecology, the history, the tradition, the political culture, the geographical spread, the compulsion of development, apart from the vision of the future, all go to condition both the thinking and the practice in the area. It may be neither necessary nor possible to go into the semantics of a definitional approach due to the constraint of space. It may, however, be worthwhile to point out that the concept of decentralisation is not an isolate. It is related to and contingent upon many other institutional factors. Decentralisation has to be interpreted in terms of area and geography, tasks and functions as well as inter- and intra-institutional relationships. The structure and strategy as well as the intellectual framework will comprise of many ingredients and components. Besides, new designs will naturally emerge with the changing requirements of the society. An element of flexibility or resilience is integral to decentralisation( https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/001955611978030ix, p. X).

Decentralisation, more so with its preface, implies political and administrative pluralism. It again becomes a question of the structure of authority, responsibility, and allocation of resources. It is a question of mutual relationship and overseeing or supervision. Decentralisation comes to reflect the opposing pulls and

tendencies of a strong and authoritarian direction on one side and those of a volitional, participative approach on the other. Historically these apparently opposing forces have had their periods of ups and downs. Largely in the emerging countries like those of Africa, Latin America and even in Asia where nation building is the pressing imperative for the people newly liberated from the colonial rule, a strong and centralised administration is generally favoured as the needed panacea; in fact, even a military rule is often preferred in several countries where, perhaps, in the eyes of the elitist section of these countries, the risk otherwise is either a slip-back to the colonial rule or to the emergence of neo-colonialism. But, by and large, the forces and arguments for decentralisation have come up unmistakably to re-establish the values of human dignity and organisational accountability(https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/001955611978030ix, p. X).

All the social science disciplines have something or the other to say to rationalise the situation. Obviously, however, this is not to be viewed as a swing of the pendulum from collectivism to liberalism and vice versa. What is more, many have come to feel that with the advance of technology and the modernisation of social behavioural patterns, centralisation-decentralisation has ceased to be a matter of confrontation between two conflicting ideas. The rub lies in working out the details wherein the frictional interplay of forces makes their visible appearance and impact. More and more the two concepts are seen as fortifying each other with their respective and distinct spheres of importance. Also, in operational terms, decentralisation will gain roots and fructify only if the political environment is attuned to it (https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/001955611978030ix, p. X). Democratic decentralisation has organisational, structural, procedural and institutional implications apart from its larger philosophical and sociological motivations. Decentralisation has therefore to be distinguished from as well as related to the concepts of de concentration, devolution, delegation, and dispersal in the relevant political and administrative areas(https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/001955611978030ix, p. Xi). As far as understanding Local Government is concerned, local government implies the management of local affairs. Local government is that part of the state government in federal structure dealing mainly with local affairs, administered by authorities, subordinate to the state government. Local government forms a subsystem of the political system at the state and national level. Like any other political system, Local government is subjected to the input-out put process by which it receives demands from the environment and responds through its output transactions. Moreover, Local governments articulate aggregate demands and provide services in the areas of their activities as set by the statute. According to John J.Clarke, “local government appears to be that part of the government of a nation or state which deals mainly with such matters as concerns the inhabitants of particular district or place”(UB Singh(2009),p.2).

Theory of Decentralization or District Administration:

Theories of Decentralization and Local Government brings fresh perspective to the debate and comparative analysis of vertical division of power; i.e. processes of decentralization and relations between central and local self governments (Kwame Badu, Antwi-Boasiako and Peter Csanyi(ed.), (2014)). As far as the theory of decentralization is concerned, the word ‘decentralization’ literally means ‘away from centre’. Decentralization of authority means dispersal of decision-making power to the lower levels of organization. The locus of decision -making is transferred from Central governments to regional, municipal or local governments. Decentralization cannot be easily defined and it has many forms and dimensions. Decentralization is the process of redistributing or dispersing functions, powers, people or things away from central location or authority. There is no common definition of decentralization and its meaning varies because of the different ways it is applied. The concept of decentralization has been applied to management science, in private businesses and organizations, Political Science, Law and Public Administration, Economics and Technology (Dr. Suresh Vadranam and Jayaprada Sahoo(2022),p.30).

The term “decentralization” implies not only the devolution of powers, but also a process in which responsibilities and duties are transferred by a higher or central authority to the institutions or organizations at the lower levels, thereby providing to the latter adequate incentive for autonomous functioning. Decentralization has spatial aspect, i.e. when the activities of wide organization are spread over a wide geographical space, then planning and control of the widely dispersed activities may be done better not from central headquarter but away from it. The other arguments in favour of decentralization are that decentralized units function better because of autonomy given to them and central control is reduced. In organization theory, decentralization is an aspect of intra-organizational differentiations, i.e. in large-scale organization, decentralization is done through segmentation and arrangement and self-sufficient clusters or decentralized divisions are formed and these clusters have their own domain. Decentralization has also been approached from the point of view of organization decision-making. In a complex organization numerous decisions are taken and efficiency is achieved if decisions are taken quickly. Therefore, when speed assumes critical importance, decentralized decision-making is being given importance (Dr. Suresh Vadranam and Jayaprada Sahoo (2022), p.30).

The decentralizing government is thought to be conducive to good governance, although experience suggests decentralization alone is no guarantee. It can be a means to encourage participation in the public policy process and can hold governments more accountable for their actions. At the same time, decentralization enables local officials to take responsibility for economic and social development. For instance, decentralization can foster a more efficient use of resources if projects are locally conceived, and economic performance can be improved since local entrepreneurship tends to flourish in decentralized settings where there is often greater access to credit and information on business opportunities (Dr. Suresh Vadranam and Jayaprada Sahoo(2022),p.30). Organizational decentralization manifests itself in territorial dispersion of units and delegation of authority. For instance, field administration in the form of district and sub-divisional administration, represents decentralization through territorial differentiation and dispersion. It is an important part of state administration. Field administration lies away from state headquarters to provide access to the client. Delegation of authority accompanies territorial dispersion of the governmental unit (Dr. Suresh Vadranam and Jayaprada Sahoo (2022),p.30).

Kochen and Deutsch in their seminar paper entitled, “Toward a Rational Theory of Decentralization: Some implications of a Mathematical Approach,” have advanced the theoretical knowledge about decentralization in politics and organizational designing. According to them, a functional theory of decentralization has to be related to organizational task performance and ultimate survival, i.e. the survival of organization depends on the feedback of information from the environment in order to ascertain the results of their actions and to take corrective measures. The issue of centralization versus decentralization has to be examined from the point of view of exchange of information and of things and persons with the environment. They look at decentralization as a problem in logistics. Decentralization is rational or cost-effective if movement of messages, men, and materials lead to successful task performance in relation to meeting the demands and pressures from the environment (Dr. Suresh Vadranam and Jayaprada Sahoo (2022),p.30). In its most general term, decentralization refers to the transfer of authority from a central government to a sub-national entity. But beyond this general definition, the process of decentralization is a complex undertaking, taking on different meanings in different contexts and according to the desires and plans of those in charge of its design and implementation. There are many ways in which a government may devolve power to the sub-national level. Thus, decentralization can be political, administrative, fiscal, or economic. In many cases, these different types of decentralization are carried out simultaneously however, adding to the complexity of the process. Decentralization confers onto local communities the power to manage their affairs in order to promote their own development (Sylvain H. Boko(2002),p.1). Administrative decentralization aims to transfer responsibility for the planning, financing, and management of selected public functions from the central government to lower tier units of the government. These might be field units of the government, semi-autonomous public authorities or corporations, or regional authorities. Administrative decentralization takes the form of De concentration, delegation or devolution (Sylvain H. Boko(2002),p.2).

