Archive for the ‘Politics’ Category
Government and Politics
ion
Political system is one of the subsystem of society, and play sufficient role in our life.
The term political system refers to a recognized set of procedures for implementing and obtaining the goals of a group.
Each society must have a political system in order to maintain recognized procedures for allocating valued resources. In political scientist Harold Lasswell’s (1936) terms, politics is who gets what, when, and how. Thus, like religion and the family, a political system is a cultural universal; it is a social institution found in every society.
We will focus on government and politics within the United States as well as other industrialized nations and preindustrial societies. In their study of politics and political systems, sociologists are concerned with social interactions among individuals and groups and their impact on the larger political order. For example, in studying the controversy over the nomination of Judge Robert Bork, sociologists might wish to focus on how a change in the group structure of American society—the increasing importance of the black vote for southern Democratic candidates—affected the decision making of Howell Heflin and other senators (and, ultimately, the outcome of the Bork confirmation battle). From a sociological perspective, therefore, a fundamental question is: how do a nation’s social conditions affect its day-to-day political and governmental life?
POWER
Power is at the heart of a political system. Power may be defined as the ability to exercise one’s will over others. To put it another way, if one party in a relationship can control the behavior of the other, that individual or group is exercising power. Power relations can involve large organizations, small groups, or even people in an intimate association. Blood and Wolfe (1960) devised the concept of marital power to describe the manner in which decision making is distributed within families.
There are three basic sources of power within any political system—force, influence, and authority. Force is the actual or threatened use of coercion to impose one’s will on others. When leaders imprison or even execute political dissidents, they are applying force; so, too, are terrorists when they seize an embassy or assassinate a political leader. Influence, on the other hand, refers to the exercise of power through a process of persuasion. A citizen may change his or her position regarding a Supreme Court nominee because of a newspaper editorial, the expert testimony of a law school dean before the Senate Judiciary Committee, or a stirring speech at a rally by a political activist. In each case, sociologists would view such efforts to persuade people as examples of influence. Authority, the third source of power, will be discussed later.
Max Weber made an important distinction between legitimate and illegitimate power. In a political sense, the term legitimacy refers to the “belief of a citizenry that a government has the right to rule and that a citizen ought to obey the rules and laws of that government”. Of course, the meaning of the term can be extended beyond the sphere of government. Americans typically accept the power of their parents, teachers, and religious leaders as legitimate. By contrast, if the right of a leader to rule is not accepted by most citizens (as is often the case when a dictator overthrows a popularly elected government), the regime will be considered illegitimate. When those in power lack legitimacy, they usually resort to coercive methods in order to maintain control over social institutions.
How is political power distributed among members of society?
Political power is not divided evenly among all members of society. How extreme is this inequality? Three theoretical perspectives answer this question in three different ways. First, Marxist theories suggest that power is concentrated in the hands of the few who own the means of production. Powerful capitalists manipulate social and cultural arrangements to increase further their wealth and power, often at the expense of the powerless.
Second, power elite theories agree that power is concentrated in the hands of a few people; the elite includes military leaders, government officials, and business executives. This group consists of those who occupy the top positions in our organizational hierarchies; they have similar backgrounds and share the same interests and goals. According to this view, any organization (even a nation-state) has a built-in tendency to become an oligarchy (rule by the few).
Third, pluralist theories suggest that various groups and interests compete for political power. In contrast to Marxist and power elite theorists, pluralists see power as dispersed among many people and groups who do not necessarily agree on what should be done. Lobbyists for environmental groups, for example, will battle with lobbyists for the coal industry over antipollution legislation. In this way the will of the people is translated into political action. Thurow, however, suggests that too many divergent views have made it nearly impossible to arrive at a public policy that is both effective in solving social problems and satisfactory to different interest groups.
TYPES OF AUTHORITY
The term authority refers to power that has been institutionalized and is recognized by the people over whom it is exercised. Sociologists commonly use the term in connection with those who hold legitimate power through elected or publicly acknowledged positions. It is important to stress that a person’s authority is limited by the constraints of a particular social position. Thus, a referee has the authority to decide whether a penalty should be called during a football game but has no authority over the price of tickets to the game.
Max Weber (1947) provided a classification system regarding authority that has become one of the most useful and frequently cited contributions of early sociology. He identified three ideal types of authority: traditional, legal-rational, and charismatic. Weber did not insist that particular societies fit exactly into any one of these categories. Rather, all can be present in a society, but their relative degree of importance varies. Sociologists have found Weber’s typology to be quite valuable in understanding different manifestations of legitimate power within a society.
Traditional Authority
In a political system based on traditional authority, legitimate power is conferred by custom and accepted practice. The orders of one’s superiors are felt to be legitimate because “this is how things have always been done.” For example, a king or queen is accepted as ruler of a nation simply by virtue of inheriting the crown. The monarch may be loved or hated, competent or destructive; in terms of legitimacy, that does not matter. For the traditional leader, authority rests in custom, not in personal characteristics, technical competence, or even written law.
Traditional authority is absolute in many instances because the ruler has the ability to determine laws and policies. Since the authority is legitimized by ancient custom, traditional authority is commonly associated with preindustrial societies. Yet this form of authority is also evident in more developed nations. For example, a leader may take on the image of having divine guidance, as was true of Japan’s Emperor Hirohito, who ruled during World War II. On another level, ownership and leadership in some small businesses, such as grocery stores and restaurants, may pass directly from parent to child and generation to generation.
Legal-Rational Authority
Power made legitimate by law is known as legal-rational authority. Leaders of such societies derive their authority from the written rules and regulations of political systems. For example, the authority of the president of the United States and the Congress is legitimized by the American Constitution. Generally, in societies based on legal-rational authority, leaders are conceived as servants of the people. They are not viewed as having divine inspiration, as are the heads of certain societies with traditional forms of authority The United States, as a society which values the rule of law, has legally defined limits on the power of government. Power is assigned to positions, not to individuals. Thus, when Ronald Reagan became president in early 1981, he assumed the formal powers and duties of that office as specified by the Constitution. When Reagan’s presidency ended, those powers were transferred to his successor.
If a president acts within the legitimate powers of the office, but not to our liking, we may wish to elect a new president. But we will not normally argue that the president’s power is illegitimate. However, if an official clearly exceeds the power of an office, as Richard Nixon did by obstructing justice during investigation of the Watergate burglary, the official’s power may come to be seen as illegitimate. Moreover, as was true of Nixon, the person may be forced out of office.
Charismatic Authority
Weber also observed that power can be legitimized by the charisma of an individual. The term charismatic authority refers to power made legitimate by a leader’s exceptional personal or emotional appeal to his or her followers. Charisma allows a person to lead or inspire without relying on set rules or traditions. Interestingly, such authority is derived more from the beliefs of loyal followers than from the actual qualities of leaders. So long as people perceive the person as possessing qualities that set him or her apart from ordinary citizens, the leader’s authority will remain secure and often unquestioned.
Political scientist Ann Ruth Willner (1984) notes that each charismatic leader draws upon the values, beliefs, and traditions of a particular society. The conspicuous sexual activity of longtime Indonesian president Achmed Sukarno reminded his followers of the gods in Japanese legends and therefore was regarded as a sign of power and heroism. By contrast, Indians saw Mahatma Gandhi’s celibacy as a demonstration of superhuman self-discipline. Charismatic leaders also associate themselves with widely respected cultural and religious heroes. Willner describes how Ayalollah Khomeini of Iran associated himself with Husein, a Shiile Muslim martyr; and Fidel Castro of Cuba associated himself with Jesus Christ.
Unlike traditional rulers, charismatic leaders often become well known by breaking with established institutions and advocating dramatic changes in the social structure. The strong hold that such individuals have over their followers makes it easier to build protest movements which challenge the dominant norms and values of a society. Thus, charismatic leaders such as Jesus, Mahatma Gandhi, and Martin Luther King all used their power to press for changes in accepted social behavior. But so did Adolf Hitler, whose charismatic appeal turned people toward violent and destructive ends.
