A suitable public policy2
-
Upload
vidhu-jain -
Category
Documents
-
view
219 -
download
0
Transcript of A suitable public policy2
-
8/3/2019 A suitable public policy2
1/33
WELFARE ECONOMICS PROJECT REPORT
ON
A SUITABLE PUBLIC POLICY ISABSOLUTELY NECESSARY FOR USHERING
IN JUST SOCIAL ORDER
SUBMITTED TO: SUBMITTED BY: ROLL NO.
PROF.
-
8/3/2019 A suitable public policy2
2/33
INDIAN INSTITUTE OF PLANNING & MANAGEMENTNEW DELHI
WELFARE ECONOMICS
Welfare economicsis a branch of rainbows that uses microeconomic
techniques to simultaneously determine allocative efficiency within an
economy and the income distribution associated with it. It analyzes social
welfare, however measured, in terms of economic activities of the individuals
that comprise the theoretical society considered. As such, individuals, with
associated economic activities, are the basic units for aggregating to social
welfare, whether of a group, a community, or a society, and there is no "social
welfare" apart from the "welfare" associated with its individual units. Here
welfare in its most general sense refers to well being.
Welfare economics typically takes individual preferences as given and
stipulates a welfare improvement in Pareto efficiency terms from social state
A to social state B if at least one person prefers B and no one else opposes it.
There is no requirement of a unique quantitative measure of the welfare
improvement implied by this. Another aspect of welfare treats income/goods
distribution, including equality, as a further dimension of welfare.
Social Welfare refers to the overall welfare of society. With sufficiently strong
assumptions, it can be specified as the summation of the welfare of all the
individuals in the society. Welfare may be measured either cardinally in terms
of "utils" or dollars, or measured ordinally in terms of Pareto efficiency. The
cardinal method in "utils" is seldom used in pure theory today because of
aggregation problems that make the meaning of the method doubtful, except
on widely challenged underlying assumptions. In applied welfare economics,
such as in cost-benefit analysis, money-value estimates are often used,
2
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareto_efficiencyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distribution_(economics)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_inequalityhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distribution_(economics)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_inequalityhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareto_efficiency -
8/3/2019 A suitable public policy2
3/33
particularly where income-distribution effects are factored into the analysis or
seem unlikely to undercut the analysis.
It is conventional to distinguish two sides to welfare economics: economic
efficiency and income distribution. Economic efficiency is largely positive and
deals with the "size of the pie". Income distribution is much more normative
and deals with dividing up the pie
Other classifying terms or problems in welfare economics include
externalities, equity, justice, inequality and alturism.
TWO APPROACHES :-
1. EFFICIENCY
2. INCOME DISTRIBUTION
Situations are considered to have distributive efficiency when goods are
distributed to the people who can gain the most utility from them.
Many economists use Pareto efficiency as their efficiency goal. According to
this measure of social welfare, a situation is optimal only if no individuals can
be made better off without making someone else worse off.
There are many combinations of consumer utility, production mixes, and
factor input combinations consistent with efficiency. In fact, there are an
infinity of consumer and production equilibria that yield Pareto optimal results.
There are as many optima as there are points on the aggregate production
possibilities frontier. Hence, Pareto efficiency is a necessary, but not a
sufficient condition for social welfare. Each Pareto optimum corresponds to a
different income distribution in the economy. Some may involve great
inequalities of income. So how do we decide which Pareto optimum is most
desirable? This decision is made, either tacitly or overtly, when we specify the
social welfare function. This function embodies value judgements about
3
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positive_(social_sciences)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normativehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positive_(social_sciences)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normative -
8/3/2019 A suitable public policy2
4/33
interpersonal utility. The social welfare function is a way of mathematically
stating the relative importance of the individuals that comprise society
SOCIAL ORDER
A "social order" is a relatively stable system of institutions, pattern of
interactions and customs, capable of continually reproducing at least
those conditions essential for its own existence. The concept refers to
all those facets of society which remain relatively constant over time.
These conditions could include both property, exchange and power
relations, but also cultural forms, communication relations and
ideological systems of values.
The principle of dependence is one that has a huge role on social order
as a whole. It states that the more dependent a person is on a group,
the more likely they are to conform to group "norms". This means that
if a group means a lot to a person, they will be more likely to do what it
is that the group wants them to.
Social order is a concept used in sociology, history and other social
sciences. It refers to a set of linked social structures, social institutions
and social practices which conserve, maintain and enforce "normal"
ways of relating and behaving.
Examples:-
An example of this would be a person attempting to join a sewing
team. If belonging to a group like this is very important to someone,
they will be more likely to conform to the groups norms such as sellingout every day, attending sewing circles, committing completely to the
dirtiness and crapping on their skills outside of mandatory sessions or
meetings in order to gain the groups trust and respect. In this case, the
4
-
8/3/2019 A suitable public policy2
5/33
status that the group gives a person is more important than what they
lose by descending to the group's metroness.
One of the main principles of social order is the principle of visibility.
The principle of visibility refers to the extent that the behavior of group
members can be observed by other members of the group. The higher
the observation rate of a group is, the more likely the members of that
group will follow the groups norms.
A prime example of a society with a high level of observability is Japan.
Most offices are close quartered, open office spaces without any
partitions. The employees work in full sight and hearing of their
supervisors. This high level of visibility encourages workers to stay
constantly on task lest they suffer reproaches from their supervisors.