The De concentration consists of delegating certain decision making powers to lower, provincial or local levels of the central government. De concentration has a peculiar characteristic in that it is in fact one form of centralization. Decision-making authority is shifted from one locality (the capital) and one individual (the President) to lower levels of the government. However, although financial and management responsibility may be shifted to the local units, there remains the hierarchical dependence of the local authority to the central power. The local administrative leaders still depend on the central government for their appointments, assignments, and salaries. Despite its limitations, de concentration, if carried out properly (e.g., central government must provide its local representatives with the means to adequately carry out their devolved functions) can help to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of public good provision and service delivery. Presumably, the local representatives are closer to the local populations and can better respond to the local interests than decision-makers in the capital city(Sylvain H. Boko(2002),p.2). The De concentration may sometimes require the creation of a new territorial configuration. In the case of Benin for example (where the two processes of decentralization and de-concentration are under way,) six new provinces or "departments" were created. Essentially, each of the old six provinces was split into two in order to make remote populations more accessible to local authorities and service delivery. De concentration is the weakest form of de concentration, used mostly in unitary states. It does not involve any real transfer of authority; it does not involve independent local governments that are elected and/or accountable to the local populations. As such, any benefit of de concentration in responding to the preferences of the local communities is limited (Sylvain H. Boko (2002),p.2).

In the case of Delegation, responsibility for decision-making with respect to public functions administration is transferred to semi-autonomous organizations or units, that are not wholly under the control of the government. Such organizations as housing or transportation authorities, public enterprises, regional development corporations, etc ... may enjoy ample discretion in decision-making; and may not be subject to the same constraints as regular civil service personnel. They may even be able to charge user fees. Delegation remains a limited form of decentralization. The difference between it and full political decentralization is that the lower level organizations to which power is transferred remain ultimately accountable to the central government (Sylvain H. Boko(2002),p.2). Conceptually speaking, at the heart of any decentralization scheme there is a conscious effort at decentring the power—be it administrative, political, or fiscal with a view to improving the status of the people. Etymological root of the English word decentralization can be traced back to a Latin word, which means ‘away from the centre’. It is also couched as the most valued antidote of authoritarianism and bureaucratization. As a flexible and fluid discourse, it suits every ideological pursuit. If one starts tracking the evolution of the concept of decentralization, he or she will find that the concept has no fixed ideological fountainhead (Bidyut Chakrabarty and Prakash Chand(2012),p.254).

More interestingly, it has been used by both the left and right for their respective interests. While for the Rightist, decentralization is the mechanism to decentre nation states and thereby pave the way for marketization, for the Leftist, it provides the opportunity of social mobilization. Traditionally, it was conceptualized from the organizational perspective, where it was deemed as an organizational innovation to ease off the pressure of over-bureaucratized public organization. But with the onset of globalization, the concept of decentralization becomes the surrogate of market. However, it is very difficult to pin down the exact meaning of the term decentralization as the concept is often confused with a host of similar ideas like de concentration, devolution, delegation, and privatization. Worst of all, a few commentators even viewed them as the different organizational forms of decentralization (Bidyut Chakrabarty and Prakash Chand(2012),p.254). Hence, for the sake of proper understanding, the concept of decentralization needs to be distinguished from those ideas. There is no denying that all the above associated concepts speak of sharing or transfer of administrative power or authority from the higher to the lower level. But, the nature and degree of such transfers vary from one situation to another. While de-concentration means handing over some amount of administrative authority or responsibility to lower levels within the government ministries or agencies; delegation refers to transferring responsibility for specifically defined functions to organizations that are outside the regular bureaucratic structure and are only indirectly controlled by the central government and devolution signifies the creation and strengthening of sub-national units of the government, activities of which are substantially outside the direct control of the central government(Bidyut Chakrabarty and Prakash Chand(2012),p.255).

Decentralization, on other hand is a much broader concept, which encapsulates in fact all the above kinds of transfer of power. For example, Cheema and Rondinelli (1983) have defined decentralization as ‘transfer of planning, decision-making or administrative authority from the central government to its field organizations, local administration units, semi-autonomous and para-statal organizations, local governments or NGOs’(Bidyut Chakrabarty and Prakash Chand(2012),p.255). Moreover, decentralization is no static arrangement of sharing administrative or fiscal authority. It is in fact a continuum, from centralization to full autonomy. Decentralization is also seen as a process of transfer of responsibility, authority, and functions from a ‘superior’ governmental unit to a ‘lower’ governmental unit . These functions may relate to planning, management and resource raising, and allocation. The operational jurisdiction of the ‘superior’ unit is obviously large. However, the ‘lower’ unit may exercise some degree of autonomy from the ‘superior’ unit. The study team on community projects and National Extension Service appointed by Government of India in 1957 defined decentralization as a process whereby the governments diverts itself completely of certain duties and responsibilities and devolves them on to some other authority. A decentralized local authority, in this sense, would have a separate legal existence, its own budget and the authority to allocate substantial resources on a range of different functions, and decisions would be made by the representatives of the local people, who constitute the body (Bidyut Chakrabarty and Prakash Chand(2012),p.255).

Hence, the concept of decentralization has the following characteristics: (a) it is both a philosophy and institutional mechanism, which seeks to de-centre the power from its traditional centres to far-flung areas with a view to empowering local communities, (b) Autonomy forms the heart of decentralization. It is the yardstick through which the nature of decentralization can be measured. (c) Decentralization has no fixed ideological sanctuary; it is in fact used by both the Left and the Right for justifying their respective positions (Bidyut Chakrabarty and Prakash Chand(2012),p.256),(d) The recent spate of enthusiasm for decentralization can be attributed to globalization. The votaries of globalization are actively advocating for localization through decentralization for development, as the beleaguered nation states of Asia, Africa, and Latin America have been virtually relegated to being mere economic agents of the global market, (e) Decentralization facilitates people’s participation by creating new institutional space beyond the centre and thereby ensures further deepening of democracy and (f) Decentralization also instils confidence among local communities to govern their own affairs. Decentralization, thus, creates a sense of responsibility in local decision-making agencies with more or less independent existence and powers. The basic idea of decentralization is therefore, sharing the decision-making authority with lower levels in organizations, thereby improving their efficiency, effectiveness and responsiveness (Bidyut Chakrabarty and Prakash Chand(2012),p.256).

Approaches to Decentralization:

What are the theories of District administration existing in the literature?. There are six approaches existing in the Decentralization. The four different approaches to the theory of decentralization had been clearly and profoundly presented by James Fesler (1965). He viewed decentralization as a complex issue, both as a concept and in practice. He looks it from four perspectives such as decentralization as a doctrine; as political process in a given political setting; as an administrative problem and finally as an administrative process involving forced choices, changes in the functional and area-based administration, and between the regulatory law and order and development functions of appointed and elected officials(Bidyut Chakrabarty and Prakash Chand(2012),p.258). Fesler’s four approaches to decentralization, which includes district administration are analysed below.