Since it rests on the appeal of a single individual, charismatic authority is necessarily much shorter lived than either traditional or legal-rational authority. As a result, charismatic leaders may attempt to solidify their positions of power by seeking other legitimating mechanisms. For example, Fidel Castro came to power in Cuba in 1959 as the leader of a popular revolution. Yet in the decades which followed the seizure of power, Castro stood for election (without opposition) as a means of further legitimating his authority as leader of Cuba.
If such authority is to extend beyond the lifetime of the charismatic leader, it must undergo what Weber called the routinization of charismatic authority—the process by which the leadership qualities originally associated with an individual are incorporated into either a traditional or a legal-rational system. Thus, the charismatic authority of Jesus as leader of the Christian church was transferred to the apostle Peter and subsequently to the various prelates (or popes) of the faith. Similarly, the emotional fervor supporting George Washington was routinized into America’s constitutional system and the norm of a two-term presidency. Once routinization has taken place, authority eventually evolves into a traditional or legal-rational form.
As was noted earlier, Weber used traditional, legal-rational, and charismatic authority as ideal types. In reality, particular leaders and political systems combine elements of two or more of these forms. Presidents Franklin D. Roosevelt and John F. Kennedy wielded power largely through the legal-rational basis of their authority. At the same time, they were unusually charismatic leaders who commanded (lie personal loyalty of large numbers of Americans.
TYPES OF GOVERNMENT
Each society establishes a political system by which it is governed. In modern industrial nations, a significant number of critical political decisions are made by formal units of government. Five basic types of government are considered: monarchy, oligarchy, dictatorship, totalitarianism, and democracy.
Monarchy
A monarchy is a form of government headed by a single member of a royal family, usually a king, a queen, or some other hereditary ruler. In earlier times, many monarchs claimed that God had granted them a divine right to rule their lands. Typically, they governed on the basis of traditional forms of authority, although these were sometimes accompanied by the use of force. In the 1980s, monarchs hold genuine governmental power in only a few nations, such as Monaco. Most monarchs have little practical power and primarily serve ceremonial purposes.
Oligarchy
An oligarchy is a form of government in which a few individuals rule. It is a rather old method of governing which flourished in ancient Greece and Egypt. Today, oligarchy often takes the form of military rule. Some of the developing nations of Africa, Asia, and Latin America are ruled by small factions of military officers who forcibly seized power—either from legally elected regimes or from other military cliques.
Strictly speaking, the term oligarchy is reserved for governments run by a few select individuals. However, the Soviet Union and the People’s Republic of China can be classified as oligarchies if we extend the meaning of the term somewhat. In each case, power rests in the hands of a ruling group—the Communist party. In a similar vein, drawing upon conflict theory, one may argue that many industrialized “democratic” nations of the west should rightly be considered oligarchies, since only a powerful few actually rule: leaders of big business, government, and the military. Later, we will examine this “elite model” of the American political system in greater detail.
Dictatorship and Totalitarianism
A dictatorship is a government in which one person has nearly total power to make and enforce laws. Dictators rule primarily through the use of coercion, often including torture and executions. Typically, they seize power, rather than being freely elected (as in a democracy) or inheriting a position of power (as is true of monarchs). Some dictators are quite charismatic and achieve a certain “popularity,” though this popular support is almost certain to be intertwined with fear. Other dictators are bitterly hated by the populations over whom they rule with an iron hand.
Frequently, dictatorships develop such overwhelming control over people’s lives that they are called totalitarian. Monarchies and oligarchies also have the potential to achieve this type of dominance. Totalitarianism involves virtually complete governmental control and surveillance over all aspects of social and political life in a society. Bolt Nazi Germany under Hitler and the Soviet Union of the 1980s are classified as totalitarian states.
Political scientists Carl Friedrich and Zbigniew Brzezinski have identified six bask traits that typify totalitarian states. These include:
Large-scale use of ideology. Totalitarian societies offer explanations for every part of life. Social goals, valued behaviors, even enemies are conveyed in simple (and usually distorted) terms. For example, the Nazis blamed Jews for almost every. thing wrong in Germany or other nations. If there was a crop failure due to drought, it was sure to be seen as a Jewish conspiracy. One-party systems. A totalitarian Style has only one legal political party, which monopolizes the offices of government. It penetrates and controls all social institutions and serves as the source of wealth, prestige, and power. Control of weapons. Totalitarian states also monopolize the use of arms. All military units art subject to the control of the ruling regime. Terror. Totalitarian states often rely on general intimidation (such as prohibiting unapproved publications) and individual deterrent (such as torture and execution) to maintain control (Bahry and Silver, 1987). Alexander Solzhenitsyn’s Gulag Archipelago (1973) describe the Soviet Union’s imprisonment of political dissenters in mental hospitals, where they are subjected to drug and electric shock treatments. Control of the media. There is no “opposition press” in a totalitarian state. The media communicate official interpretations of events and reinforce behaviors and policies favored by the regime. Control of the economy. Totalitarian states control major sectors of the economy. They may dissolve private ownership of industry and even small farms. In some cases, the central state establishes production goals for each industrial and agricultural unit. The revolt of the Polish workers’ union. Solidarity, in the early 1980s was partly directed against the government’s power over production quotas, working conditions, and prices.
Through such methods, totalitarian governments deny people representation in the political, economic, and social decisions that affect their lives. Such governments have pervasive control over people’s destinies.
Democracy
In a literal sense, democracy means government by the people. The word democracy originated in two Greek roots—demos, meaning “the populace” or “the common people”; and kratia, meaning “rule.” Of course, in large, populous nations, government by all the people is impractical at the national level. It would be impossible for the more than 246 million Americans to vote on every important issue that comes before Congress. Consequently, democracies are generally maintained through a mode of participation known as representative democracy, in which certain individuals are selected to speak for the people.
The United States is commonly classified as a representative democracy, since we elect members of Congress and state legislatures to handle the task of writing our laws. However, critics have questioned how representative our democracy is. Are the masses genuinely represented? Is there authentic self-government in the United States or merely competition between powerful elites?
Clearly, citizens cannot be effectively represented if they are not granted the right to vote. Yet our nation did not enfranchise black males until 1870, and women were not allowed to vote in presidential elections until 1920. American Indians were allowed to become citizens (thereby qualifying to vote) only in 1924, and as late as 1956, some states prevented Indians from voting in local elections if they lived on reservations.
Unlike monarchies, oligarchies, and dictatorships, the democratic form of government implies an opposition which is tolerated or, indeed, encouraged to exist. In the United States, we have two major political parties—the Democrats and Republicans—as well as various minor parties. Sociologists use the term political party to refer to an organization whose purposes are to promote candidates for elected office, advance an ideology as reflected in positions on political issues, win elections, and exercise power. Whether a democracy has two major political parties (as in the United States) or incorporates a multiparty system (as in France and Israel), it will typically stress the need for differing points of view.
Seymour Martin Upset, among other sociologists, has attempted to identify the factors which may help to bring about democratic forms of government. He argues that a high level of economic development encourages both stability and democracy. Upset reached this conclusion after studying 50 nations and finding a high correlation between economic development and certain forms of government.
Why should there be such a link? In a society with a high level of development, the population generally tends to be urbanized and literate and is better equipped to participate in decision making and make the views of its members heard. In addition, as Upset suggests, a relatively affluent society will be comparatively free from demands on government by low-income citizens. Poor people in such nations can reasonably aspire to upward mobility. Therefore, along with the large middle class typically found in industrial societies, the poorer segments of society may have a stake in economic and political stability.
Upset’s formulation has been attacked by conflict theorists, who tend to be critical of the distribution of power within democracies. As we will see later, many conflict theorists believe that the United States is run by a small economic and political elite. At the same time, they observe that economic stability does not necessarily promote or guarantee political freedoms. Lipset (1972) himself agrees that democracy in practice is far from ideal and that one must distinguish between varying degrees of democracy in democratic systems of government. Thus, we cannot assume that a high level of economic development or the self-proclaimed label of “democracy” assures freedom and adequate political representation.