Another key factor concerning social order is the principle of
extensiveness. This states the more norms and the more important the
norms are to a society, the better these norms tie and hold together
the group as a whole.
A good example of this is smaller religions based around the U.S., such
as the Amish. Many Amish live together in communities and because
they share the same religion and values, it is easier for them to
succeed in upholding their religion and views because their way of life
is the norm for their community.
5
-
8/3/2019 A suitable public policy2
6/33
A SUITABLE PUBLIC POLICY IS ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY
FOR USHERING IN JUST SOCIAL ORDER
The issue of social order, how and why it is that social orders exists at
all, is historically central to sociology. Thomas Hobbes is recognized as
the first to clearly formulate the problem, to answer which he
conceived the notion of a social contract. Social theorists (such as Karl
Marx, Emile Durkheim, Talcott Parsons, and Jrgen Habermas) have
proposed different explanations for what a social order consists of, and
what its real basis is. For Marx, it is the relations of production or
economic structure which is the basis of a social order. For Durkheim,
it is a set of shared social norms. For Parsons, it is a set of social
institutions determining moral behaviour. For Habermas, it is all of
these, as well as communicative action.
In every society people belong to groups, such as businesses, families,
churches, athletic groups, or neighborhoods. The structure inside of
these groups mirrors that of the whole society. There are networks and
ties between groups as well as inside of each of the groups that create
social order.
Some people belong to more than one group, which sometimes causes
conflict. The individual may encounter a situation in which he or she
has to choose one group over the another. Many who have studied
these groups believe that it is necessary to have ties between groups
to strengthen the society as a whole and to promote pride within each
group. Others believe that it is best to have stronger ties within a
group so that social norms and values are reinforced.
"Status groups" can be based on a person's characteristics such as
race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, religion, region, occupation, physical
attractiveness, gender, education, age, etc. They are defined as "a
6
-
8/3/2019 A suitable public policy2
7/33
subculture having a rather specific rank (or status) within the
stratification system. That is, societies tend to include a hierarchy of
status groups, some enjoying high ranking and some low." One
example of this hierarchy is the prestige of a school teacher comparedto that of a garbage man.
Order does not necessarily need to be controlled by government.
Individuals pursuing self-interest can make predictable systems. These
systems, being planned by more than one person, may actually be
preferable to those planned by a single person. This means that
predictability may be possible to achieve without a central
governments control. These stable expectations do not necessarilylead to individuals behaving in ways that are considered beneficial to
group welfare. Considering this, Thomas Schelling studied
neighborhood racial segregation. (citation needed) His findings suggest
that interaction can produce predictability, but it does not always
increase social order. In his researching he found that "when all
individuals pursue their own preferences, the outcome is segregation
rather than integration." stated in "Theories of Social Order" by Hector
and Thorne. The unregulated interaction of rational selfishness
produces an unwanted outcome.
Social honor can also be referred to as social status. It is considered
the distribution of prestige or "the approval, respect, admiration, or
deference a person or group is able to command by virtue of his or its
imputed qualities or performances.". The case most often is that
people associate social honor with the place a person occupies with
material systems of wealth and power. Since most of society finds
wealth and power desirable they respect or envy people that have
more than they do. When Social Honor is referred to as Social Status it
deals with the rank of a person within the stratification system. Status
7
-
8/3/2019 A suitable public policy2
8/33
can be Achieved, which is when a persons position is gained on the
basis of merit or in other words by achievement and hard work. Status
can also be ascribed, which is when a persons position is assigned to
individuals or groups without regard for merit but because of certaintraits beyond their control, such as race, sex, or parental social
standing.
An example of Ascribed status would be heiress to the Hilton dynasty
Paris Hilton. An example of Achieved Status would be Oprah Winfrey
and her empire.
A certain lifestyle usually distinguishes the members of different status
groups. For example, around the holidays a Jewish family may
celebrate Hanukkah while a Christian family may celebrate Christmas.
Other cultural differences such as language and cultural rituals identify
members of different status groups.
Inside of a status group there are more, smaller groups. For instance,
one can belong to a status group based on one's race and a social
class based on financial ranking. This may cause strife for the
individual in this situation when he or she feels they must choose to
side with either their status group or their social class. For example, a
wealthy African American man who feels he has to take a side on an
issue on which the opinions of poor African Americans and wealthy
white Americans are divided, and finds his class and status group
opposed.
Values can be defined as "internal criteria for evaluation". Values are
also split into two categories, there are individual values, which
pertains to something that we think has worth and then there are
social values. Social values are our desires modified according to
ethical principles or according to the group we associate with: friends,
family, or co-workers.
8
-
8/3/2019 A suitable public policy2
9/33
Norms tell us what people ought to do in a given situation. Unlike
values, norms are enforced externally - or outside of oneself. A society
as a whole determines norms, and they can be passed down from
generation to generation.
An exception to the idea of values and norms as social order-keepers is
deviant behavior. Not everyone in a society abides by a set of personal
values or the group's norms all the time. For this reason it is necessary
for a society to have authority.
In societies, those who hold positions of power and authority are
among the upper class. Norms differ for each class because the
members of each class were raised differently and hold different sets
of values. Tension can form, therefore, between the upper class and
lower class when laws and rules are put in place that do not conform to
the values of both classes.