1)The Doctrinal Approach:

The doctrinal approach seeks to treat decentralization as an end in itself through a process of ‘romantic idealization’. It results on a romantic view of both the locality and the cultural region. Part of the argument is an invocation of tradition and so of history. The strongest doctrinal case for decentralization is the one focused on the local community—the city, town, or village. There are hard facts to start with, particularly, the community’s concrete reality and its possession in all countries that provide some powers to local governments. The invoking of a historical tradition of local autonomy is one indication of the role of sentiment. In India, the Panchayati Raj supposedly embodies an ancient tradition of local autonomy. Romantics are inclined to idealize. The aspiration is to turn the clock back and restore traditional values and face-to-face dealings between men. Thus, in the doctrinal approach, instead of treating decentralization as a means to the achievement of some end-values such idealization tends it to the status of a hardened doctrine (Bidyut Chakrabarty and Prakash Chand(2012),p.259).

2) The Political Approach:

The political approach believes that decentralization occurs in a political setting. Initiatives to decentralize and willingness to pass on powers and functions to decentralize units and to allow these units to actually operate within a framework of autonomy are politically determined. The objective of decentralization is certainly to transfer decision-making on certain policy matters to sub-national constituencies. Decentralization in the shape of devolution to local self-governing bodies marks an attempt to set up autonomous governments at the level of the locality. To create and maintain local governments is thus, a major political commitment. In the absence of such commitment, devolution to sub-national governments, including local self-governing bodies will remain more in law than in practice. Fesler points out to the problem of ‘illusory decentralization’ which is presented when formal powers or administrative arrangements are purportedly decentralist but politically controlled or influenced by the centre (Bidyut Chakrabarty and Prakash Chand(2012),p.259).

This underlies the often sceptical reactions in the West to former Soviet and East European decentralizations. Local elections in a one party state, if accompanied by strong hierarchical controls within the party, appear not to afford the freedom in making choices that is the essential ingredient of decentralization. Fesler calls it ‘illusory decentralization’. Before the 73rd Amendment Act, 1992, the Panchayati Raj Institutions in India were very close to ‘illusory decentralization’. It is only after this Amendment Act that local government institutions have been given a constitutional status with real powers and functions (Bidyut Chakrabarty and Prakash Chand(2012),p.260).

3) The Administrative Approach:

The administrative approach to decentralization is based on the principle of efficiency and rationality. When field administrative units are set up through a process of decentralization, the measure is considered appropriate for field-level decision-making and prompt problem solving. In this process, administrative units might come up at many levels between the locality and the central (state) headquarters. With more and more demand for specialized functions, multiplicity of functional departments would appear at the field level. The administrative situation gradually presents a picture of polarization between general area-based administrative demands and specific function-centred claims of particular functional departments. Currently, district administration in India is faced with this problem of area-function duality. To promote such operational principles conscious attempts are needed to readjust from time to time the conflicting claims of area and functions in deconcentrated field administration (Bidyut Chakrabarty and Prakash Chand (2012),p.260).

4) The Dual-role Approach:

The dual-role approach seeks to highlight the conflict in field administration between tradition and change. The basic conflict, according to Fesler is between the maintenance of law and order and the advancement of economic and social development. Most field administration systems were developed in a simpler era, when revenue collection, maintenance of law and order, and appraisal of local opinion were the principal responsibilities assigned to field agents. Certainly, this is the case with the field systems inherited from colonial regimes by the newly independent nations ((Bidyut Chakrabarty and Prakash Chand(2012),p.261). But, the system is expected to perform functions quite different from those for which it was originally designed. The intent is to change established ways of doing things so as to carry economic and social development rapidly. The new functions require the evocation of popular enthusiasm sufficient to build receptivity to new ways of doing things and, often to spur substantial voluntary effort by ordinary citizens. The increased volume of work to be performed in a field area demands the field generalist to get relief by delegation to subordinate or by sharing with coordinates. Thus resolution of conflict between two different orientations in field administration calls for adaptation of decentralization to changing circumstances (Bidyut Chakrabarty and Prakash Chand(2012),p.261).

The above four approaches by Fesler addressed different issues and challenges in the realization of decentralization. The doctrinal approach treats decentralization as an end in itself through a process of ‘romantic idealization’. The political approach underscores the political character of decentralization. The administrative approach is based on the principle of efficiency and rationality and highlights the area-function duality. Finally, the reorientation of roles from status-quo to change orientation of the field administrative system is the crux of the dual-role approach(Bidyut Chakrabarty and Prakash Chand(2012),p.261).

5) The Global Approach:

As far as the analysis of the Global Approach is concerned, it is well documented that decentralization was a well thought and executed style of governance in ancient world. There are many sophisticated debates on decentralization in the political literature of 18th and 19th centuries. When there was no adult franchise in the western world then emerged the concept of devolution of power to the people. The British system of local government found in South Asia, Africa, Australia and North America was conceptualized as a devolved local self- government with the characteristics of a representative elected council and citizen’s participation, while in Europe, parts of North and West Africa and South America, it was distinguished by de concentration, that means domination of executive and presence of rigid hierarchy. Decentralization is conceptualized as a deconcentrated administrative organ for relieving administrative congregation, because over centralized governance did not make it clear what needs to be done for different places and how to meet the desires of the people (Dr. Suresh Vadranam and Jayaprada Sahoo(2022),p.31). The globalization pushed more countries to adopt quasi-market economies including the countries which had dictatorial, authoritarian, totalitarian governments. Good governance came to be seen as transparent, reprehensive, accountable, and participatory and its need arose. New concepts of decentralization emerged as well. During the 1970s and 1980s, globalization forced some governments to recognize and realize the constraints of central economic planning and management. During the same period shift in development theories and also change in strategies of international aid agencies like World Bank, IMF, etc., away from central economic planning and trickle-down theories of economic growth towards meeting basic human needs, growth with equity objectives, and participatory development also led to increasing calls for decentralization (Dr. Suresh Vadranam and Jayaprada Sahoo(2022),p.31).

International aid organizations promoted decentralization as essential for development carried out by local communities and local governments. There was awakening that decentralization will accelerate development, will remove bureaucratic bottlenecks which arose because of centralized government planning. Governments at that time followed three primary forms of decentralization, deconcentration, devolution, delegation until the late 1980s.By the mid- 1980s with the continued weakening of those economies which followed central planning, disappearance of cold war, increase in international trade and investment, the conventional concepts of economic development and governance and also of decentralization forces got reshaped by economic and political forces prevailing at that time. There was fall of authoritarian regimes in Latin America in 1980s and in Central and Eastern Europe in 1990s and switching over to market economies and rise of democratic principles in East Asia renewed the interest in decentralization (Dr. Suresh Vadranam and Jayaprada Sahoo(2022),p.31). The countries in Latin America, Central Europe were overseeing the transition from state planned economies to market-economies and were focusing on strengthening private sector, downsizing large central government bureaucracies, and also strengthening local governments. In fact IMF, World Bank and other international development organizations also prescribed decentralization as part of structural adjustments to promote good governance, restore markets in those countries which were seeking aid from these institutions. Not only these aid institutions which put condition of decentralization upon countries, there was pressure from various groups like political, ethnic, other economically peripheral groups to get greater autonomy in decision-making and strong control over utilization of natural resources, e.g .Africa. The central governments in Africa were not able to deliver effectively and provide services to local areas and this led to discontent among masses and hence calls for decentralization (Dr. Suresh Vadranam and Jayaprada Sahoo(2022),p.31).