POLITICAL BEHAVIOR IN THE UNITED STATES
As American citizens we take for granted many aspects of our political system. We are accustomed to living in a nation with a Bill of Rights, two major political parties, voting by secret ballot, an elected president, state and local governments distinct from the national government, and so forth. Yet, of course, each society has its own ways of governing itself and making decisions. Just as we expect Democratic and Republican candidates to compete for public offices, residents of the Soviet Union are accustomed to the domination of the Communist party. In this section, we will examine a number of important aspects of political behavior within the United States.
Political Socialization
Five functional prerequisites that a society must fulfill in order to survive were identified. Among these was the need to teach recruits to accept the values and customs of the group. In a political sense, this function is crucial; each succeeding generation must be encouraged to accept a society’s basic political values and its particular methods of decision making.
Political socialization is the process by which individuals acquire political attitudes and develop patterns of political behavior. This involves not only learning the prevailing beliefs of a society but also coming to accept the surrounding political system despite its limitations and problems. In the United States, people are socialized to view representative democracy as the best form of government and to cherish such values as freedom, equality, patriotism, and the right of dissent.
The principal institutions of political socialization are those which also socialize us to other cultural norms—including the family, schools, and the media. Many observers see the family as playing a particularly significant role in this process. “The family incubates political man,” observed political scientist Robert Lane. In fact, parents pass on their political attitudes and evaluations to their sons and daughters through discussions at the dinner table and also through the example of their political involvement or apathy. Early socialization does not always determine a person’s political orientation; there are changes over time and between generations. Yet research on political socialization continues to show that parents’ views have an important impact on their children’s outlook.
The schools can be influential in political socialization, since they provide young people with information and analysis of the political world. Unlike the family and peer groups, schools are easily susceptible to centralized and uniform control; consequently, totalitarian societies commonly use educational institutions for purposes of indoctrination. Yet, even in democracies, where local schools are not under the pervasive control of the national government, political education will generally reflect the norms and values of the prevailing political order.
In the view of conflict theorists, American students learn much more than factual information about our political and economic way of life. They are socialized to view capitalism and representative democracy as the “normal” and most desirable ways of organizing a nation. At the same time, competing values and forms of government are often presented in a most negative fashion or are ignored. From a conflict perspective, this type of political education serves the interests of the powerful and ignores the significance of the social divisions found within the United States.
It is difficult to pinpoint a precise time in which politics is learned. Fred Greenstein argues that the crucial time in a young person’s psychological, social, and political development is between ages 9 and 13. In the same vein, one study found that children 13 and 14 years of age were much more able to understand abstract political concepts than were children a few years younger. Specifically, in response to a question about the meaning of government, older children tended to identify with Congress, whereas younger children identified with a more personal figure such as the president. Other research, however, points to a significant leap in political sophistication during the ages of 13 to 15.
Surprisingly, expression of a preference for a political party often comes before young people have a full understanding of the political system. Surveys indicate that 65 to 75 percent of children aged 10 and 11 express commitment to a specific political label, including “independent.” Political scientists M. Kent Jennings and Richard G. Niemi (1974) have found that children who demonstrate high levels of political competence—by understanding the differences between political parties and between liberal and conservative philosophies—are more likely to become politically active during adulthood.
Like the family and schools, the mass media can have obvious effects on people’s thinking and political behavior. Beginning with the Kennedy-Nixon presidential debates of 1960, television has given increasing exposure to political candidates. One result has been the rising importance of politicians’ “images” as perceived by the American public. Today, many speeches given by our nation’s leaders are designed not for immediate listeners, but for the larger television audience. In the social policy section later, we will examine the impact of television on American political campaigns.
Although television has obvious impact on elective politics, it has also become an important factor in other aspects of American political life. In 1987, when a joint congressional committee held televised hearings on the Iran-contra scandal, Lieutenant Colonel Oliver North’s outspoken testimony brought him a wave of public support. One effect of his media success, though primarily in the short run, was an increase in support for the “contras” and their effort to overthrow Nicaragua’s Marxist regime. By contrast. Judge Robert Bork’s televised testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee in 1987 seemed to hurt his chances of winning confirmation as a Supreme Court justice.
A number of communication studies have reported that the media do not tend to influence the masses of people directly. Elihu Katz (1957) describes the process as a two-step flow of communication, using an approach which reflects interactionists’ emphasis on the social significance of everyday social exchanges. In Katz’s view, messages passed through the media first reach a small number of opinion leaders, including teachers, religious authorities, and community activists. These leaders “spread the word” to others over whom they have influence.
Opinion leaders are not necessarily formal leaders of organized groups of people. For example, someone who hears a disturbing report about the dangers of radioactive wastes in a nearby river will probably tell family members and friends. Each of these persons may inform still others and perhaps persuade them to support the position of an environmentalist group working to clean up the river. Of course, in any communications process in which someone plays an intermediate role, the message can be reinterpreted. Opinion leaders can subtly transform a political message to their own ends.
Participation and Apathy
In theory, a representative democracy will function most effectively and fairly if there is an informed and active electorate communicating its views to government leaders. Unfortunately, this is hardly the case in the United States. Virtually all Americans are familiar with the basics of the political process, and most tend to identify to some extent with a political party, but only a small minority (often members of the higher social classes) actually participate in political organizations on a local or national level. Studies reveal that only 8 percent of Americans belong to a political club or organization. Not more than one in five has ever contacted an official of national, state, or local government about a political issue or problem.
The failure of most Americans to become involved in political parties has serious implications for the functioning of our democracy. Within the political system of the United States, the political party serves as an intermediary between people and government. Through competition in regularly scheduled elections, the two-party system provides for challenges to public policies and for an orderly transfer of power. An individual dissatisfied with the state of the nation or a local community can become involved in the political party process in many ways, such as by joining a political club, supporting candidates for public office, or working to change the party’s position on controversial issues. If, however, people do not take interest in the decisions of major political parties, public officials in a “representative” democracy will be chosen from two unrepresentative lists of candidates. In the 1980s, it has become clear that many
Americans are turned off by political parties, politicians, and the specter of big government. The most dramatic indication of this growing alienation comes from voting statistics. Voters of all ages and races appear to be less enthusiastic than ever about American elections, even presidential contests. For example, almost 80 percent of eligible American voters went to the polls in the presidential election of 1896. Yet, by the 1984 election, voter turnout had fallen to less than 60 percent of all adults. By contrast, elections during the first half of the 1980s brought out 85 percent or more of the voting-age population in Austria, Belgium, Italy, Portugal, and Sweden.
Declining political participation allows institutions of government to operate with less of a sense of accountability to society. This issue is most serious for the least powerful individual and groups within the United States. Voter turn out has been particularly low among younger Americans and members of racial and ethnic minorities. In 1984, only 36 percent of eligible voters aged 18 to 20 went to the polls. According to a postelection survey, only 55.8 percent of eligible black voters and 32.6 percent of Hispanic reported that they had actually voted. Moreover, the poor—whose focus understandably is on survival—are traditionally under-represented among voters as well. The low turnout found among these groups is explained, at least in part, by their common feeling of powerlessness. Yet such voting statistics encourage political power brokers to continue to ignore the interests of the young, the less affluent, and the nation’s minorities.
Sociologist Anthony Orum notes that people are more likely to participate actively in political life if they have a sense of political efficacy—that is, if they feel that they have (he ability to influence politicians and the political order. In addition, citizens are more likely to become involved if they trust political leaders or feel that an organized political party represents their interest. Without question, in an age marked by the rise of big government and by revelations of political corruption at the highest levels, many Americans of all social groups feel powerless and distrustful. Yet such feelings are especially intense among the young, the poor, and minorities. is a result, many view political participation, including voting, as a waste of time.
