Dilution Process of Policy Implementation Strategy: An Analysis of Changes in the Guidelines for Watershed Development Programmes in India

Abstract

Watershed development programme started in India in 1995 with radical institutional reforms. Involving village level committees and voluntary organizations, the programme made way for a new age in people-oriented development interventions. However, during implementation, for more than a decade, the guidelines for implementing the programme were changed, leading to dilution of a few fundamental objectives of watershed development. This paper attempts to understand the changes, its process, actors involved and their interests using the organizational process model. It concludes that the principles of the original guidelines were not accepted wholeheartedly by the bureaucracy. Subsequently, they were changed to revive bureaucratic control and reinforced through various government orders. The paper finally suggests that policy implementation strategy requiring a paradigm shift are only public goals and they are destined to be diluted in favour of bureaucratic control.

Managing International Development Projects

“…This brought in a number of changes-giving primacy to panchayati raj institutions (local governments) as PIAs. The NGOs were given the lowest preference in the selection of PIAs-later, restrictions were added by Government of India to make an NGO-PIA almost impossible (Mishra 2010). The guidelines were further criticized because of some retrogressive steps such as bringing a government representative as the secretary of the Watershed Committee-earlier, this position was held by a local person (Vania and Taneja 2004)-and bringing down the proportion of fund on community organization and training from 10 per cent of project cost by half (to 5 per cent).…”

“…Another problem was that the government guidelines were frequently changed and at a few times, the government orders went against the basic principles of the programme. This included a few provisions of Hariyali guidelines and government orders bringing in government departments to forefront (for a detailed discussion on this issue, see Mishra 2010).…”

“…If the financier suggests all aspects of design, and still insists the target achievement, can it still have the quality? Bureaucratic governments often stick to procedures as developmental goals are difficult to attain (Mishra 2010;Ripley and Franklin 1982). But should international aid advocating for efficiency and effectiveness follow the same?…”

Lift Irrigation Schemes in Andhra Pradesh

“…There is much literature and ongoing research on environment and development (see earlier works by Adams, 1990;Etienne, 1997;Shiva, 1988), including issues of irrigation and related technological strategies across the world, more so for developing countries (Ashra & Chakravarty, 2007;Barnes, 2012;Batterbury, 2001;Caizhen, 2009;Castro, 2008;Gunchinmaa et al, 2011;Kantor & Pain, 2012;Karim, 2006;Mehrotra, 2009;Parfitt, 2009;Perera, 2004;Subba, 1999;Van den Berg et al, 2003;Zubair, 2005). Regarding India (Ackermann, 2012;Bradford et al, 2003;Buechler & Mekala, 2005;Choudhury, 2007;Choudhury et al, 2009;Diwakara, 2006;D'Souza, 2003;Iyengar, 1998;Lalnilawma, 2009;Madsen, 1999;Mishra, 2010;Mohan, 2004;Mudrakartha et al, 2011;Narain & Nischal, 2007;Phadke, 2002;Reddy, 2003;Reddy & Reddy, 2005;Samal & Dhyani, 2007;Tiwary, 2006Tiwary, , 2009, irregular and failed monsoons add much urgency to technological interventions for making water available where it is needed. The Indian state, as the dominant post-independence development agency, initiated many ambitious irrigation schemes to provide regular employment and income to the rural masses, often with special emphasis on marginal communities and social development (Agoramoorthy &amp...…”