Trends in rural fiscal decentralisation in India’s Karnataka state: a focus on public health
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
For decades, decentralisation reforms have been seen as a powerful instrument by health policy advocates to improve health sector performance in developing countries. In India, the 73rd Constitutional Amendment introduced in 1992 called for strengthening the fiscal autonomy and service delivery capacity of rural local governments. This paper explores how decentralised governance influences public health sector resource allocation, equity and efficiency in rural Karnataka. For this, the authors analysed administrative data published by the Karnataka state government to create tailored standardised performance measures that capture the degree of local governments’ fiscal discretion in implementing public health programmes from 2011–18 at the district level. The findings highlight sector-specific differences in fiscal autonomy, ranging from high local discretion over funds in the nutrition sector to very limited discretion in the medical and public health sector. They also show that decentralised public health funding is not well-targeted to areas of greatest need in Karnataka
Article Details
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Authors who submit articles to this journal from 31st March 2014 for publication, agree to the following terms:
a) Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share and adapt the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
b) Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
c) Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Open Access Citation Advantage Service). Where authors include such a work in an institutional repository or on their website (ie. a copy of a work which has been published in a UTS ePRESS journal, or a pre-print or post-print version of that work), we request that they include a statement that acknowledges the UTS ePRESS publication including the name of the journal, the volume number and a web-link to the journal item.
d) Authors should be aware that the Creative Commons Attribution (CC-BY) License permits readers to share (copy and redistribute the work in any medium or format) and adapt (remix, transform, and build upon the work) for any purpose, even commercially, provided they also give appropriate credit to the work, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. They may do these things in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests you or your publisher endorses their use.
For Issue 13/14, and all issues before, the following copyright applied:
Authors submitting a paper to UTS ePRESS publications agree to assign a limited license to UTS ePRESS if and when the manuscript is accepted for publication. This license allows UTS ePRESS to publish a manuscript in a given issue. Articles published by UTS ePRESS are protected by copyright which is retained by the authors who assert their moral rights. Authors control translation and reproduction rights to their works published by UTS ePRESS. UTS ePRESS publications are copyright and all rights are reserved worldwide. Downloads of specific portions of them are permitted for personal use only, not for commercial use or resale. Permissions to reprint or use any materials should be directed to UTS ePRESS via the journal's main editor, Alison Brown, journal@clgf.org.uk
References
Asfaw, A., Frohberg, K., James, K.S. and Jütting, J. (2007). Fiscal decentralization and infant mortality: empirical evidence from rural India. The Journal of Developing Areas, pp.17-35.
Babu, M.D. (2009). Financial Empowerment of Local Governments in the Indian Context: A Myth or Fact?–A Macro Inquiry. Asian Studies Review, 7.
Babu, M.D., Zahir, F., Khanna, R. and Philip, P.M. (2018). Two decades of fiscal decentralization reforms in Karnataka: Opportunities, issues and challenges. Institute for Social and Economic Change.
Bahl, R., Sethi, G. and Wallace, S. (2010). Fiscal Decentralization to Rural Local Governments in India: A Case Study of West Bengal State. Publius: The Journal of Federalism, 40(2), pp.312-331. https://doi.org/10.1093/publius/pjp047
Bird, R.M. and Vaillancourt, F. eds. (2008). Fiscal decentralization in developing countries. Cambridge University Press.
Bossert, T. (1998). Analyzing the decentralization of health systems in developing countries decision space, innovation and performance. Social science & medicine, 47(10), pp.1513-1527. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0277-9536(98)00234-2
Baskaran, T., Feld, L.P. and Schnellenbach, J. (2014). Fiscal federalism, decentralization and economic growth: Survey and meta-analysis.
Karnataka Finance Department (2011-18). Budget Allotment for Zilla Panchayat. [online]. Government of Karnataka. Available at: https://finance.karnataka.gov.in/search-data?search=Budget+Volumes.