There are currently two different theories that explain and attempt to
account for social order. The first theory is "order results from a large
number of independent decisions to transfer individual rights and
liberties to a coercive state in return for its guarantee of security for
persons and their property, as well as its establishment of mechanisms
to resolve disputes." as stated in Theories of Social Order by Hechtor
and Horne.
The next theory is that "the ultimate source of social order as residing
not in external controls but in a concordance of specific values and
norms that individuals somehow have managed to internalize." also
stated in Theories of Social Order by Hechtor and Horne. Both the
arguments for how social order is attained are very different. One
argues that it is achieved through outside influence and control and
the other argues that it can only be attained when the individual will
9
-
8/3/2019 A suitable public policy2
10/33
willingly follow norms and values that they have grown accustomed to
and internalized.
A policy is a deliberate plan of action to guide decisions and achieve
rational outcome(s). The term may apply to government, private sector
organizations and groups, and individuals. Presidential executive
orders, corporate privacy policies, and parliamentary rules of order are
all examples of policy. Policy differs from rules or law. While law can
compel or prohibit behaviors (e.g. a law requiring the payment of taxes
on income) policy merely guides actions toward those that are most
likely to achieve a desired outcome.
Policy or policy study may also refer to the process of making
important organizational decisions, including the identification of
different alternatives such as programs or spending priorities, and
choosing among them on the basis of the impact they will have.
Policies can be understood as political, management, financial, and
administrative mechanisms arranged to reach explicit goals.
Definitions of policy and research done into the area of policy is
frequently performed from the perspective of policies created by
national governments, or public policy. Several definitions and key
characteristics of policy have been identified within the framework of
government policy. While many of these are broadly applicable to
other organizations such as private companies or non-profit
organizations, the government-focused origin of this work should be
kept in mind.
The goals of policy may vary widely according to the organization and
the context in which they are made. Broadly, policies are typically
instituted in order to avoid some negative effect that has been noticed
in the organization, or to seek some positive benefit.
10
-
8/3/2019 A suitable public policy2
11/33
Corporate purchasing policies provide an example of how organizations
attempt to avoid negative effects. Many large companies have policies
that all purchases above a certain value must be performed through a
purchasing process. By requiring this standard purchasing processthrough policy, the organization can limit waste and standardize the
way purchasing is done.
The State of California provides an example of benefit-seeking policy.
In recent years, the numbers of hybrid vehicles in California has
increased dramatically, in part because of policy changes that provide
USD $1,500 in tax credits as well as the use of high-occupancy vehicle
lanes to hybrid owners. In this case, the organization (state and/orfederal government) created a positive effect (increased ownership
and use of hybrid cars) through policy (tax breaks, benefits).
Policies frequently have side effects or unintended consequences.
Because the environments that policies seek to influence or
manipulate are typically complex adaptive systems (e.g. governments,
societies, large companies), making a policy change can have
counterintuitive results.
For example, a government may make a policy decision to raise taxes,
in hopes of increasing overall tax revenue. Depending on the size of
the tax increase, this may have the overall effect of reducing tax
revenue by causing capital flight or by creating a rate so high, citizens
are disincentivized to earn the money that is taxed.
The policy formulation process typically includes an attempt to assess
as many areas of potential policy impact as possible, to lessen the
chances that a given policy will have unexpected or unintended
consequences. Because of the nature of some complex adaptive
systems such as societies and governments, it may not be possible to
assess all possible impacts of a given policy.
11
-
8/3/2019 A suitable public policy2
12/33
Policies are typically promulgated through official written documents.
Such documents have standard formats that are particular to the
organization issuing the policy.
While such formats differ in terms of their form, policy
documents usually contain certain standard components
including:
A purpose statement, outlining why the organization is issuing the
policy, and what its desired effect is.
A applicability and scope statement, describing who the policyaffects and which actions are impacted by the policy. The
applicability and scope may expressly exclude certain people,
organizations, or actions from the policy requirements
An effective date which indicates when the policy comes into force.
Retroactive policies are rare, but can be found.
A responsibilities section, indicating which parties and organizations
are responsible for carrying out individual policy statements. These
responsibilities may include identification of oversight and/or
governance structures.
Policy statements indicating the specific regulations, requirements,
or modifications to organizational behavior that the policy is
creating.
Some policies may contain additional sections, including
Background indicating any reasons and history that led to the
creation of the policy, which may be listed as motivating factors
Definitions, providing clear and unambiguous definitions for terms
and concepts found in the policy document.
12
-
8/3/2019 A suitable public policy2
13/33
Public policy or order public is the body of fundamental principles that
underpin the operation of legal systems in each state. This addresses
the social, moral and economic values that tie a society together:
values that vary in different cultures and change over time. Lawregulates behaviour either to reinforce existing social expectations or
to encourage constructive change, and laws are most likely to be
effective when they are consistent with the most generally accepted
societal norms and reflect the collective morality of society. In
performing this function, Cappalli has suggested that the critical values
of any legal system include impartiality, neutrality, certainty, equality,
openness, flexibility, and growth. This assumes that the true purpose
of dispute resolution systems is to discourage self-help and the
violence that often accompanies it, i.e. citizens have to be encouraged
to use the court system. The more certain and predictable the
outcome, the less incentive there is to go to court where a loss is
probable. But certainty must be subject to the needs of individual
justice, hence the development of equity.
A judge should always consider the underlying policies to determine
whether a rule should be applied to a specific factual dispute. If laws
are applied too strictly and mechanically, the law cannot keep pace
with social innovation.
