India Explained
ImplementedCPI(M)E. K. Nayanar, coalition governmentState: kerala

Kerala People's Plan Campaign for decentralised planning (1996)

In 1996 Kerala's LDF government devolved 35-40% of the state plan outlay to local bodies and ran a campaign of village assemblies and task forces to prepare local plans. Evaluations are mostly by campaign-linked authors.

Kerala

Facts

  • The Left Democratic Front ministry that took office on 20 May 1996 under E. K. Nayanar (CPI(M)) allotted 35 to 40 percent of the state development plan budget to local government bodies, which could spend it within broad parameters. The campaign ran intensely from 1996 to 2001 [1].
  • An evaluation summary hosted by the Government of India's Development Monitoring and Evaluation Office, seen in search results but not opened, dates the devolution announcement to July 1996 and the campaign's start to August 1996; July 1996 is used as the date here [2].
  • Process described in [1]: village assemblies listed problems; elected task forces drew up projects; elected village and municipal councils prioritised them; block and district councils then processed proposals and filled gaps. Special allotments were set aside for projects aimed at former untouchable castes and for projects for women.
  • Book descriptions by publisher Leftword, seen in search results, say the campaign mobilised over 3 million people and covered 1,052 villages and urban neighbourhoods [3]; these counts were not verified against a primary record.
  • A health-sector evaluation by Elamon, Franke and Ekbal (International Journal of Health Services, 2004) judged the campaign against its own goals and concluded it achieved each goal to a large degree; it also reported shortcomings from inexperience of local communities in drafting projects and from parts of the health bureaucracy that could not be decentralised [1].

Why

Reasons given by those who did it

  • The campaign's stated goals in the health evaluation [1] included creating a functional division among government levels, generating projects that reflect needs voiced in local assemblies, maintaining or increasing equality by income, caste and gender, and mobilising voluntary community resources.
  • T. M. Thomas Isaac, who was in charge of the campaign at the State Planning Board, and Richard Franke describe it as a bottom-up planning effort (book descriptions, [3]).

Criticism of that reasoning

  • The authors of [1] note that decentralisation of health services is documented only sparsely and that many experiences elsewhere ran into conflicts between central and lower-level units; the evaluation does not compare Kerala with a control group.

Benefits and concerns

Benefits (2)

  • A fixed share of the state plan reached local bodies, with set-asides for women and for former untouchable castes.35-40% of the state plan budget devolved; special allotments for caste and gender-targeted projects [1].
  • The authors of the health study report that local health projects and administrative reforms met the campaign goals to a large degree.Conclusion of Elamon, Franke and Ekbal (2004) [1]; Franke co-authored a book on the campaign with its lead organiser Isaac [3], so the evaluation is not independent of the campaign.

Concerns (3)

  • Local capacity limited project quality.The health study reports the inexperience of many communities in drafting effective projects [1].
  • Part of the health bureaucracy could not be decentralised.Reported as a shortcoming in [1].
  • Independent, outcome-based evaluation was not found in the sources opened.The sources opened are the campaign-linked health study [1], a summary not opened [2] and publisher descriptions [3].

Evidence points

+9.0
points, mean of two scorers (scale −25 to +25)
+9 to +9
range between the two scorers' totals
Low confidence
scorers agree within 1 point on every criterion
ReachHow many people did the action materially affect?
Mean +2.5A +2B +3
Outcome evidenceDo official or independent data show the intended result (or its opposite), compared with the era baseline and peers?
Mean +1.0A +1B +1
Cost and sustainabilityIs the fiscal cost proportionate, and is the effect durable?
Mean +1.0A +1B +1
Process and rightsWas it made with debate, consultation and legal soundness, and did it respect rights and court rulings?
Mean +2.5A +3B +2
DeliveryWas it implemented as announced, on time and at scale?
Mean +2.0A +2B +2

Positive meanNegative meanScorer AScorer B

Scorer A. 35-40% of plan outlay devolved with participatory process, but evaluation evidence is campaign-linked and not independent.

Scorer B. Devolved 35-40% of plan to local bodies with broad participation, but evaluation is campaign-linked and not independent.

Context used when scoring

Era baseline
In 2000 Kerala's literacy (91%) and infant mortality (16 per 1,000) were far better than the rest of India, so gains from decentralised planning start from a high baseline [1].
Lag before outcomes show
4 years
Uncertainty
Low confidence. Scorer totals are +9 and +9. How uncertainty is shown.

In depth

The campaign reorganised how Kerala spent a large share of its plan funds. Instead of departments deciding every scheme, 35 to 40 percent of the plan outlay went to elected local bodies, which prepared projects after village assemblies identified problems. The process then moved upward through block and district councils.

The main evidence opened for this entry is a health-sector evaluation by authors who describe the campaign positively but also list shortcomings: limited local drafting experience and parts of the health system that stayed centralised. One of the authors co-wrote a book with the campaign’s organiser, so a reader may want a separate, independent evaluation.

Kerala later saw a change of government in 2001; this entry does not assess later developments in local government finance. No primary government document (plan orders, Planning Board reports) was opened, so participation numbers and the campaign’s start date remain unverified and the confidence rating is low.

Sources

  2. Decentralized Planning Experience in Kerala (evaluation summary; seen in search results, not opened)
    Development Monitoring and Evaluation Office, Government of IndiaOfficial data

Last reviewed .Report an error orchallenge a score.

Related actions

  • ImplementedINCState SpotlightsState

    Delhi electricity distribution privatisation (2002)

    From 1 July 2002 Delhi distribution passed to private operators holding 51% in three discoms. Reported losses fell from about 45-60% to roughly 6.5-13% depending on source; tariff disputes continue.

    Evidence points +8.0 (range +8.0 to +8.0)

  • ImplementedBJPState SpotlightsState

    Gujarat Jyotigram Yojana rural feeder separation (2003)

    From September 2003 Gujarat began separating farm and village electricity feeders to give villages a 24-hour supply and farms scheduled power. Studies find mixed effects on consumption and gains in health-facility power.

    Evidence points +9.5 (range +9.0 to +10.0)

  • ImplementedAIADMKState SpotlightsState

    Tamil Nadu Nutritious Noon Meal Scheme (1982)

    In July 1982 Chief Minister M. G. Ramachandran (AIADMK) expanded an existing school meal programme into a statewide noon meal scheme. Evidence on enrolment is mostly survey-based.

    Evidence points +10.5 (range +10.0 to +11.0)