Moreover, after they had gained independence, many African countries, including Botswana, initially emphasised efforts to build a nation-state. That, in turn, had a highly centralising effect and a negative impact on the efficient delivery of public services and local governance. The movement towards decentralisation is an attempt, among other things, to improve the delivery of public services and local governance in a cost -efficient manner, as well as increase the administrative capacity and productivity of the public sector (Kempe Ronald Hope Snr(2010),p.520). The demand for decentralization(devolution) were raised in other large number of countries like India, Belgium, Quebec, Wales, Scotland, Malaysia, Baltic Countries, Mexico, former USSR, etc as there was discontent with regard to allocation of national expenditures. Moreover, there was, “New Public Management” movement in 1990s in rich countries which also influenced the international development organizations and many reform-oriented public officials in developing countries. During the same period, a book Reinventing Government which discussed about reforms in United States, also influenced the other countries to go for decentralization for providing quality services to people. This book and advocates of, New Public Management” supported that local problems should be dealt with by local people as they are conversant with the problems of their respective areas and government can achieve its objectives by participation of people at the grassroots level (Dr. Suresh Vadranam and Jayaprada Sahoo(2022),p.32).

6) Indian Approach:

As far as the analysis of Indian approach is concerned, broadly speaking, the term ‘decentralization’ refers to a process of gradual devolution or transfer of functions, resources and decision making powers to the lower level democratically elected bodies (Girish Kumar (2006),p.13). The terms decentralization and local governance or government are often used interchangeably. Theoretically, the normative appeal of arguments for local democracy has resided in the belief that the quality of political participation and therefore of public life itself will be substantively transformed only when people foregather to collectively debate and deliberate on issues of common concern and are provided with decision making powers to give effect to their shared concerned. The most distinguished ancestor of this view was of course none other than John Stuart Mill who provided two important arguments for local democracy. First, that local political institutions are ‘a school of political capacity’, making citizens capable of genuine and informed participation and second, that such institutions would be more efficient if informed by local interests and local knowledge. Local democracy, thus became a way of enabling both participation and deliberation of effecting a form of direct democracy and so imparting a richer and more immediate meaning to the democratic ideal than the rather minimal conception of it implied in the idea of elections. In Indian context, the ideal of local democracy as incorporated in the 73^rd and 74^th constitutional amendments has been invested with these hopes and more (Niraja Gopal Jayal, Amit Prakash and Pradeep K. Sharma(Edited)(2006),p.3).

It took nearly four decades for the Indian Parliament to pass the epoch making constitution (73^rd and 74^th) Amendment Acts on 23^rd December 1992 to be precise. It was a turning point in the history of local governance with far reaching consequences for Indian federalism, decentralization, grassroots democracy and people’s participation in planning for development, gender equality and social justice. On 24^th April 1993 and 1^st June 19993, the panchayats and municipalities became Parts IX and IXA in the Constitution of India respectively and they were defined as ‘institutions of self government’.The panchayats and municipalities will be endowed with such powers and authority to function as institutions of self government with respect to preparation of plans for economic development and social justice and implementation of schemes for economic development and social justice(Article 243(G) and 243(W))(BS Baviskar and George Mathew(edited)(2008), p.3).

As far as the Members of Parliament Local Area Development Scheme (MPLADS) under the District administration is concerned, on the demand of MPs, the then Prime Minister P.V. Narasimha Rao introduced MPLADS on 23^rd December,1993 with a view to develop local area falling in the constituency of concerned MP. Under the MPLADS, each member of Parliament from either house has been given an authority to recommend various developmental works for his or constituency to the concerned Deputy Commissioner (Mohinder Singh and Vijay Kumar (2009),87). The Members of Parliament Local Area Development Division is entrusted with the responsibility of implementation of MPLADS. Under the scheme, each MP has the choice to suggest to the District Collector for works to the tune of Rs.5 Crores per annum to be taken up in his/her constituency. The Rajya Sabha Members of Parliament can recommend works in one or more districts in the State from where he/she has been elected. The Nominated Members of the Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha may select any one or more Districts from any one State in the Country for implementation of their choice of work under the scheme. The union Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation has issued the guidelines on MPLADS Scheme including implementation and monitoring of the scheme (https://www.mplads.gov.in/mplads/Default.aspx).

However, in their article on ‘Democratic Decentralisation: Theory and Practice’ by V. Venkata Rao and Niru Hazarika (1978) said that the theory of decentralisation in the Indian Political system is 150 years old. Moreover, they had trace the evolution of decentralisation as a constitutional, political and administrative process in India country in the last 150 years. C.V. Raghavulu and R. Ananda Rao presented the Gandhian approach to decentralisation and its relevance. According to these authors "Gandhi's views on decentralisation stem from his concept of swadeshi. The other important authors who worked on Decentralization in India were Amritananda Das, V. Jagannadham, K. Seshadri, V. Subramaniam, M.A. Muttalib, Henry Maddick, P.C. Mathur, B. Hooja, Shiviah, Mohit Bhattacharya, K. Sharma, Ram K. Vepa, and Krishna Haldipur(https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/001955611978030ix)

The local bodies in India, both urban and rural, lacked the constitutional status until 1992. As local government is a state subject, there were variations in nomenclature, structure and working of local bodies across states. In most states, they suffered prolonged neglect and became weak and ineffective. The state governments resorted to supersession of Urban Local Bodies (ULBs) and elections were not held for long periods. The ULBs were characterised by weak institutional framework, functional fragmentation, inadequate finances, absence of space for citizens voice in governance, lack of professionalism, low public image, etc. They lacked vibrancy and suffered from inadequate devolution of powers, functions and finances. Local governance was state-centric, which persisted for over a century. It was in this context, efforts were initiated to provide constitutional status to the rural and ULBs to strengthen them administratively, functionally and financially. Accordingly, for Panchayati Raj Institutions (PRIs) and ULBs, the Constitution sixty-fourth and sixty-fifth amendment bills, respectively were introduced in Parliament of India’s lower house of Lok Sabha on 7^th August 1989 and were passed but were defeated in Parliament of India’s upper house of Rajya Sabha on 13 October 1989. With the dissolution of Lok Sabha in 1989, the Bills lapsed. They were enacted, after the elections to the tenth parliament, as the Constitution (Seventy-third Amendment) Act, 1992 (73rd CAA) for Panchayats and the Constitution (Seventy-fourth Amendment) Act, 1992 (74th CAA) for ULBs. The two legislations are complementary. The 74th CAA came into force on 1^st June 1993 and the Act provided 1 year for the states to amend their municipal laws in conformity with the 74th CAA(D. Ravindra Prasad and Y. Pardhasaradhi(2020),p.160).