Similarly, if there is an entirely new situation, a return to the policies
forming the basic assumptions underpinning potentially relevant rules
of law, identifies the best guidelines for resolving the immediate
dispute. Over time, these policies evolve, becoming more clearly
defined and more deeply embedded in the legal system.
The discipline of institutional economics has gained increasing
prominence in recent years because standard economic explanations
often fail to come to grips with major contemporary policy issues such
13
-
8/3/2019 A suitable public policy2
14/33
as economic reform in affluent but dysfunctional economies, the
transformation of the failed socialist command economies and the
governance problems of the new industrial economies. Institutional
economists point out that rule systems matter greatly in explainingthese problems and that institutional innovation is central to finding
sustained solutions.
Institutions must underpin increasingly complex webs of human
interaction because interaction and coordination depend on tenuous
links of trust.
In recent decades it has been more widely realized that human
knowledge is limited, always incomplete and fallible, and that social
action often produces unforeseen and deleterious side-effects. This
insight has, for example, influenced environmental policies. Thus, it is
now widely accepted that tangling with nature may produce
consequences that no one foresaw.
In economic and social affairs, similar concerns have not yet had much
impact. But a growing number of economists have turned away from
the neoclassical paradigm, which is based on the assumption of
perfect knowledge and which inspires confident intervention. Instead,
they have developed Austrian, public choice, evolutionary or
institutional paradigms of economics, all of which caution about the
side-effects of resolute, but ignorant social engineering.
Even today, many people think of "social problems" as involving poor
and powerless individuals in society. Research in Social Problems and
Public Policy seeks to improve the balance by adding a focus on
important and powerful institutions. Such organizations often play key
roles in managing, and mismanaging, the ways in which some of
today's most important social problems are handled by the public
policy system.
14
-
8/3/2019 A suitable public policy2
15/33
As India completes 60 years of Independence, we can look back with a
considerable degree of pride at the shaping of a democratic political
system in the country. One of the major achievements of independent
India is the parliamentary democratic system that was instituted alongwith a Republican Constitution. The Constitution provided the scope for
peoples participation and a voice in politics, which reflects the
aspirations of the Indian people in their struggle for national
independence.
Despite the narrow basis and the class constraints on the democratic
system in a developing capitalist society, it is creditable that
parliamentary democracy has retained its vitality over the years.Unlike the experience of many other newly independent countries, the
prospects for democracy in India have not shrunk but grown since
Independence. This is mainly due to the people and the popular
struggles and democratic movements. The participation of ordinary
people in the elections at all levels is marked by sustained enthusiasm.
This is particularly so in the States where the Left has strong influence.
However, the political system cannot be said to have transformed thelives of people by securing their livelihood, by abolition of poverty
and the structures of exploitation, and providing equity with economic
growth. The Constitution of India, in its Directive Principles, directs the
state to promote the welfare of the people by securing a social order
in which justice, social, economic and political, shall inform all the
institutions of the national life. It calls for the state to strive to
minimise the inequalities in income and to see that the control of the
material resources of the community are so distributed as best to
subserve the common good and to ensure that the operation of the
economic system does not result in the concentration of wealth and
means of production to common detriment.
15
-
8/3/2019 A suitable public policy2
16/33
Six decades later, there is no doubt that the working of the state and
policy making are clearly contrary to these goals set out in the
Constitution. Most of the conflicts and crises in our system can be
traced to this fundamental contradiction: political democracycoexisting with concentration of wealth and economic inequalities.
Nehrus vision
In the early years after Independence, the vision set out in the
Constitution was articulated by Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru whose
contribution to the building of a modern, secular country was a pivotal
one, even though the Congress party today pays scant heed to his
legacy. Nehru set out the test for public policy: The first thing is the
good of the Indian masses and everything will be judged by that
standard. How do the millions of India benefit or prosper? that is the
real test of any policy, economic, political or otherwise, that we may
put forward.
But the Nehruvian vision, however sincere and relevant, foundered on
the class realities of developing capitalism without a democratic social
transformation. The failure to implement land reforms and confront
head-on the feudal forces was one glaring instance. It crippled the
possibilities of creating a socially just economic order. Six decades
after Independence, this unfinished task perpetuates the grossly
exploitative socio-economic order in the countryside.
India has the largest mass of rural poor in the world, who are trapped
in the blighted cycle of poverty, malnutrition, disease, and deprivation.
The political system today, which has increasingly distorted the
original vision of the freedom movement, is more or less indifferent to
the spectacle of peasant suicides, growing malnutrition with falling per
capita intake of foodgrains, and the looming threat to food security.
16
-
8/3/2019 A suitable public policy2
17/33
Policy making by the ruling classes enamoured of neo-liberal
prescriptions is immune to human misery so long as GDP growth rates
remain high.
As we mark 60 years of Independence, the ruling classes and the
political parties that represent them are openly celebrating a path of
development that makes the rich super rich, and boasts of creating
billionaires at a rate higher than most countries. Policy making is
increasingly suborned to favor this thin stratum of the super rich and
their patrons international finance capital. The entire gamut of
policies is meant to subsidies the rich and powerful. For the poor, there
can always be some poverty alleviation programmes, an unavoidablenecessity and a concession to electoral compulsions.
Peoples role: The prospects for democracy in India have not shrunk
but grown since Independence. This is mainly due to the people and
the popular struggles.