Cross-national comparisons, while confirming he comparatively low level of voting in the linked States, also suggest that Americans are more likely than citizens of other nations to be active at the community level, to contact local officials on behalf of themselves or others, and to have worked for a political party. Perhaps this contrast reflects how unusual it is for people to be directly involved in national political decision making in the modem world. Nevertheless, it is possible to speculate that if tens of millions of Americans did not stay home on Election Day— and instead became more active in the nation’s political life—the outcome of the political process might be somewhat different.
Women and Politics
In 1984, American women achieved an unprecedented political breakthrough when Representative Geraldine Ferraro of New York became the Democratic nominee for vice president of the United States. Never before had a woman received the nomination of a major party for such high office.
Nevertheless, women continue to be dramatically underrepresented in the halls of government. In 1988, there were only 23 women (out of 435 members) in the House of Representatives and only 2 women (out of 100 members) in the Senate. This is not because women have failed to participate actively in political life. Eligible women vote at a slightly higher rate than men. The League of Women Voters, founded in 1920, is a nonpartisan organization which performs valuable functions in educating the electorate of both sexes. Perhaps the most visible role of women in American politics is as unpaid workers for male candidates: ringing doorbells, telephoning registered voters, and carrying petitions. In addition, wives of elected male politicians commonly play significant supportive roles and are increasingly speaking out in their own right on important and controversial issues of public policy.
The sexism of American society has been the most serious barrier to women interested in holding public office. Female candidates have had to overcome the prejudices of both men and women regarding women’s fitness for leadership. Not until 1955 did a majority of Americans state that they would vote for a qualified woman for president. Yet, as a 1984 national survey revealed, Americans say they will support a woman running for office only if she is by far the most qualified candidate.
Moreover, women often encounter prejudice, discrimination, and abuse after they are elected. In 1979, a questionnaire was circulated among male legislators in Oregon, asking them to “categorize the lady legislators” with such labels as “mouth, face, chest/dress, and so forth”.
Despite such indignities, women are becoming more successful in winning election to public office. For example, there were 1176 women in state legislatures in 1988, as compared with only 31 in 1921,144 in 1941, and 301 in 1969. Not only are more women being elected; more of them are identifying themselves as feminists. The traditional woman in politics was a widow who took office after her husband’s death to continue his work and policies. However, women being elected in the 1980s are much more likely to view politics as their own career rather than as an afterthought. These trends are not restricted to the United States.
A new dimension of women and politics emerged in the 1980s. Surveys detected a growing “gender gap” in the political preferences and activities of males and females. Women were more likely to register as Democrats than as Republicans and were also more critical of the policies of the Republican administration. What accounts for this “gender gap”? According to political analysts, the Democratic party’s continued support for the equal rights amendment may be attracting women voters, a majority of whom support this measure. At the same time, virtually all polling data indicate that women are substantially less likely than men to favor large defense budgets and military intervention overseas; these policies have become more associated with the Republican party of the 1980s than with the Democrats.
Politicians have begun to watch carefully the voting trends among women, since women voters could prove decisive in dose elections. The gender gap did appear to be a factor in the 1984 elections—though not as significant a factor as some observers had expected. According to a poll by ABC News, men supported President Ronald Reagan’s successful bid for reelection by a margin of 63 to 36 percent. By contrast, 56 percent of women voted for Reagan while 44 percent supported the Democratic ticket of Walter Mondale and Geraldine Ferraro. In the 1986 elections, the ender gap narrowed somewhat, yet apparently contributed to the victories of Democratic senatorial candidates in at least nine states, four of them in the south. For example, in Colorado, men supported Republican Ken Kramer over Democrat Timothy Wirth by a 49 to 48 percent margin, yet Wirth was elected because women preferred him by a 53 to 44 percent margin. By contributing to these Democratic victories, women voters were an important factor in the party’s 1986 takeover of e Senate.
Interest Groups
This discussion of political behavior has focused primarily on individual participation (and non-participation) in the decision-making processes of government and on involvement in the nation’s political parties. However, there are other important ways that American citizens can play a role in the nation’s political arena. Because of common needs or common frustrations, people may band together in social movements such as the civil rights movement of the 1960s or the anti-nuclear power movement of the 1980s. Americans can also influence the political process through membership in interest groups (some of which, in fact, may be part of larger social movements).
An interest group is a voluntary association of citizens who attempt to influence public policy. The National Organization for Women (NOW) is considered an interest group, so, too, are the Juvenile Diabetes Foundation and the National Rifle Association (NRA). Such groups are a vital part of the American political process Many interest groups (often known as lobbies) are national in scope and address a wide variety of political and social issues As we saw earlier, groups such as the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), Common Cause, the American Conservative Union, and Christian Voice were all actively involved in the debate over the nomination of Judge Robert Bork for the Supreme Court.
Typically, we think of interest groups as being primarily concerned with regulatory legislation However, as political scientist Barbara Ann Stolz (1981) points out, even the federal criminal code has become a target for interest-group activity Business groups have sought to strike the “reckless endangerment” provision that, in effect, makes it a crime for a business to engage knowingly in conduct that will imperil someone’s life Business interests have also attempted to broaden the criminal code to include certain types of incidents that occur during labor disputes, unions, by contrast, wish to maintain current laws.
Interest groups often pursue their political goals through lobbying—the process by which individuals and groups communicate with public officials in order to influence decisions of government. They also distribute persuasive literature and launch publicity campaigns to build grass roots support for their political objectives Finally, interest groups, through their political action committees, donate funds to political candidates whose views are in line with the groups’ legislative agendas.
The role of interest groups within the American political system has generated intense controversy, particularly because of the special relation ships that exist between government officials and lobbyists for interest groups The widespread nature of these ties is evident from the number of former legislators who, after retiring or losing bids for reelection, immediately go on the payroll of interest groups In 1985, there were 300 former lawmakers and former high-level White House officials parlaying their governmental experience into profitable new careers as Washington lawyers, lobbyists, consultants, and administrators So pervasive is this network of insiders that an organization. Former Members of Congress, links them together Currently, there are no laws preventing members of Congress from returning as lobbyists to reshape (or even dismantle) legislation that they created in the public interest.
Interest groups are occasionally referred to as pressure groups, implying that they attempt to force their will on a resistant public In the view of functionalists, such groups play a constructive role in decision making by allowing orderly expression of public opinion and by increasing political participation They also provide legislators with a useful flow of information
Conflict theorists stress that although a very few organizations work on behalf of the poor and disadvantaged, most American interest groups represent affluent white professionals and business leaders From a conflict perspective, the overwhelming political clout of these powerful lobbies discourages participation by the individual citizen and raises serious questions about who actually rules a supposedly democratic nation.
MODELS OF POWER STRUCTURE IN THE UNITED STATES
Who really holds power in the United States’ Do “we the people” genuinely run the country through elected representatives? Or is there small elite of Americans that governs behind the scenes? It is difficult to determine the location of power in a society as complex as the Unite States In exploring this critical question, social scientists have developed two basic views of our nation’s power structure the elite and pluralism models.
Elite Model
Karl Marx essentially believed that nineteenth century representative democracy was a shape.
He argued that industrial societies were dominated by relatively small numbers of people who owned factories and controlled natural resources In Marx’s view, government officials and military leaders were essentially servants of the capitalist class and followed their wishes therefore, any key decisions made by politicians inevitably reflected the interests of the dominant bourgeoisie Like others who hold an elite model of power relations, Marx thus believed that society is ruled by a small group of individuals who share a common set of political and economic interests.
The Power Elite. In his pioneering work. The Power Elite, sociologist C. Wright Mills described the existence of a small ruling elite of military, industrial, and governmental leaders who controlled the fate of the United States. Power rested in the hands of a few, both inside and outside of government—the power elite. In Mill’s words:
The power elite is composed of men whose positions enable them to transcend the ordinary environments of ordinary men and women, they are in positions to make decisions having major consequences. … They arc in command of the major hierarchies and organizations of modern society.