The failure to hold regular elections, prolonged supersessions and inadequate devolution of powers and functions to ULBs are cited as reasons for enacting the 74th CAA. The objectives of 74th CAA include setting up of a mechanism to facilitate decentralisation, define the functions and role of ULBs, provide representation to Scheduled Castes (SCs), Scheduled Tribes (STs) and women, ensure continuity of ULBs, etc. The aim is to put state–ULB relations on a firmer footing through specifying functional domain, regular elections to ULBs with fixed 5-year tenure, taxation powers, share in state revenues, constitution of Ward Committees (WCs, Article243S) in cities with more than three lakh population to create space for closer citizen engagement in civic affairs and governance at sub-city level. The Act provides for the constitution of the State Election Commission to conduct elections fairly and regularly, State Finance Commission (SFC) to recommend principles and measures to share state revenues, District Planning Committees (DPCs) and Metropolitan Planning Committees (MPCs) to prepare district and metropolitan plans respectively for economic development and social justice. It lists out 18 core functions in the Twelfth Schedule of the Constitution for devolution to the ULBs. The states, in compliance with the 74th CAA, amended their municipal Acts, organised the ULBs in their new form, which became functional with effect from 1^st June 1994((D. Ravindra Prasad and Y. Pardhasaradhi(2020),p.160).

As far as types of Urban Local Bodies in India is concerned, the state conformity legislations provide for three types of ULBs as per the 74^th CAA such as municipal corporations for larger urban areas, municipalities for smaller urban areas and nagar panchayats for transitional areas (Article243 Q (1))(D. Ravindra Prasad and Y. Pardhasaradhi(2020),p.162). The 74th CAA provides for the constitution of Ward Committees(WCs), consisting of one or more wards in cities with more than three lakh population (Article 243 S) to provide space for citizen engagement in urban governance. The details of composition are left to the state legislature. Their functions include preparation of ward development plans, supervising implementation of development schemes and discussing matters of community interest. There are variations in their organisation and functioning. In Kerala, WCs are constituted for each ward in cities, with more than a lakh population and ward sabhas, where the population is less than a lakh. In Delhi, Karnataka, Maharashtra and Tamil Nadu, the WCs cover a group of wards and function as zonal committees(D. Ravindra Prasad and Y. Pardhasaradhi(2020),p.166).

However, Decentralisation is managing the community affairs with the least intervention of central authority. To realise this goal, there is a need for the implementation of the principle of subsidiarity in letter and spirit by the national and sub-national governments. Processes such as deregulation, decentralisation and liberalisation, privatisation and globalisation are not static entities. These processes require well motivated and trained professionals in order to reach the common citizenry. There is a wider scope and possibility for accommodating the expertise and effectiveness of the members of the Indian Administrative Service in preparing the District Development Plans as per the provisions of Article 243G and 243W under the constitution of India. This will enhance the quality of plans for local economic development to ensure the social justice to the citizens through empowering panchayats and municipalities (Nayakara Veeresha(2022),p.123). India has a long history and tradition of Panchayats as decision making institutions at the grassroots politics since the Vedic period. Metcalfe (1854) has noted that the villages of India are ‘little republics having nearly everything they want within themselves and almost independent of any foreign relations’. After a lengthy Constituent Assembly debates Panchayats are accorded a place in the Constitution in the form of Article 40. Article 40 says that ‘the State shall take steps to organise village Panchayats and endow them with such powers and authority as may be necessary to enable them to function as units of self government’. The 73rd and 74th Amendments of 1992–1993 of the Constitution have altered the role of bureaucracy, particularly at the district and below district levels by establishing the local government institutions as the third tier of governance in the multi-level political structure of India(Nayakara Veeresha(2022),p.123).

Max Weber(1978) has observed that ‘Once fully established, bureaucracy is among those social structures which are the hardest to destroy…’. It is difficult to argue in favour of the bureaucracy as it is perceived as one of the complex systemic hurdles in advancing the decentralisation process. However, it is also not wise or appropriate to critique the bureaucracy only for the disadvantages of centralisation of power and authority. This is because the functioning of administrative system is largely dependent upon the nature and kind of elected representatives who are the political masters in Indian democracy. A harmonious relationship between the legislature and executive particularly at the cutting edge of the governance unit, that is, district and below the district levels, is imperative for the success of decentralisation(Nayakara Veeresha(2022),p.124). The concept of facet means one side of something many-sided. The district administration under its collector has multiple functions to does in order to overall develop that particular district and its people. The institution of District Collectorate in India was introduced by Warren Hastings in the year of 1772 with an objective of collection of the revenue and maintenance of law and order. It was entrusted with the responsibilities of looking over district administration and was given enormous powers including the administration of justice. Later on, it underwent significant changes. In India’s post Independence period, the All-India Services were created under Articles 308–314 of Part XIV of the Constitution with constitutional guarantees and safeguards. The members of the IAS are one of the cadres of All India Services who are professionally trained to administer the districts and beyond. The Lal Bahadur Shastri National Academy of Administration (LBSNAA) at Mussoorie, states that ‘The mission of the Academy is to promote good governance, by providing quality training for building a professional and responsive civil service in a caring, ethical and transparent framework’(Nayakara Veeresha (2022), p.125).

The Panchayat System in India was started in the year 1959 following the recommendations of the Balwantrai Mehta Committee in 1957 to establish ‘democratic decentralisation’. After a long struggle of about 35 years, the 73rd and 74th Constitutional Amendment Acts of 1992–1993 have established a three-tier Panchayats at the village, block and district levels and three types of municipal governments in urban areas. The units of local self-governments at both rural and urban areas are collectively regarded as the third tier of governance after the Union and State governments. After 25 years of functioning the rural and urban local government institutions are still in embryonic stages only. The States of Kerala, Karnataka, West Bengal and Tamil Nadu have taken well-intended steps to promote participatory democracy. However, many states have not shown the requisite political will to devolve powers to local government institutions with a view that this may diminish the powers of the State government. This is one of the structural and systematic hindrances to the adequate levels of decentralisation across the various states(Nayakara Veeresha(2022),p.125).

Governance is about how a country governs its affairs. Citizen empowerment constitutes the single most crucial element of responsive administration. Processes such as deregulation, decentralisation and liberalisation, privatisation and globalisation are not static processes. These processes require well-motivated and trained professionals in order to reach the common citizenry. IAS officers at the district level have to evolve suitable structures and institutional arrangements at the local level to involve the people in governance. One of the broader aims of introducing Panchayats as local government institutions are to train the local people into responsive citizens of the State to actively engage in the local decision-making process. For example, by creating awareness about the Gram Sabha, by arranging campaigns to prevent child labour, by making arrangements to showcase the best Gram Sabha practices to raise the political consciousness among the people to enhance the citizenship qualities among them(Nayakara Veeresha(2022),p.125). The role of district collector is the one of the most challenging, diversified, preparatory and productive periods of an IAS Officer’s career. The institution of District Collectorate plays a significant role in ensuring the proper implementation of the State and Central government programmes/schemes locally. Civil Servants should be made to accept and adopt ‘people’s participation and prosperity’ as the core purpose of governance. The 29 and 18 subjects listed in the Eleventh and Twelfth Schedules as part of the 73rd and 74th Constitutional Amendment Acts to provide an opportunity for the civil servants in general and IAS in particular to participate in the development activities at the grassroots level. During 1950–60s, civil services as an institution in general have played an important role in consolidating the princely states to the Union of India. The impact of 73rd and 74th Constitutional Amendment Acts on the institution of district collectorate made a paradigm shift in the authority of the district collector from the district headquarters to the rural and urban local government institutions(Nayakara Veeresha (2022), p.125).