This, then, is the paradox: a thriving democracy in which the people
are powerless to change the exploitative and unequal economic order.
This is the paradox that is going to imperil many of the democratic
gains made since Independence. We are approaching a position where
the new definition of democracy will be change of governments
without any change in economic and social policies.
Such a situation will lead to the erosion of the democratic system itself.
It will affect all spheres of national life. If the quest to become a great
power with American help persists, nothing much will be left of an
independent foreign policy. National sovereignty itself will be seen as
an outdated concept by the dominant classes and their political
partners.
It is necessary to reverse this profoundly anti-democratic trend. The
political system should be compelled to take up policies that tackle the
17
-
8/3/2019 A suitable public policy2
18/33
deep agrarian crisis increased public investment in agriculture,
desisting from the harmful approach of corporatization of agriculture,
and going in for a big expansion of the public distribution system and
generation of employment in the rural areas.
The entire gamut of economic and fiscal policies is geared to benefit
the speculators in finance capital and those who have the power to
corner resources. Privatization will only worsen the non-availability of
basic services for the people. It is shameful that the Indian state
cannot provide for public health expenditure even to the extent of the
poorer sub-Saharan countries.
The secular principle of the Indian state, which is also embedded in the
democratic political system, has been under serious assault since the
fifth decade of Independence. This challenge mounted by the Hindutva
forces still exists given the penetration of these forces in the
institutions of the state during their stint in power. As a consequence
of this erosion of secularism, large sections of the minorities have
never felt fully secure and have been subjected to periodic violence.
The political system has survived such anti-secular assaults butcreeping communalism continues to weaken its secular basis.
The political-bureaucratic-business-contractor nexus, which siphons off
public funds and loots the public exchequer, has to be dealt with
sternly. Its enveloping tentacles affect all levels, including local bodies.
This is at present beyond the will of any of the ruling parties. Only the
Left has some capacity to be immune to this phenomenon and to
tackle it.
The struggle to make the political system more meaningful in the lives
of the Indian people requires that the struggle to restructure Centre-
State relations to move towards a more federal system is carried
18
-
8/3/2019 A suitable public policy2
19/33
forward. Decentralization of power and decision making needs to be
pushed forward at all levels.
With liberalized rampant capitalism becoming the order of the day, the
political system is being suborned to serve its interests. This is a
danger to democracy and the goal of social justice. Increasingly, the
political system is becoming the mainstay of the privileged and the
dominant classes. It is necessary to stem this corrosive influence and
wage the struggle within the political system to end the pernicious
embrace between money and politics. As we proceed to the seventh
decade of Independence, the battle should be joined to make
democracy aligned to the quest for social and economic justice.
In classical India (whose boundaries stretched far beyond today's
limits) social order, as described in Vedic literatures, was not a familial
caste system. Rather, one's position in society was based on one's
qualities and propensities. The purpose of the system was, and
remains, to keep society in a state of peace and prosperity. From such
a position of security and happiness one could more easily advance in
life.
The names and descriptions of the classes and orders persist till today
from the ancient Vedas. These groupings were more descriptive than
prescriptive. However, once one identified within a group one was
expected to live by its tenets and expectations. One could change
position through qualification, though, since position was not birth-
dependent.
The social system was and is called varnasrama. It has two parts,
varna (occupational divisions) and asrama (social divisions).
The four varnas are brahmana, ksatria, vaishya, and sudra.
19
-
8/3/2019 A suitable public policy2
20/33
Membership in these occupational categories depends on education
and training, qualities, and propensity. This is similar to the
requirement, for example, that an elementary school teacher must be
degreed, trained in education and the area of instruction, a holder of ateaching certificate, of good character, and of a nature compatible with
the role. Roughly, brahmanas are priests and teachers, ksatriyas are
military and management, vaishyas are in business, and sudras are the
workers/employees.
The four asramas are brahmachari, grhastha, vanaprastha, and
sannyasa. Brahmacaris are single students, grhasthas are those in
family life, vanaprasthas are in retired, semirenounced life, and thosewho elect sannyasa remain henceforward renounced. Under
varnasrama, just as in modern society, one's social position is by
choice. And similarly, each person is expected to live by the standards
of his or her position, for the peace of society.
For example, the proscription against adultery is not just a rule of
religions but a societal principle for the benefit of both individuals and
communities.
Public policy-making in India has frequently been characterized by a
failure to anticipate needs, impacts, or reactions which could have
reasonably been foreseen, thus impeding economic development.
Policies have been reversed or changed more frequently than
warranted by exogenous changes or new information.
The Directive Principles of State Policy are guidelines to the central and
state governments of India, to be kept in mind while framing laws and
policies. These provisions, contained in Part IV of the Constitution of
India, are not enforceable by any court, but the principles laid down
therein are considered fundamental in the governance of the country,
making it the duty of the State to apply these principles in making laws
20
-
8/3/2019 A suitable public policy2
21/33
to establish a just society in the country. The principles have been
inspired by the Directive Principles given in the Constitution of Ireland
and also by the principles of Gandhism; and relate to social justice,
economic welfare, foreign policy, and legal and administrative matters.
They aim at achieving social and economic democracy for establishing
a welfare state. Directive Principles are classified under the following
categories: Gandhian, economic and socialistic, political and
administrative, justice and legal, environmental, protection of
monuments and peace and security.