Hankla, C.R. (2009). When is fiscal decentralization good for governance?. Publius: The Journal of Federalism, 39(4), pp.632-650. https://doi.org/10.1093/publius/pjn034
Jha, S., (2002). Strengthening local governments: rural fiscal decentralisation in India. Economic and Political Weekly, pp.2611-2623.
Khaleghian, P. and Gupta, M.D. (2005). Public management and the essential public health functions. World Development, 33(7), pp.1083-1099.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2005.04.001
Martinez-Vazquez, J. and Timofeev, A. (2010). Decentralization measures revisited. Public Finance and Management, 10(1), pp.13-47.
Mitchell, A. and Bossert, T.J. (2010). Decentralisation, Governance and Health‐System Performance: ‘Where You Stand Depends on Where You Sit’. Development Policy Review, 28(6), pp.669-691. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-7679.2010.00504.x
Mookherjee, D. (2015). Political decentralization. Annual Review of Economics, 7(1), pp.231-249. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-economics-080614-115527
Oates, W.E. (1972). Fiscal federalism. New York: Harcout Brace Jovanovich.
Oommen, M.A. (2006). Fiscal decentralisation to the sub-state level governments. Economic and Political Weekly, pp.897-903.
Oommen, M.A. (2010). The 13th Finance Commission and the Third Tier. Economic and Political Weekly, pp.92-98.
Raghunandan, T.R., Iyengar, S., Bhatikar, T., Narayanan, U., and Janakiraman, P. (2016). Paisa for Panchayats: Tracking Fiscal Devolution to Local Governments: A case study from Kolar district, Karnataka. Centre for Policy Research.
Rajaraman, I. and Sinha, D. (2007). Functional Devolution to Rural Local Bodies in Four States. Economic and Political Weekly, pp.2275-2283.
M Govinda Rao and Nirvikar Singh (2006). Political economy of federalism in India. New Delhi: Oxford Univ. Press.
Rao, M.G., Nath, H.A. and Vani, B.P. (2004). Rural Fiscal Decentralization in Karnataka State. Fiscal Decentralization to Rural Local Governments in India.
Rao, M.G., Raghunandan, T.R., Gupta, M., Datta, P., Jena, P.R. and Amarnath, H.K. (2011). Fiscal decentralisation to rural local governments in India: Selected issues and reform options. National Institute of Public Finance and Policy, New Delhi.
Rodríguez-Pose, A., Tijmstra, S.A. and Bwire, A. (2009). Fiscal decentralisation, efficiency, and growth. Environment and Planning A, 41(9), pp.2041-2062. https://doi.org/10.1068/a4087
Seshadri, S.R., Parab, S., Kotte, S., Latha, N. and Subbiah, K. (2016). Decentralization and decision space in the health sector: a case study from Karnataka, India. Health policy and planning, 31(2), pp.171-181. https://doi.org/10.1093/heapol/czv034
Shah, A. (2004). Fiscal Decentralisation in Developing and Transition Economies. World Bank Policy Research Working Paper No. 3282. Washington D.C: World Bank. https://doi.org/10.1596/1813-9450-3282
Smith, S.L. (2014). Political contexts and maternal health policy: insights from a comparison of south Indian states. Social Science & Medicine, 100, pp.46-53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2013.10.029
Srinath, P., Kotasthane, P., Kher, D. and Chhajer, A. (2018). A Qualitative and Quantitative Analysis of Public Health Expenditure in India: 2005-06 to 2014-15.
Schwartz, B.J., Guilkey, D.K., Racelis, R. and At, C. (2002). Decentralization, allocative efficiency and health service outcomes in the Philippines. Measure Evaluation, Carolina Population Center, University of North Carolina At Chapel Hill.
Tiebout, C.M. (1956). A pure theory of local expenditures. Journal of political economy, 64(5), pp.416-424. https://doi.org/10.1086/257839
World Bank (1993). World development report 1993 : investing in health. New York: Published For The World Bank, Oxford University Press, Cop.
Yilmaz, S., Beris, Y. and Serrano‐Berthet, R. (2010). Linking local government discretion and accountability in decentralisation. Development Policy Review, 28(3), pp.259-293. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-7679.2010.00484.x