In Mills’s model, the power structure of the United States can be illustrated by the use of a pyramid. At the top are the corporate rich, leaders of the executive branch of government, and heads of the military (whom Kills called the “warlords”). Below this triumvirate are local opinion leaders, members of the legislative branch of government, and leaders of special-interest groups. Mills contended that such individuals and groups would basically follow the wishes of the dominant power elite. At the bottom of society are the unorganized, exploited masses.
This power elite model is, in many respects, similar to the work of Karl Marx. The most striking difference is that Mills felt that the economically powerful coordinate their maneuvers with the military and political establishments in order to serve their mutual interests. Yet, reminiscent of Marx. Mills argued that the corporate rich were perhaps the most powerful element of the power elite (first among “equals”). And, of course, there is a further dramatic parallel between the work of these conflict theorists The powerless masses at the bottom of Mills’s power elite model certainly bring to mind Marx’s portrait of the oppressed workers of the world, who have “nothing to lose but their chains”.
Mills failed to provide detailed case studies which would substantiate the interrelationship among members of the power elite. Instead, he suggested that such foreign policy decisions as America’s entry into the Korean war reflected a determination by business and military leaders that each could benefit from such armed conflict. In Mills s view, such a sharing of perspectives was facilitated by the frequent interchange of commanding roles among the elite. For example, a banker might become the leader of a federal regulatory commission overseeing financial institutions, and a retired general might move to an executive position with a major defense contracting firm.
A fundamental element in Mills’s thesis is that the power elite not only has relatively few members but also operates as a self-conscious, cohesive unit. Although not necessarily diabolical or ruthless, the elite comprises similar types of people who regularly interact with one another and have essentially the same political and economic interests. Mills’s power elite is not a conspiracy but rather a community of interest and sentiment among a small number of influential Americans.
Admittedly, Mills failed to clarify when the elite acts and when it tolerates protests. Nevertheless, his challenging theories forced scholars to look more critically at the “democratic” political system of the United States.
The Ruling Class. Sociologist G. William Domhoff agreed with Mills that American society is run by a powerful elite. But, rather than fully accepting Mills’s power elite model, Domhoff argued that the United States is controlled by a social upper class “that is a ruling class by virtue of its dominant role in the economy and government”. This socially cohesive ruling class owns 20 to 25 percent of all privately held wealth and 45 to 50 percent of all privately held common stock.
Unlike Mills, Domhoff was quite specific about who belongs to this social upper class. Membership comes through being pan of a family recognized in The Social Register—the directory of the social elite in many American cities. Attendance at prestigious private schools and membership in exclusive social clubs are further indications that a person comes from America’s social upper class. Domhoff estimates that about 0.5 percent of the American population (or 1 of every 200 people) belongs to this social and political elite.
Of course, this would mean that the ruling class has more than 1 million members and could hardly achieve the cohesiveness that Mills attributed to the power elite. However, Domhoff adds that the social upper class as a whole does not rule the nation. Instead, members of this class who have assumed leadership roles within the corporate community or the nation’s policy-planning network join with high-level employees of profit-making and nonprofit institutions controlled by the social upper class to exercise power.
In Domhoff’s view, the ruling class should not be seen in a conspiratorial way, as “sinister men lurking behind the throne.” On the contrary they tend to hold public positions of authority. Almost all important appointive government posts— including those of diplomats and cabinet members—are filled by members of the social upper class. Domhoff contends that members of this class dominate powerful corporations, foundations, universities, and the executive branch of government. They control presidential nominations and the political party process through campaign contributions. In addition, the ruling class exerts a significant (though not absolute) influence within Congress and units of state and local government.
Perhaps the major difference between the elite models of Mills and Domhoff is that Mills insisted on the relative autonomy of the political elite and attached great significance to the independent power of the military. By contrast, Domhoff suggests that high-level government and military leaders serve the interests of the social upper class. Both theorists, in line with a Marxian approach, assume that the rich are interested only in what benefits them financially. Furthermore, as advocates of elite models of power. Mills and Domhoff argue that the masses of American people have no real influence on the decisions of the powerful.
One criticism of the elite model is that its advocates sometimes suggest that elites are always victorious. With this in mind, sociologist J. Alien Whitt (1982) examined the efforts of California’s business elites to support urban mass transit. He found that lobbying by these elites was successful in San Francisco but failed in Los Angeles. Whitt points out that opponents of policies backed by elites can mobilize to thwart their implementation.
Domhoff admits that the ruling class does not exercise total control over American society. However, he counters that this elite is able to set political terms under which other groups and classes must operate. Consequently, although the ruling class may lose on a particular issue, it will not allow serious challenges to laws which guarantee its economic privileges and political domination.
Pluralist Model
Several social scientists have questioned the elite models of power relations proposed by Marx, Mills, Domhoff, and other conflict theorists. Quite simply, the critics insist that power in the United States is more widely shared than the elite model indicates. In their view, a pluralist model more accurately describes the American political system. According to the pluralist model, “many conflicting groups within the community have access to government officials and compete with one another in an effort to influence policy decisions”.
Veto Groups. David Riesman’s The Lonely Crowd suggested that the American political system could best be understood through examination of the power of veto groups. The term veto groups refers to interest groups that have the capacity to prevent the exercise of power by others. Functionally, they serve to increase political participation by preventing the concentration of political power. Examples cited by Riesman include farm groups, labor unions, professional associations, and racial and ethnic groups. Whereas Mills pointed to the dangers of rule by an undemocratic power elite, Riesman insisted that veto groups could effectively paralyze the nation’s political processes by blocking anyone from exercising needed leadership functions. In Riesman’s words, “The only leaders of national scope left in the United States are those who can placate the veto groups”.
Dahl’s Study of Pluralism. Community studies of power have also supported the pluralist model. One of the most famous—an investigation of decision making in New Haven, Connecticut—was reported by Robert Dahl in his book, Who Governs? (1961). Dahl found that while the number of people involved in any important decision was rather small, community power was nonetheless diffuse. Few political actors exercised decision-making power on all issues. Therefore, one individual or group might be influential in a battle over urban renewal but at the same time might have little impact over educational policy. Several other studies of local politics, in such communities as Chicago and Oberlin, Ohio, further document that monolithic power structures do not operate on the level of local government.
Just as the elite model has been challenged on political and methodological grounds, the pluralist model has been subjected to serious questioning. Domhoff (1978) reexamined Dahl’s study of decision making in New Haven and argued that Dahl and other pluralists had failed to trace how local elites prominent in decision making were part of a larger national ruling class. In addition, studies of community power, such as Dahl’s work in New Haven, can examine decision making only on issues which become pan of the political agenda. This focus fails to address the possible power of elites to keep certain matters entirely out of the realm of government debate. Conflict theorists contend that these elites will not allow any outcome of the political process which threatens their dominance. Indeed, they may even be strong enough to block discussion of such measures by policymakers.
Who Does Rule?
Without question, the pluralist and elite models have little in common. Each describes a dramatically different distribution of power, with sharply contrasting consequences for society. Is there any way that we can reconcile the vast disagreements in these two approaches?
Perhaps we can conclude that, despite their apparent points of incompatibility, each model offers an accurate picture of American political life. Power in various areas rests in the hands of a small number of citizens who are well-insulated from the will of the masses (elite view). Yet there are so many diverse issues and controversies in the nation’s political institutions that few individuals or groups consistently exercise power outside their distinctive spheres of influence (pluralist view). Even presidents of the United States have acknowledged that they felt more comfortable making decisions either in the area of foreign policy (Richard Nixon) or in the area of domestic policy (Lyndon Johnson). Moreover, the post-World War II period has seen increasing power vested in the federal government (elite model). But, even within the federal bureaucracy, there are a staggering number of agencies with differing ideas and interests (pluralist model).
We can end this discussion with the one common point of the elite and pluralist perspectives— power in the American political system is unequally distributed. All citizens may be equal in theory, yet those high in the nation’s power structure are “more equal.”