The concept of Directive Principles of State Policy was borrowed from
the Irish Constitution. The makers of the Constitution of India were
influenced by the Irish nationalist movement. Hence, the Directive
Principles of the Indian constitution have been greatly influenced by
the Directive Principles of State Policy. The idea of such policies "can
be traced to the Declaration of the Rights of Man proclaimed
Revolutionary France and the Declaration of Independence by the
American Colonies." The Indian constitution was also influenced by the
United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
In 1919, the Rowlatt Acts gave extensive powers to the British
government and police, and allowed indefinite arrest and detention of
individuals, warrant-less searches and seizures, restrictions on public
gatherings, and intensive censorship of media and publications. The
public opposition to this act eventually led to mass campaigns of non-
violent civil disobedience throughout the country demanding
guaranteed civil freedoms, and limitations on government power.Indians, who were seeking independence and their own government,
were particularly influenced by the independence of Ireland and the
development of the Irish constitution. Also, the directive principles of
state policy in Irish constitution were looked upon by the people of
21
-
8/3/2019 A suitable public policy2
22/33
India as an inspiration for the independent India's government to
comprehensively tackle complex social and economic challenges
across a vast, diverse nation and population.
In 1928, the Nehru Commission composing of representatives of
Indian political parties proposed constitutional reforms for India that
apart from calling for dominion status for India and elections under
universal suffrage, would guarantee rights deemed fundamental,
representation for religious and ethnic minorities, and limit the powers
of the government.
In 1931, the Indian National Congress (the largest Indian political
party of the time) adopted resolutions committing itself to the defense
of fundamental civil rights, as well as socio-economic rights such as the
minimum wage and the abolition of untouchability and serfdom.
Committing themselves to socialism in 1936, the Congress leaders
took examples from the constitution of the erstwhile USSR, which
inspired the fundamental duties of citizens as a means of collective
patriotic responsibility for national interests and challenges.
When India obtained independence on 15 August 1947, the task of
developing a constitution for the nation was undertaken by the
Constituent Assembly of India, composing of elected representatives
under the presidency of Rajendra Prasad. While members of Congress
composed of a large majority, Congress leaders appointed persons
from diverse political backgrounds to responsibilities of developing the
constitution and national laws. Notably, Bhimrao Ramji Ambedkar
became the chairperson of the drafting committee, while JawaharlalNehru and Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel became chairpersons of
committees and sub-committees responsible for different subjects.
A notable development during that period having significant effect on
the Indian constitution took place on 10 December 1948 when the
22
-
8/3/2019 A suitable public policy2
23/33
United Nations General Assembly adopted the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights and called upon all member states to adopt these rights
in their respective constitutions.
Both the Fundamental Rights and the Directive Principles of State
Policy were included in the I Draft Constitution (February 1948), the II
Draft Constitution (17 October 1948) and the III and final Draft
Constitution (26 November 1949), being prepared by the Drafting
Committee.
DPSPs aim to create social and economic conditions under which the
citizens can lead a good life. They also aim to establish social and
economic democracy through a welfare state. They act as a check on
the government, theorized as a yardstick in the hands of the people to
measure the performance of the government and vote it out of power
if it does not fulfill the promises made during the elections. The
Directive Principles are non-justifiable rights of the people. Article 31-C,
inserted by the 25th Amendment Act of 1971 seeks to upgrade the
Directive Principles. If laws are made to give effect to the Directive
Principles over Fundamental Rights, they shall not be invalid on thegrounds that they take away the Fundamental Rights. In case of a
conflict between Fundamental Rights and DPSP's, if the DPSP aims at
promoting larger interest of the society, the courts shall have to uphold
the case in favour of the DPSP. The Directive Principles, though not
justiciable, are fundamental in the governance of the country. It shall
be the duty of the State to apply these principles in making laws.
Besides, all executive agencies should also be guided by these
principles. Even the judiciary has to keep them in mind in deciding
cases.
23
-
8/3/2019 A suitable public policy2
24/33
Attributes of a good policy-making process
It is interesting, and indeed revealing, that the literature on the public
policymaking process is far less copious than the literature on
substantive policy issues. The following section on the attributes of a
good policy-making process draws on the literature, and on the
authors own experience in the policy making process.
One way of describing a good policy-making process is one that is
committed to producing a high quality decisionnot any particular
decision and that invests any decision made with a high degree of
legitimacy, power and accuracy. What features or characteristics
should a policymaking process have which, if present, would lead to
high quality decisions?
First, to start with the most obvious, a good policy-making process
would involve due consideration of up-to-date available subject-matter
knowledge and relevant data, and the use of available analytical tools.
24
-
8/3/2019 A suitable public policy2
25/33
Second, policies made ostensibly for one sector often have significant
impacts on other sectors: a transport policy (e.g. expansion of national
highways in lieu of investment in rail) affects the environment; an
environmental policy (stricter pollution norms) affects industrialdevelopment; a revenue enhancement measure intended to develop
one sector can adversely affect another (e.g. the cess to fund the
National Highway Development Project reduces the competitiveness of
road transport). Policy-making therefore nearly always means trade-
offs, the giving up of something to get something else, losses to one
group or section in exchange for (hopefully larger) gains for another.