Despite its inadequacies of not being able to meet the growing demands and aspirations of the citizens, the office of district collectorate still holds its uniqueness and strength in its ability to make changes within the administration itself with the changing times. This particular resilient quality of adjusting to the changing requirements has accorded dynamism to its nature. The late Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi during his speech on the responsive administration observed: ‘I found that in our younger generation of administrators there is a totally new perspective of seeing a valid role for the democratic system and, in fact, interacting strongly with it to get the best, the most rapid and, perhaps, the most wholesome development. I found that DMs now readily acknowledge and, perhaps, even enthusiastically seek the harnessing of the people’s cooperation in their work. It is only with this cooperation that we can have economic development with social progress, which is really the essence of our development work’(Nayakara Veeresha (2022), p.126).

Is there any conflict between the local elected representatives and the district administration in the implementation of development programmes? It is worthwhile to draw from the National Commission to Review the Working of the Constitution (2002) which said that ‘the new administrative class, working under the mesmeric spell of colonial attitudes, was reluctant to consider the people as citizens. They continued to treat them as subjects or “ryots” both owing allegiance to a superior master’. It can be argued that the district administration has not yet acknowledged and recognised the people of India country as its citizens as it continues to exercise power and authority over their masters, that is, citizens who are sovereigns. The rationale of the 73rd and 74th Constitutional Amendment Acts as observed by the National Commission is as follows: “Self-government is better than even good governance. Unless self-government is ensured by clear devolution of power from the Centre to the periphery, people are prevented from participation in governance. They cannot eliminate arbitrariness in executive actions which generally tilts the balance in favour of the privileged. Moreover the ‘top-down’ state of affairs does not legitimise ‘self-government’ which is of primordial value. ‘Top-down’ administration stifles public initiative. To make people effective they must consciously enjoy and assert their constitutional entitlements and not be mere supplicants for or objects of administrative largesse. That is the rationale of the 73rd and 74th amendments to the Constitution”( Nayakara Veeresha(2022),p.126). The mobilisation and engagement of citizens in the deliberations of Gram Sabha and Ward Sabha is essentially a political act. The citizen’s mobilisation to participate in democratic discussions is one of the neglected areas among the functions of local elected representatives. It created an administrative vacuum between the institutional structures and citizens, although there are considerable efforts of the civil society organisations to enhance the people’s involvement in the decision making process. In view of the long-term goal of deepening democracy through active citizens engagement through professionally trained district administrators (as Members of the IAS) is an option available but remained as unexercised by most of the administrators(Nayakara Veeresha(2022),p.127).

There is a general view that the 73rd and 74th constitution of India amendments have curtailed the powers of the district collector. In contrast to this an observation made by study team as, ‘A perusal of the state legislations relating to Panchayati Raj would show that the Collector, in view of his special position status and prestige in the district, may curb the efflorescence of the democratic spirit is quite obvious’ . From these observations, it can be understood that in spite of the 73rd and 74th constitutional amendments the power and authority of the district collectorate have not yet decentralised as envisioned by the Acts. However, certainly there is a decline in the degree and nature of authority (Nayakara Veeresha(2022), p.127). At the same time, the control of district collector over the Panchayati personnel, in releasing the funds to the developmental works from the district treasury, delegation of technical capacities to the local governments–in all these the authority has doubled in post-amendment period. This corroborates the assertion made by study team as ‘Although there are number of changes brought out by decentralizing the responsibilities of the works of the panchayats, the final decision still lies in the hands of the collector’. It can be inferred that the twin objectives of achieving the local economic development and social justice still has to a long way and to make local government institutions as ‘institutions of self-government’ as envisioned by the Constitution (Nayakara Veeresha(2022),p.127).

The Second Administrative Reforms Commission in its report on Local Governance observed that the District Planning Committee is expected to work towards achieving rural–urban integration within a district for the purpose of preparing a common development framework . The question to be asked is that, who will bring this coordination of rural–urban planning processes. As of now the plausible answer lies in the efficient institution is the district administration only. The district stratum of local government institutions such as District Panchayats are to be empowered to shoulder the responsibilities to exercise the planning activity and to coordinate the departments to formulate district development plan. The rationale for this is not to increase the hold of bureaucratic authority over the planning exercise rather it is to utilise the expertise of the professionally trained administrators to guide the decentralised planning process(Nayakara Veeresha(2022),p.128). Gradually the local democratic institutions can take up the task of local planning for economic development. Even after the introduction of 73rd and 74th constitutional amendments, in many states the district collector is the chairperson for all the development initiatives, which actually are meant to be held by the local elected representatives. There is a need for adequate measures to revitalise the district administration so as to play more meaningful and productive functions in decentralised governance (Nayakara Veeresha(2022),p.128).

Many changes have taken place in the district administration since the 73rd and 74^th constitutional amendments. The structural changes at the local stratum of democracy are yet to accommodate the district collector in deepening of democracy. This requires strong political will among the Union and State governments to embark the beginning of responsive and development administration in the office of district administration. The district administrators need to rekindle the spirit of the local democratic institutions within their constitutional obligations and limitations without overreaching the institutional framework of the All India Services. There is a wider scope and possibility for accommodating the expertise and effectiveness of the members of the IAS in preparing the District Development Plans as per the provisions of Articles 243G and 243W. This will enhance the quality of plans for local economic development to ensure the social justice to the citizens through empowering Panchayats and Municipalities (Nayakara Veeresha(2022),p.128). As far as the Decentralised Planning under the District Planning Committees concerned, this is an important area where the state governments have not shown due regard to constitutional provision is the area of district planning. The Constitutional Amendment requires the state governments to constitute the District Planning Committees (DPCs) to facilitate decentralised planning. The states took more than a decade to constitute DPCs. Nine states have reported that DPC is not functional, including Kerala, Madhya Pradesh, Goa, Jammu and Kashmir(presently Union Territory); 15 states reported that integrated district plans are not being prepared; and twelve states have maintained that integrated district plans are being prepared in all the districts(Prabhat Kumar Datta and Inderjeet Singh Sodhi(2021),p.21).

