PhD

Kerala has successfully evolved a paradigm of decentralized planning by
utilizing the provisions of the 73rd and 74th amendments of the constitution. Local
governments have been transformed as effective instruments for formulating and
implementing development programmes through people’s participation. They are
empowered to discharge such functions through strategic devolution of functions,
functionaries and funds. Though a robust framework has been evolved over time to
make decentralized planning operational, several bottle necks related to local
governance affect the efficacy of planning and implementation processes at the
grassroots level. This is evident in the productive sector in general and agriculture in
particular. It was in this backdrop the present study was conducted. The study was
primarily intended to describe the process of institutionalization of decentralized
planning in agriculture in Kerala. In this connection, transitions in the administrative
framework and policy environment of decentralized planning were also explored. The
determinants of the efficacy of decentralized planning in agriculture and the nature of
their influence as experienced by major actors of the process were also identified. The
study also explored the accomplishments in the agricultural sector since
institutionalization of decentralized planning. Alongside, policy imperatives of the
experiences of institutionalization were delineated.
The sample consisted of 160 respondents comprising of agricultural officers,
panchayat presidents and members of the agricultural working group of various
development sectors. Respondents were drawn from 40 grama panchayaths selected
from five districts representing the five major agroclimatic regions.
The study has revealed that there are 15 distinct processes of decentralized
planning in the productive sector at the LSGI level. They have evolved over a period
of three five-year plans through various iterative processes and drawing lessons from
diverse field experiences. The state government plan allocation to local selfgovernments showed decreasing trend from Ninth Five Year Plan onwards. While local
self-government institutions (LSGIs) had been provided with 29.29 per cent of state
plan fund allocation, it was reduced to 22.9 per cent and 24.2 per cent in the tenth and
eleventh five-year plans respectively. Plan expenditure of LSGIs was found to range
from 74.81 per cent to 105.25 per cent during this period. It could also be observed that
the mandatory sectoral ceilings for productive sector enforced in various plans have
succeeded in ensuring investment in various sub sectors of agriculture.
Many institutional innovations were initiated to foster people’s participation in
planning. Introduction of ward development committees and Ayalsabhas was a major
step towards this direction. However, attempts towards additional resource pooling,
collaboration with academic institutions to enhance quality of projects and attempts to
avoid thin spread of resources were found to be ineffective. Formulating agricultural
projects with the assistance of cooperative sector and integrating central and state
schemes were also not effective. In spite of the guidelines for formulating joint projects
and muti year projects, local bodies were not venturing to such projects, suggesting that
a motivational measure to promote joint projects among local bodies be introduced.
Moreover, selection of members to the working group and PPC have to be according
to their capabilities adjudged based on a state wide criteria. Employing modern
technologies for primary processing and value addition, better provision of services,
networking of producers and efficient marketing were not adequately mainstreamed by
LSGIs in their plans.
The efficacy of processes involved in decentralised planning was perceived
differently by different categories of actors. Out of the 15 processes, plan appraisal,
integration and implementation were perceived to have low efficacy. Plan formulation
and resource allocation were also found to have low efficacy. Integration of projects had
the lowest efficacy perception score. However, approval of plans by the District Planning
Committee, preparation of detailed projects by the working group, holding of
Gramasabha, preparation of draft plan proposals and discussion in the development
seminar were reported to have high efficacy.
Analysis of the attributes of the actors which contributed to their perception on
the efficacy of decentralized planning process revealed that four major factors viz.
participation, group decision making, experience and knowledge mediation could
explain 77.22 per cent variance. Majority of agricultural officers had medium level of
perceived efficacy, significantly influenced by their participation-performance
interdependence factor and decentralization- development facilitation factors.
Role performance of Agricultural Officers in decentralised planning was found
to be high. They had performed their roles actively in budgeting of project proposals,
planning, monitoring and evaluation, in the order of involvement. Lowest performance
level of Agricultural Officers was found to be in functions related to agricultural
extension.
Accomplishments of decentralized planning in agriculture were quantified in
terms physical targets and financial achievements. Plan fund allocation in the
productive sector was found to be the highest in the high range zone, followed by
problem zone. Plan expenditure in the districts selected from high range zone, northern
region and problem zone was higher than 80 per cent. Projects on various aspects of
rice, vegetables and banana had received more funds than other sub sectors during the
reference period. With regard to the allocations spent, assistance to labour cost for rice
farmers was the major intervention while those for coconut development and
promotion of intercropping were less than 10% and 3% of respectively. Compared to
other crops, the attention paid by local bodies to development of tuber crops, spices
and pulses was less. Cashew being a hardy crop for waste lands did not find any place
in decentralized plans of north, central and high range zones.
Several deficiencies were found in the process of decentralised planning. Most
importantly, there should be focused efforts for enhancing the capacities of working
groups and Planning Committees. Integration of development interventions by various
agencies at the local level have to be ensured through better coordination. Collective
deliberations on sectoral working group reports coordinated by panchayath planning
committee will foster shared vision and convergence among functions of various
officials transferred to the Grama panchayath. The panchayath level data base,
Peoples’ Bio Diversity Register formulated through Bio Diversity Management
Committees and the watershed master plan have to be updated through massive farmer
participation to ensure data base support to local planning and foster the opportunities
for local resource mobilization.
Further, assistance for conservation and multiplication of local germplasm,
traditional seed reserves by local farmer clusters, community seed banks and seed
growers’ networks have to be initiated and the subsidy guidelines have to be broadened
to include such initiatives. The perception of poor marketing infrastructure was the
most ranked among various constraints analyzed. With regard to projects to bridge the
skill gaps in farming and improved service delivery, the existing Agro Service Centres
(ASC) at block level and Farmer Service Centres should be networked for technologybased services with supporting projects from decentralized plan allocations. A KVKATMA- LSGD linkage will resolve the issues of less propagation of technologies in
projects and less expertise of working group members. To enhance participation of
youth in gramasabha a drive on decentralization, gramasabha literacy and the need to
participate for youth was suggested as part of school and college syllabus.