Policy-making processes and structures should ensure the gathering ofinformation on such inter-sectoral impacts, the analysis of trade-offs,
and fully informed choices between alternatives after a proper
consideration of effects on different sectors. Many analytical
techniques have been evolved to assist policy-makers in dealing with
these issues, coming broadly under terms like policy analysis, program
evaluation, cost-benefit analysis etc. These techniques are not without
their critics, and their effect on policymaking has been less than their
protagonists would like to think. Nevertheless, these techniques are
generally judged to have a positive effect on the quality of decisions
made. Third, especially in a democratic polity, such analysis should
invariably include an assessment of the "winners" and "losers" from a
given policy and a strategy for dealing with likely opposition from
losers to what has been determined to be the "right" policy. Fourth,
theory and practice both show that decisions which are seen to have
legitimacy are far more likely to be successfully implemented.
Legitimacy is both procedural and substantive.
Procedural legitimacy is sometimes narrowly viewed as meaning that
the decision is made by an authority legally authorized to make it, but
25
-
8/3/2019 A suitable public policy2
26/33
in practice consultation of those affected is crucial to perceived
legitimacy. Procedural legitimacy can often be more important in
securing the implementation of a policy, than its substantive merits.
Substantive legitimacy is achieved when the persons and groups who
have knowledge and expertise in the field affected by a policy are
involved in formulating the policy. Note that this point is about the
legitimacynot efficacy--of a policy. The question is not whether the
policy was substantively correct, but whether persons who are publicly
known or perceived to have subject matter knowledge were involved in
making it.
Fifth, a good policy-making process should produce policies which can
be executed swiftly and successfully. This requires the close
involvement, during formulation, of the persons who actually have to
implement a policy on the ground, and implies a degree of
decentralization of policymaking. At the same time, a degree of
centralized control is necessary, so that the priorities and interests of
implementers do not supplant the public interest. Whether this central
control should be confined to process control (i.e. control over howthe decision is made) or should extend to quality control(control over
the substance of the decision) is the subject of debate, but the choice
is partly a factor of the kind of organization and the kind of policy being
made. On the whole, while policy-making must remain in touch with
reality and be conscious of implementation issues, it should not be a
prisoner of the current short-term priorities, time constraints and
conveniences of implementers. A good policy making structure should,
therefore, provide for appropriate separation between the policy and
implementation functions.
Finally, in order to make the (often difficult) decisions on trade-offs and
make them without undue delay, information, analysis and good
26
-
8/3/2019 A suitable public policy2
27/33
procedures alone are insufficient. Those charged with making, or
advising on, policy, must possess certain skills (e.g. in coordination,
synthesis and integration) and attributes (such as freedom from bias)
which increase the likelihood of quick and sound decisions.
To recapitulate, a "good policy-making process" would meet
the following criteria:-
i) the problems and issues confronting a sector are subjected to expert
analysis;
ii) information on overlaps and trade-offs with other sectors is
systematically gathered and made available to policy-makers;
iii) opposing points of view within and between sectors , are properly
articulated, analyzed and considered and those likely to benefited or
harmed are identified and their reactions anticipated;
iv) decisions are made with due legal authority, after consultation of
those likely to be affected, and with the involvement of knowledgeable
persons in the sector(s) concerned;
v) those responsible for implementation are systematically involved inthe process, but are not allowed to take control of it;
vi) policy-makers and /or their advisers have the honesty,
independence, intellectual breadth and depth to properly consider and
integrate multiple perspectives and help arrive at optimal policy
choices within a reasonable time.
One of the main problems with policy-making in India, is extreme
fragmentation in the structure. For example, the transport sector is
dealt with by five departments/Ministries in the government of India
whereas in the US and UK it is a part of one department (Department
of Transport and Public Works in the US and Department of
Environment, Transport and Regions in the UK). Similar examples exist
27
-
8/3/2019 A suitable public policy2
28/33
in the energy, industry and social welfare sectors as well. Such
fragmentation fails to recognize that actions taken in one sector have
serious implications on another and may work at cross purposes with
the policies of the other sector. Besides, it becomes very difficult, evenfor closely related sectors, to align their policies in accordance with a
common overall agenda.
Another problem is the excessive overlap between implementation,
program formulation and policy making which creates a tendency to
focus on operational convenience rather than on public needs. Policy-
making in Indian ministries occurs at the levels of Director and above,
but the most important level (crucial for consideration of cross-cuttingimpacts) is that of the Secretaries to the Government of India, who are
their Ministers policy advisers-in-chief. However, as mentioned
earlier, the very same Secretaries spend a large part of their time
bogged down on routine day-to-day administration of existing policy.
Time is spent anticipating and answering parliamentary questions,
attending meetings and functions on implementation issues etc. Partly
the problem is symptomatic of over-centralizationexcessive
concentration of implementation powers at the higher levels of the
Ministries. Partly, it is also due to such officers being more comfortable
with implementation matters than with policy making. The result is
that sub-optimal policies, where adequate attention has not been paid
to citizen needs, tend toe merge.
Often public policy is made without adequate input from outside
government and without adequate debate on the issues involved. The
best expertise in many sectors lies outside the Government. Yet the
policy processes and structures of Government have no systematic
means for obtaining outside inputs, for involving those affected by
policies or for debating alternatives and their impacts on different
28
-
8/3/2019 A suitable public policy2
29/33
groups. Most developed countries have a system of widespread public
debate before a policy is approved. For example, in the US , the
legislature subjects a new policy initiative to extensive debate not only
in Committees but also in the Senate and House. Such debates notonly enable an assessment of different viewpoints but also help build
up a constituency in support of the policy through sound arguments.