SUMMARY
Each society must have a political system in order to have recognized procedures for the allocation of valued resources—in Harold D. Lasswell’s terms, for deciding who gets what, when, and how. We have examined various types of political authority and forms of government and explores the dimensions of the American political system.
Power relations can involve large organizations, small groups, or even individuals in an intimate relationship. There are three basic sources of power within any political system — force, influence, and authority. Max Weber provided ( e of the most useful and frequently cited contributions of early sociology by identifying three ideal types of authority: traditional, legal-rational, and charismatic. The United States, as a society which values the role of law, has legally defined limits on the power of government. In the 1980s, monarchies hold genuine governmental power in only a few nations of the world. Today, oligarchy often takes the form of military rule, although the Soviet Union and the People’s Republic of China can be described as oligarchies in which power rests in the hands of the ruling Communist party. Political scientists Carl Friedrich and Zbigniew Brzezinski have identified six basic traits that typify totalitarianism: large-scale use of ideology, one-party systems, control of weapons, terror, control of the media, and control of the economy. The United States is commonly classified as a representative democracy, since we elect members of Congress and state legislatures to handle the task of writing our laws. The principal institutions of political socialization m American society arc the family, schools, and media. Only a small minority of Americans actually participate in political organizations or in decision making on a local or national level.
11. Women are becoming more successful at winning election to public office.
12. An interest group a often national in scope and frequently addresses a wide variety of social and political issues.
13. Advocates of the elite model of the American power structure see the nation as being ruled by a small group of individuals who share common political and economic interests, whereas advocates of a pluralist model believe that power is more widely shared among conflicting groups.
14. Television is having a growing impact on American political campaigns.
KEY TERMS
Authority Power that has been institutionalized and is recognized by the people over whom it is exercised.
Charismatic authority Max Weber’s term for power made legitimate by a leader’s exceptional personal or emotional appeal to his or her followers.
Democracy In a literal sense, government by the people.
Dictatorship A government in which one person has nearly total power to make and enforce laws.
Dictatorship of the proletariat Marx’s term for the temporary rule by the working class during a stage between the successful proletarian revolution and the establishment of a classless communist society.
Elite model A view of society as ruled by a small group of individuals who share a common set of political and economic interests.
Force The actual or threatened use of coercion to impose one’s will on others.
Influence The exercise of power through a process of persuasion.
Interest group A voluntary association of citizens who attempt to influence public policy.
Legal-rational authority Max Weber’s term for power made legitimate by law.
Legitimacy The belief of a citizenry that a government has the right to rule and that a citizen ought to obey the rules and laws of that government.
Lobbying The process by which individuals and groups communicate with public officials in order to influence decisions of government.
Marital power A term used by Blood and Wolfe to describe the manner in which decision making is distributed within families.
Monarchy A form of government headed by a single member of a royal family, usually a king, a queen, or some other hereditary ruler.
Oligarchy A form of government in which a few individuals rule.
Pluralist model A view of society in which many conflicting groups within a community have access to governmental officials and compete with one another in an attempt to influence policy decisions.
Political action committee (PAC) A political committee established by a national bank, corporation, trade association, or cooperative or membership association to accept voluntary contributions for candidates or political parties.
Political efficacy The feeling that one has the ability to influence politicians and the political order.
Political party An organization whose purposes are to promote candidates for public office, advance an ideology as reflected in positions on public issues, win elections, and exercise power.
Political socialization The process by which individuals acquire political attitudes and develop patterns of political behavior.
Political system A recognized set of procedures for implementing and obtaining the goals of a group.
Politics In Harold D. Lasswell’s words, “who gets what, when, how.”
Power The ability to exercise one’s will over others.
Power elite A term used by C. Wright Mills for a small group of military, industrial, and government leaders who control the fate of the United States.
Pressure groups A term sometimes used to refer to interest groups.
Representative democracy A form of government in which certain individuals are selected to speak for the people.
Routinization of charismatic authority Max Weber’s term for the process by which the leadership qualities originally associated with an individual are incorporated into either a traditional or a legal-rational system of authority.
Terrorism The use or threat of violence against random or symbolic targets in pursuit of political aims.
Totalitarianism Virtually complete government control and surveillance over all aspects of social and political life in a society. (390)
Traditional authority Legitimate power conferred by custom and accepted practice.
Two-step flow of communication Elihu Katz’s term for a process through which a message is spread by the media to opinion leaders and is subsequently passedi along to the general public.
Veto groups David
Related Blogs
Performance of DRDA Projectc in Vizianagaram, inrespect to the Public Policy and Populist Measures
* Goteti Himabindu ** N.V.S.Suryanarayana
In the past studies on public policy were dominated by researchers and students of political science who largely concentrated in the institutional structure and philosophical justification of government. The focus was rarely on policies themselves. Past studies hardly recognized the role of organizations towards the formulation of policy. Yet, the policy is an important element of political process.
It is important to understand the concept of public for a discussion in public policy. We often use such terms as ‘Public Interest’, ‘Public Sector’, and ‘Public Health’ and so on. The strategy point is that public policy has to do with those spheres, which are so labeled as public. Public dimension is generally referred to public ownership or control for public purpose. The public comprises that domain of human of human activity, which is regarded as requiring governmental intervention or common action. However, there has always been a conflict between what is public and what is private.
Like the idea of public, the concept of policy is not a precise term. Policy denotes, among other elements, guidance for action. It may take the form of – (a) A declaration of goal; (b) A declaration of course of action; (c) A declaration of general purpose – and (d) An authoritative decision.
Unfortunately the policy itself is something, which takes different forms. There is thrust to designate policy as the outputs of the political system, and in a lesser degree to define public policy as more or less interdependent policies dealing with many different activities. Studies of public policy areas, on the contrary, have intended to focus on the evaluation of policy decisions in terms of specified values a rational rather than a political analysis.
Taken as a whole, policy may be defined as a purposive course of action taken or adopted by those in power in pursuit of certain goals or objectives. Public policies are formulated by authorities in a political system, namely elders, executives, legislators, judges and the like. These are the persons who engaged in the daily affairs of the political system, are recognized by most members of the system as having responsibility for those matters. The actions taken by them are accepted as binding most of the time by most of the members so long as they act within the limits of their roles.
Significance of the Study:
A public policy may cover a major portion of its activities, which are consistent with the development policy. Socio-economic development or self-reliance or similar broad principles of guidance for action may be adopted as a developmental policy or national goal. A public policy may be narrow, covering a specific activity, such as family planning. A public policy may be applied to all people in a country or it may be limited to a section of its people. Besides, each level of government – central, state and local – may have its specific or general policies. Then there are ‘mega policies’, which are general guidelines to be followed by all specific policies. Mega policies form a kind of master policy, as distinct from concrete discrete policies, and involve the establishment of overall goals to serve as guidelines for the larger set of concrete and specific policies.
Public policies in modern political system are purposive or goal oriented statements. Again, a public policy may be positive or negative in form. In its positive form, it may involve some form of overt government action to deal with a particular problem. On the other hand, in it is negative form. It involves a decision by public servants not to take action on some matters on which a government order is sought. Public policy has a legal coercive quality that citizens accept as legitimate. This legal coercive quality of public policies makes public organizations distinct from the private organizations.
Policy making is closely related to decision-making. However, it is not the same as decision-making. Policy-making does involve decision-making, but a decision does not necessarily constitute a policy. Decision-making often involves identification of a problem, a careful analysis of possible alternatives and selection of one alternative for action. Generally decisions are taken by the administrators in their day-to-day work within the distinct framework of policy. The policy decisions eventually taken thus provide a sense of direction to the courses of administrative action.
Policies are distinct from goals and can be distinguished from the latter as means from ends. By goals or objectives one means the ends towards which actions are directed. It is reasonable to expect that a policy indicate the direction towards which action is sought. Policies involve a deliberate choice of actions designated to achieve these goals and objectives. The actions can take the form of directives to do or refrain from certain action. Public policy is about means and ends, which have to have a relationship to each other. To say that policy-making involves a choice of goals or objectives is to argue that it deals with values.