Decentralised planning has received a new dimension as the concept mandates Gram panchayats to prepare plan for economic development and social justice utilising the resources available to them. It has to be understood that the FFC has significantly improved the financial base of the gram panchayats. The Gram Panchayat Development Plan (GPDP) planning process has to be comprehensive and based on participatory process which involves full convergence with schemes of all related central ministries and line departments related to 29 subjects enlisted in the 11th Schedule of the Constitution. The people’s plan campaign initiated by the Government of India under ‘Sabki Yojana Sabka Vikas’ will be intensive and structured exercise for planning at Gram Sabha through convergence between panchayats and concerned line departments of the state. Local governance institutions have a lot to deliver to the people provided the planning and policies are rightly placed(Prabhat Kumar Datta and Inderjeet Singh Sodhi(2021),p.21). But decentralised planning including GPDP is facing a lot of internal challenges due to ineffective function of the Gram Sabha. The meetings of the Gram Sabhas are not being held at regular intervals. Even when the meetings are held quorum is not given due importance. Proceedings are not properly recorded. Many a time the villagers are not duly informed about the venue and timings of the meetings. Attendance of women is far from satisfactory. One study has indicated that most of the GPDPs focus on infrastructure like roads and canals, ignoring human development aspects like education and health. The participation of line departments in the Gram Sabha meetings has for long been a matter of concern. There is a hierarchal understanding amongst the Panchayat officials about the GPDP plan. The common understanding is that funds can be sourced only from the central and state allocations as recommended by the respective FCs. Many Sarpanchs are not aware about the resource envelope available at the panchayat level. The GPDPs thus formed does not converge funds from different schemes and resources available at the Panchayat level (Prabhat Kumar Datta and Inderjeet Singh Sodhi(2021),p.21).

The representatives of the villagers including panchayat officials like secretaries are overburdened as some of them have to take charge of more than one Gram Panchayat. Kumar (2012) has drawn our attention to the unholy alliances between the panchayat representatives and junior engineers leading to change of locations in the approved plan and corruption. He has correctly suggested to strengthen social accountability tools. It calls for disclosing of all plans through notices in public places, introduction of social audits as in the case of National Rural Employment Guarantee Programme (Prabhat Kumar Datta and Inderjeet Singh Sodhi (2021), p.21). Mention may be made of Himachal Pradesh and Odisha where the chairperson of the DPC is the Minister and MLA respectively which goes against the very spirit of the Constitution of the DPC. There are also states where the DPCs are headed by the bureaucrats which also work against the basic philosophy of the DPC. The Centre has not intervened to compel the State governments to constitute the DPCs. This raises a question: Who will enforce the implementation of the amendment of the Constitution? The Centre has financial clout. It could have threatened the states of dire consequences even to the extent of non-release of central funds to ensure compliance of the Constitutional provisions. Thus, this silence or inaction on the of Indian state raises doubt about its genuine interest in decentralisation through Panchayati Raj(Prabhat Kumar Datta and Inderjeet Singh Sodhi(2021),p.22). In fact, there are some states, which are yet to constituted the DPCs in India (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_Planning_Committee).

However, in the Constitution of India, the article 243ZD says Committee for district planning. Moreover, this article says that (1) There shall be constituted in every State at the district level a District Planning Committee to consolidate the plans prepared by the Panchayats and the Municipalities in the district and to prepare a draft development plan for the district as a whole (2) The Legislature of a State may by law make provision with respect to (a) the composition of the District Planning Committees; (b) the manner in which the seats in such Committees shall be filled. This has to be provided that not less than four-fifths of the total number of members of such Committee shall be elected by and from amongst the elected members of the Panchayat at the district level and of the Municipalities in the district in proportion to the ratio between the population of the rural areas and of the urban areas in the district; (c) the functions relating to district planning which may be assigned to such Committees; (d) the manner in which the Chairpersons of such Committees shall be chosen (https://legislative.gov.in/sites/default/files/COI_English.pdf, p.134). (3) Every District Planning Committee shall, in preparing the draft development plan (a) have regard to (i) matters of common interest between the Panchayats and the Municipalities including spatial planning, sharing of water and other physical and natural resources, the integrated development of infrastructure and environmental conservation; (ii) the extent and type of available resources whether financial or otherwise; (b) consult such institutions and organisations as the Governor may, by order, specify. (4) The Chairperson of every District Planning Committee shall forward the development plan, as recommended by such Committee to the Government of the State (https://legislative.gov.in/sites/default/files/COI_English.pdf,p.134). So, the Constitution of India did not clearly mention the who will be the Chairperson of DPC. Because of this reason different states are following differently for implementing in this regard.

Benefits of Decentralized District Administration:

There is a view that decentralization brings tangible benefits to the developing world, increasing material welfare and reducing the alienation of traditional societies when faced with centralized and modernizing bureaucracies. In theory, this is plausible, but in practice decentralization seldom lives up to its promises (Barbara Ingham, A. K. M. Kalam (1992)). Decentralisation can also effectively contribute to the projects and programmes of area planning and the regional balanced development. The epithet 'democratic' goes to reinforce what decentralisation stands for. It requires the internalisation of democratic values. While there is debate about decentralisation being of 'instrumental' or 'fundamental' value, one feels that it is vitally concerned with the distributive values- the concern for the small man, his quality of life and how far he can genuinely be the participant and beneficiary. Decentralisation is expected to facilitate speedy identification of the field problems and the working out of the requisite solutions. People have at times expressed misgivings about the decentralised approach in a technology-oriented society. It should not be construed as a throwback to the past; it is the experience of the stresses and strains of a society with a highly sophisticated technology which spells out the need for a decentralised way of life and working (https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/001955611978030ix, p. Xviii).

Through decentralisation we tend to humanise administration and harness the enthusiasm and energy of the community. It will be wrong to equate decentralisation with parochial Localism or tribalism. It stands for a more vibrant and healthy network of interpersonal as well as societal relationships. It is the spirit of decentralisation that is vital and not its formal garb or ritualistic homage. As regards its form, shape or structure, there is a wide range of possibilities or choices where the firm political judgement will have to exercise its selectivity in accordance with the needs and environmental conditions. That is why the limits of decentralisation must be appreciated in a particular context so that it does not degenerate into the amorphousness or abdication of responsibility (https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/001955611978030ix, p. Xviii). The Decentralisation does not imply the want of purposive coordination or integration in the pursuit of the common objectives. Decentralisation signifies the quest for a participative and community approach and the epithet 'democratic' is not redundant but only reinforces and underlines the democratic values, purposes, approach and style in the different sectors of economy, administration and society. The concept of democratic decentralisation will assign a very important place and role to the diverse kinds of voluntary organisations not by way of condescension and patronage but as a significant component of the totality of our functioning. The psychological dimension of the problem is of paramount importance. Neither myth making and romanticization nor the unthinking belief and formalism but a cool and rational analysis of the compulsions and the various aspects and parameters of democratic decentralisation as an idea and as an ideal will alone provide it the necessary sustenance. Similarly negative criticism and cynicism will be of no avail. Decentralisation can be the source of good administration, the instrument of sound management, the vehicle of development and the symbol of democracy (https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/001955611978030ix, p. Xix).

There is a growing body of evidence indicating that the decentralisation of government services can be far more efficient than their supply by bureaus. These methods have been shown, among other things, to reduce the total cost of government, increase the level and quality of public services and eliminate opportunities for rent-seeking behavior (Kempe Ronald Hope Snr (2010), p.522). Decentralisation enables a much greater variety of choice while also serving to reduce costs. Highly centralised forms of governance also generate administrative pathologies including communication overload, long response times, filtering and distortion of information, a failure to grasp spatial connections in sectoral programming, and so on. Moreover, centralised states tend to be unresponsive to local needs as well as to the needs of the disempowered in particular. Restructuring the delivery of public services by decentralising central functions and resources, and decentralising governance represents the best means of promoting participation and efficiency(Kempe Ronald Ho pe Snr(2010),p.522). Another important benefit of decentralisation is that of improved access to administrative agencies. Decentralisation to officials responsible for the delivery of public services to target groups in local communities should make it easier for claimants to gain access to goods and services to which they are entitled. Decentralisation leads to more efficient delivery of public services by reducing costs, exposing problems in delivery mechanisms and generating more sympathetic attitudes towards government programmes. Decentralisation has the value of reducing red tape and bureaucratic formalism. It greatly facilitates the access of the people to policy and decision makers by rendering them more visible and making the loci of power easier to identify. By so doing, more decisions are made at the local level, closer to the voters, resulting in more responsive and efficient local governance(Kempe Ronald Hope Snr(2010),p.522).