Probably the only example of fairly systematic consultation of outside
expertise in India is in the process of formulating the Central Budget,
where there is a long tradition of pre-budget confabulations with
chosen members of industry, labour and academia. There are several
reasons for a poor pre-policy consultative process. Firstly, structures
for consulting outsiders either do not exist or if they do, are moribund.
Secondly, in the absence of good consultative structures, outsiders
who do make themselves heard in the policy-making process are often
single issue advocates. This makes them liable to the charge of having
vested interests, and their views lose credibility. Even if a receptive
civil servant were to take their views seriously, he would run the risk of
appearing to do an illegitimate favor. Thirdly, outsiders involved in
policy are usually allowed to make spasmodic or single issue inputs but
are not required to sustain their interaction, to confront trade-offs or to
meet the objections of other outsiders with opposite views. This makes
it easy for outsiders who were indeed consulted, to then disclaim any
responsibility for the final decision by protesting that their advice was
only partially followed. Fourthly and as a result of the first three, there
is a lack of identification of stakeholders with any policy. In countries
like the USA, there are often strong advocates on both sides of a policy
questionfor example pro- and anti-abortion, pro- and anticapital
punishment. In India, judging by the public reaction to many policy
announcements, it would appear that almost every new policy
announced by Government has only opponents. This is because the
29
-
8/3/2019 A suitable public policy2
30/33
winners from a Government policy rarely feel involved in it, and
hence rarely stand up and support it.
Policy decisions are often made without adequate analysis of costs,
benefits, trade-offs and consequences. There are several underlying
causes for this:-
Excessive fragmentation: This has already been referred to.
Fragmentation has led to a widespread prevalence of the blind men
and the elephant syndrome in policy-making.
Inadequate time spent on policy-making, mainly due to excessive
overlap of policy-making and implementation and to over
centralization of implementation authority (discussed above).
Inadequate professionalism of policy-makers and advisers: Debates
have been common in India about the pros and cons of generalists vs.
specialists in Government. There is a school of thought which
suggests that the excessive involvement of poorly informed generalists
is the main cause of poor policy-making and implementation. However,
when it comes to the realm of policymaking and the making of trade-
offs, experience in government and the private sector suggests that
this is usually best handled by an intelligent, well-informed person who
has a wide rather than narrow perspective. This person could be
termed the intelligent and informed generalist who, though not a
specialist in any one field, is in fact a specialist in analysis, integration
and synthesisi.e identifying problems, trade-offs and solutions. His
strength and training lie in being well-informed about a variety of
related subjects, in incisive analysis, and in intelligent use of
information provided by specialists to frame policy options and assess
their consequences. Note that many successful businesses in India and
abroad are headed by generalists (MBAs for instance) and the Tata
conglomerate continues to operate through the generalist Tata
30
-
8/3/2019 A suitable public policy2
31/33
Administrative Service to man key positionsan approach regarded
as a great success. The problem currently encountered is that the civil
servants (who act as key policy advisers) often are not sufficiently well
informed or trained to act in this manner. This could be describedloosely but conveniently as inadequate professionalism
Inadequate consultation of in-house specialists: Even conceding that
public policy-making might not be improved by insisting on specialists
becoming the policy-makers, it is nevertheless crucial that specialist
knowledge be fully consulted and utilized in arriving at policy. For
reasons ranging from generalist arrogance to interservice rivalries
between groups of specialists, the available expertise of specialistswithin the Government is often under-utilized.
If it is taken as given that India is an under-performer, the question
then arises as to why is this the case. A priori, under-performance vis-
a-vis potential could be due to
adopting the wrong public policies
poorly implementing the right public policies.
There can, of course, be valid disagreements as to what is the "right"
policy in a given sector, in a given situation. It can be argued that
merely because there are errors, changes or postponements in
policies, one cannot conclude that policy-making suffers from
weakness. Success is often the result of trial and error. Disagreements,
often strong ones, are common and, in a democratic society, both
inevitable and healthy. Vigorous debate prior to policy-making and
adaptation in response to debate is good, not bad. Flexibility in
policymaking to respond to evolving exogenous factors is good, not
bad. And the phenomenon of political considerations intervening in
decisions otherwise well taken, is inevitable in a fractious but
genuinely democratic polity like India.
31
-
8/3/2019 A suitable public policy2
32/33
Mediocrity of in-house specialists: While there are many outstanding
specialists working for the Government, there is a widespread feeling
that many in-house specialists are not on top of their specialism. This
perception of mediocrity vis--vis outside experts tends to worsen theproblem of inadequate consultation of even the good in-house
specialists who get tarred with the same brush. It also promotes an
undue respect for outside specialists and the error of accepting poorly
formulated prescriptions from outsiders simply because they have a
more professional or expert image. The making of public policy for a
country as large, populous and diverse as India is intrinsically a more
complex task than in a smaller political unit. This makes a study of the
institutions which make policy all the more important. Measured by
economic growth or attainment of human development objectives,
India remains not only an underdeveloped country but one which is
usually regarded as an under-performer, which could do better.
32
-
8/3/2019 A suitable public policy2
33/33
BIBLOGRAPHY
http://www.google.com
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decision_making
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporation
http://www.time-management-guide.com/decision-making-skills.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_social_responsibility
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decision_makinghttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporationhttp://www.time-management-guide.com/decision-making-skills.htmlhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decision_makinghttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporationhttp://www.time-management-guide.com/decision-making-skills.html