Statement of the Problem:
The present study is designed to probe into “Performance of DRDA Projectc in Vizianagaram, inrespect to the Public Policy and Populist Measures” Policies as well as objectives are chosen under the influence of values. Decision-makers often act on the basis of their belief or perceptions of the public interest concentrating what is proper or morally correct public policy. Studies of Supreme Court indicate that judges are influenced by policy values in deciding cases.
Policy-making must be distinguished from planning. Broadly speaking a plan is a programme of action for attaining definite goals or objectives. In this sense, a plan is a policy statement and planning implies policy-making. Oten the goals or policies of a plan are not stipulated in plan documents. They may be stated only in a very general or vague terms, or are found to be internally inconsistent or contradictory. A national development plan, broadly speaking is a collection of targets or individual projects which, when put together, may not constitute an integrated scheme.
Allocation of resources for investments and showing of targets indifferent sectors of the economy are considered to be at the core of planning. However, it has been aptly stated that a plan needs proper policy framework. Targets cannot be achieved just because investments are provided for. They have to be drawn within the framework of policies. Successful policies make for successful plans and administration.
Administration involves co-operative effort by a number of people to achieve some purpose whether private or public, large or small, ‘it consists in the systematized ordering of affairs and the calculated use of resources, aimed at making those things happen which we want to happen and simultaneously preventing developments that fail to square with our intentions.
Phiffmer has defined administration ‘as the organization and direction of human and material resources to achieve, desired ends’.
According to Marshall E, Dimock, ‘Administration is now so vast an area that a philosophy of administration is come close to being a philosophy of life’.
The administration process has a number of distinct phases such as Organization, Personnel, Financial, Management, Policy making, Planning, Direction and Control Policy has to be decided before anything can be attempted to be done.
Policy means a decision as what shall be done and how, when and where. The most common social and political usage of the term policy refers to a course of action or intended course of action conceived as deliberately adopted and perceived or oriented to be perceived. A policy is concerned not only with what is (i.e., positive principle) but also with what should be (i.e., normative principle). Policy is a comprehensive term and connotes a set of intended actions. Policy is defined as a course of action selected by the government, an institution, a group or an individual among alternatives in the light of given conditions to guide and usually to determine present and future decisions. In the words of Terry a policy is a verbal, written or implied basic guide to action that is adopted and followed by a manager. Dimock defines policies as the consciously acknowledged rules or conducts that guide administrative decisions. According to Koontz and D.Donnell ‘Policies are general statements or understandings, which guide or channel thinking in decision making of subordinates’. The term public policy refers to the policies made and implemented by government with a view to achieve certain goals. Public policy means the functioning of government. Public policies intend to attain definite objectives of government. For instance eradication of poverty is a goal. Rural development, urban development and industrial developmental policies are shaped to attain that broad goal. David Eastern defines public policy as ‘Authoritative allocation values to the society’. Public policy is when the government actually chooses to do or not to do some scholars’ claim to see differences between specific action and overall programme of action towards a given goal. They insist that government action must have a goal in order to be leveled as ‘policy’. Laswell and Kaplan defined Policy as ‘A projected programme or goals, values and practices’.
A decision is usually taken within the frame work of policy that is a policy may involve a series of decisions.
The issue of implementation assumes importance in the context of policy analysis as it takes into account of what happens to policies in terms of their actual results on the ground, as making policies is not enough but a sincere effort to implement these policies is equally important. It is relevant to quote Woodrow Wilson who said, ‘it is getting harder to name a constitution than to frame one’. Running is the implementation aspect of government activity.
Many implementation studies while analyzing public policies point out variety of factors. Firstly different kinds of uncertainties often accompany programmes: Space, inputs, technology and even staff may not be available at specific time and locations, impending the take-off of the programmes. Secondly, resources may fall short of the requirements and may not be flowing in time. Thirdly, there are well-known organization problems affecting programmes implementation and within a department a new programme may not be welcome by all. A new programme may demand a new organization, which takes time to take shape. Fourthly, as experience tells, leadership makes or destroys an organization and its programmes. Specially, when new programmes are launched in any sector, leadership to a large extent determents the outcome. Fifthly, many government programmes cut across departments and therefore, success depends on inter departmental co-ordination. Sixthly, under ‘privatization’ philosophy, government programmes are contracted out to third parties like NGOS and private agencies. Success in that event would dependent on the performance of the ‘outside agencies’.
Formulation of Public Policy:
The whole process is indeed of two folds namely a working down from the rules at the top and a working up from the persons affected. They are from internal sources, from external sources, from special investigations conducted by commission or committee and from research and study.
Every administrative department receives periodic reports, returns, statements, accounts and statistics from its various sub-agencies regarding their various activities. These are consolidated together and recorded by the departments and are available for use as data for the formulation of policy. Whether modern emphasis on planning, statistics have become a important tool for administration. Many departments have special machinery for the collection of statistics relating to their activity, helpful for policymaking. For example in India, the ministries of Finance, Commerce, Industry, Food, Agriculture and Labour have their own statistical sections and a central statistical organization attached to the cabinet Secretariat National Sample Survey, The Bureau of Public Enterprises. Directorate of Industrial statistics and various other organizations are working for the collection of information and statistics. The data so collected are properly processed, organized and interpreted to certain facts essential for policy-making.
The identification of major policy making organs of India is not a sure proof of their compulsory involvement in the policymaking. If the Prime Minister’s Office proposes a policy, it may not be thoroughly discussed and in the process, some organs may even get completely bypassed. Behind policymaking, there are much interest, many factors, many perceptions and the map is not necessarily the same or similar even with the same or similar problems emerging again. According to Krishna Menon ‘Policies are seldom framed the way, we read in books. What we read in Sir Ivor Jennings’s works and other treaties is hardly observed while making policies.’
The Indian Context:
Public Policies in the developing nations have acquired critical significance in view of the complex challenges being faced by them on the one hand and their propensity to effect shifts in the regime on the other. Among the new nations, India has embraced upon new tasks of social re-construction, economic modernization, political participation, welfare, providing liberty, equality and rights in the life of the millions of people. In order to achieve these objectives the constitutions of India reiterated its commitment to welfare state with an emphasis on secular, socialist, federal, parliamentary and democratic ideologies. Further, it has also derived an institutional framework to act as infrastructure to oversee the fulfillment of the said objective. The social, economic and political philosophy of Indian Constitution is orchestrated in the Preamble, Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles of State Policy, which lays down an egalitarian ideology as a part of liberal democratic constitutional order. (14)
C.D.Deshmukh, the Finance Minister while moving a resolution on 20th December, 1954 on the economic situation of India observed, ‘the broad aim of public policy is set out in the Directive Principle in the Constitution. These are presents, the will of the nation and not the creed of any individual or any party or the dogma of any section. And so long as they remain in the Constitution, they must govern the overall policy not only of this government, but whatever government there may be in future’. Indeed, the articulations in them are the potential stuff out of which public policies at both levels of government in the federal system are to be made. The view that the Directive Principles of State Policy are largely ornamental being un-enforceable by the judiciary is not valid. Current judicial thinking is that the Fundamental Rights and the Directive Principles are complementary to each other and mutually re-enforcing. The formal provisions of the Constitution do not provide sure clues to either the direction of public policymaking or its contents. Yet, the Socio-economic provisions of the Constitution can be made to operate only by the political process and dynamics of the land.
India is committed for the establishment of Welfare State as has been reflected in the Constitution. The basic aim of a Welfare State finds expression in the preamble and part IV of the Constitution as reflected through Directive Principles of the State Policy. At aims to secure all its citizens. Justice, Liberty, Equality and Fraternity, Secure and Protect social orders. A peep into the provisions incorporated emphasis the determination of founding fathers of our Constitution. It attempts to strike a balance between rural development and urban planning through well-coordinated administrative agencies. No wonder, this determination has strengthened the concept of Welfarism in India. Consequently, it gave rise to the concept of populist measures. Hence, public policy analysis has to be examined from the angle albeit objectively.