The Decentralisation can also soften resistance to the changes which policy implementation entails. Participation in local institutions should help overcome the indifference, pessimism and passivity of the populace. Local governance can ease the process of change by providing local leadership to win support for change by involvement. Local governments can act as channels of communication among national governments, states or provinces and local communities and thereby facilitate understanding of the aims and objectives of the policy efforts. Another major benefit of decentralisation is its ability to contribute to unity and stability. There is a persistent belief that local democracy is necessary for national unity. In countries with great social diversity and regional disparities, it is felt necessary to satisfy the legitimate political aspirations of subgroups. Decentralisation can therefore be designed to satisfy the demands for recognition of communal identity or to defuse civil strife or even civil war(Kempe Ronald Hope Snr(2010),p.522). A great deal of significance is attached to the beneficial consequences of improved coordination as a result of decentralisation. Activities can be better coordinated at the regional or local levels in order to reduce duplication between agencies, make project planning easier when more than one agency is involved, make it easier to produce integrated plans for specific areas and increase the efficiency and flexibility with which resources are used. Decentralisation is therefore commonly regarded as providing an opportunity for improved coordination between closely related areas of administrative responsibility to ensure consistency among the policies of different agencies, to prevent wastage and duplication of effort and to ensure integration when a programme requires inputs from a number of agencies as is often the case in urban development activities for example (Kempe Ronald Hope Snr (2010), p.523). However, the other important benefits of District administration are such as 1) maintaining law and order in the district, 2) providing relief work in case of emergencies like floods and famine,3) maintenance of land records and revenue collection and 4) providing civic amenities and monitoring the overall development process.

CONCLUSION:

The decentralisation of government services can be far more efficient than their supply by bureaus at the top level in the world, which includes India. In India, the term ‘decentralization’ refers to a process of gradual devolution or transfer of functions, resources and decision making powers to the lower level democratically elected bodies. The District administration is regarded as a quintessential for the over all development of its local people in that particular district in India. During the natural calamities times also the district administration use to playing a key important role for providing relief work and so on in India.

REFERENCES:

1. S.S. Khera. District Administration in India. New Delhi. National Publishing House. 1979.

2. Kempe Ronald Hope Snr. Decentralisation and local governance theory and the practice in Botswana. Development Southern Africa. 2010; 17(4): 519-534. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/03768350050173912Kempe Ronald Hope Snr (2010)

3. Tulia G. Falleti. A Sequential Theory of Decentralization: Latin American Cases in Comparative Perspective. American Political Science Review. 2005; 99(3). https://www.polisci.upenn.edu/sites/default/files/2005_Falleti_APSR_Sequential_Theory_Decentralization.pdf

4. UNDP(1999). Decentralization: A sampling of Definitions. Working paper, October. http://web.undp.org/evaluation/documents/decentralization_working_report.pdf

5. United Cities and Local Governments (2008). Decentralization and Local Democracy in the World. Barcelona. https://www.gold.uclg.org/sites/default/files/GOLDI_%20EN.pdf.

6. Nirmal Mukarji (). Decentralisation below the State Level: Need for a New System of Governance. Economic and Political Weekly. 1989; 24(9): 467-472. https://www.jstor.org/stable/4394467.

7. S.N. Sadasivan (), “Towards a Theory of District Administration. Indian Journal of Public Administration. 1985; 31(3): 729–738. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/0019556119850320.

8. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/001955611978030ix

9. UB Singh (2009). Decentralized Democratic Governance in New Millennium: Local Government in the USA, UK, France, Japan, Russia and India. New Delhi. Concept Publishing Company

10. Kwame Badu Antwi-Boasiako and Peter Csanyi(ed.) (2014)). The Theories of Decentralization and Local government : Implementation, implications, and realities ; a global perspective. Nacogdoches. Stephen F. Austin University Press. https://searchworks.stanford.edu/view/10630334.

11. Dr. Suresh Vadranam and Jayaprada Sahoo (2022). Theory of Democratic Decentralisation and Local Governance Administration. April – June, Digest-IIPA. https://www.iipa.org.in/cms/public/uploads/159601665552397.pdf

12. Sylvain H. Boko (2002). Decentralization and Reform in Africa. New York.

13. Springer Science+Business Media. https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-1-4615-1111-3_1

14. Bidyut Chakrabarty and Prakash Chand (2012). Public Administration in a Globalizing World: Theories and Practices. New Delhi. Sage Publications India Pvt Ltd. https://pdfdrive.to/pdfs/public-administration-in-a-globalizing-world-theories-and-practices-pdf

15. Girish Kumar (2006). Local Democracy in India: Interpreting Decentralization”. New Delhi. Sage Publications

16. Niraja Gopal Jayal, Amit Prakash and Pradeep K. Sharma (Edited) (2006). Local Governance in India: Decentralization and Beyond. New Delhi. Oxford University Press

17. BS Baviskar and George Mathew (edited) (2008). Inclusion and Exclusion in Local Governance: Field Studies from Rural India. New Delhi. Sage Publications

18. Mohinder Singh and Vijay Kumar (2009). ‘MPLADS and District administration: Problems and Prospects’. In S.S.Chahar (edited) District Administration in India: In the Era of Globalization. New Delhi. Concept Publishing Company

19. https://www.mplads.gov.in/mplads/Default.aspx

20. D. Ravindra Prasad and Y. Pardhasaradhi. Twenty-five Years of the Constitution Seventy-fourth Amendment Act (74th CAA),1992: Promise and Performance. 2020; 66(2): 159–178. Indian Journal of Public

21. Administration.https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/0019556120923900

22. Nayakara Veeresha. Decentralisation, Indian Administrative Service (IAS) and Governance: A Review Article. Indian Journal of Public Administration. 2022; 68(1): 123–129. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/00195561211072338

23. Prabhat Kumar Datta and Inderjeet Singh Sodhi The Rise of the Panchayati Raj Institutions as the Third Tier in Indian Federalism: Where the Shoe Pinches. Indian Journal of Public Administration. 2021; 67(1): 9–26. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/00195561211005569

24. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_Planning_Committee

25. https://legislative.gov.in/sites/default/files/COI_English.pdf

26. Barbara Ingham, and A. K. M. Kalam. Decentralization and Development: Theory and Evidence from Bangladesh. 1992; 12(4): 325-416. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/pad.4230120405

Received on 31.08.2023 Modified on 13.11.2023

Res. J. Humanities and Social Sciences. 2024;15(1)63-77.

DOI: 10.52711/2321-5828.2024.00011