Populist Measures:
In pursuance of the provisions enshrined in Part –IV of the Constitution, as well as objective conditions of Planned Development and Leadership role necessitated introduction of a series of developmental programme, especially rural developmental programmes. It arose due to competition among the political parties to retain power. Various political parties as well as groups, which have conceived divergent social and economic policies which are both developmental and welfare oriented has been termed as populist policies, which act as important components of public policies. Different populist strategies have been persuaded by different political parties including the regional ones. Populist politics is in fact, the need of the hour, India is an old civilization but a new nation having backwardness in many spheres. Many feel India is still ‘a nation in the making’. India is perhaps the only major country whose leadership is determined to transform the traditional society into a modern and developed one. The political process during 1970 witnessed an increased accent on populist policies, which are either incremental in nature or intended to pass on specific benefits to the target groups. At the state level also, the parties and groups have tended to accept populist, welfare policies, not only as a sort of developmental strategy but also recognized this as politically expedient and electorally rewarding. Series of antipoverty programmes of rural development such as 20-Point Economic Programmes, SFDA, NREP, DPAP, IRDI, Jawahar Rojgar Yojana etc., have launched in order to ameliorate the poorest of the poor. Alternative policy approaches to the problems of growth, poverty and inequalities in the third world countries necessitated the need not for one or two isolated policies but for a package of complimentary and supportive policies. (15) For many less-developed countries including India, a significant factor contributing to persistence of low level of living evolving into a culture of poverty is the highly unequal distribution of economic and political power between rich and poor. All people have certain needs without which life is inconceivable. These, life-sustaining necessities include basic human needs as food, shelter and protection, when any one of these is absent or in short supply, it assumes that a condition of under development exists.
The Welfare State performs positive functions besides acting as a policeman entrusted with the maintenance of law and order in short it promotes human welfare. Concept of welfare implies realizing the required socio-economic change, which will ultimately pave the way for the promotion of greatest happiness of greatest number. Welfare schemes refer to guaranteed programmes intended to protect citizens against economic risks and insecurities. It performs the divine rules of a father, a nurse, manager and an industrial entrepreneur. The welfare functions of a state clearly point out that the state in modern times has become an instrument of socio economic change. A Social welfare state is a society with a set of government programmes that protect the minimum standards of living of families and individuals against loss of income due to economic instability, old age illness and disability and family disintegration. All modern welfare states through the details of their programmes differ in providing social welfare measures to their citizens.
Social Welfare and its manifestations in the forms of social service, welfare and its manifestations in the forms of social service, social reform, social security etc., have come to be prominently used in the twentieth century. However, social welfare in its rudimentary form did exist over in punitive societies in the desire of people to help one another on times of need and stress, which deeply ingrained in the human nature. Moreover all the religions of the world enjoin upon their devotees and followers to practice compassion and exhibit concern for their fellow beings especially for those in distress and deprivation and to help them by giving a portion of their earnings in charity. Thus through the ages and in all parts of the world, the humanitarian impulses have marked the beginning of social welfare.
Andrews, Rhys and others (2009) studied ‘Centralization, Organizational Strategy, and Public Service Performance’. One of the core functions for public managers is the creation of appropriate structures that can provide system stability and institutional support for a host of other internal organizational elements, such as values and routines.
Anne Stevens (2009) studied Representative Bureaucracy – What, Why and How?. Issues of representation have become increasingly salient in European countries with attempts to find mechanisms to increase the representation of women, including various types of quota and parity legislation. This article examines the extension of the idea to bureaucracies.
Chris Game (2009) studied Just over 100 years ago, 5 pioneering women and 1 quite exceptional one became the first legitimately elected female members of English county and county borough councils. While obviously important, the Qualification of Women Act 1907 that enabled their election was far from the only one to have influenced women’s electoral involvement in local government.
Craig R.Smith (2009) studied on ‘Institutional determinants of Collaboration: an empirical Study of County Open-space Protection (Survey). In this article the author attempted to add to this burgeoning literature by arguing that institutions are an important component of collaboration because they signal to potential collaborative partners a policy commitment by the government. In credibly committing to a policy, governments can reduce uncertainty and gain cooperation without necessarily building trust via managerial behavior.
Dr.Pantricia Hamilton & Dr.Rosalyn Proops (2008) opined that Professionals are well aware of the difficult decisions they face. On the one hand, returning an abused child to abusive parents may literally be a matter of life and death; on the other, parents who lose their children feel devastated.
Money Control.com (ed.) (2009) studied ‘Two Populist Measures save Lalu a dull day’. This article disclosed that When Lalu Yadav walked out this morning to present the interim Railway Budget for the last time in the tenure of the United Progressive Alliance, anybody would have expected him to not only come out with impressive statistics of the Railways’ scorecard but also balance profitability and populist measures with his characteristic élan — and not without a keen eye on the upcoming Parliamentary polls.
Peter Riddel (2007) opined on ‘Lost of Populist Measures but little sense of an overall strategy’. The Conservatives are in two minds about an early election. In one sense, they do not want one, since every spokesman and MP to whom the author accepted that the party could not win outright and almost certainly could not become the largest single party.
Prof.Gray King, Department of Government, Harvard University (2009) studied ‘Political Analysis’ that ‘The relatively new field of political methodology is growing exponentially; is improving empirical work in every field of the discipline; and is even making major contributions to empirical and methodological scholarship well outside the diffuse borders of political science. Political Analysis chronicles these exciting developments by publishing the most sophisticated scholarship in the field.
Sabina Siebert (2009) studied ‘Gender Balance in Scottish Local Authority Councils’. Women make up over 40 per cent of community councilors in Scotland, however, evidence suggests that they are less likely to progress to local authority councils. This article investigates the barriers to wider engagement of women in participative democracy, and based on the analysis of empirical data suggests some ways of promoting a more equitable gender representation in Scottish local authority councils.
Sir Rodney Brooke (2008) examined ‘The Public Needs Confidence in Family Courts’. He reported that that social workers are not accountable for their actions is not correct. As your article states, social workers have been required to register with the General Social Care Council (GSCC) since 2005. In registering, they sign up to a code of practice that sets out the standards they must work to. The great majority of the 93,000 registered social workers provide excellent services to high standards.
AFP South Asian Edition (2009) Article on ‘Populism Pips Economc Price on India’s Pool Trial’. The Editorial disclosed that Four years of soaring growth is a record most governments would trumpet from the rooftops at election time, but India’s ruling party is giving the subject a wide berth ahead of this week’s polls.
CJ:Abhishek Behl (2008)KEEPING IN mind the general elections next year, Railway minister Lalu Prasad Yadav today presented a populist Rail Budget offering reduction in train fares, a slew of new trains and concessions and a provision for special trains to cater to the needs of Indian masses.
Subramanian, Narendra (2007) studied ‘Populism in India’. Populist political forces have played significant roles in Indian politics, and have varied in their vision of political community, in the social groups they targeted, in the policies they pursued, and in their impact on democracy. The Indian National Congress had populist aspects in the interwar period, and then again under Indira Gandhi’s leadership from the late 1960s to the late 1970s. Movements and parties that represented particular language and caste groups also employed populist rhetoric and methods of mobilization, and pursued populist policies.
Sudheendra Kulkarni (2009) made on ‘Why India is turning to Populism’. Not being an expert in etymology, He opined that he do not know how the word ‘populism’ originated. However, keen observers of and participants in the discourse on India’s political economy know that ‘populism’ has travelled an interesting journey in our country. From being reviled as ‘bad economics’ since the advent of liberalization in the early 1990s by a section of the intelligentsia that had embraced the credo ‘West is Best’, it has now been honourably enshrined as an indispensable part of ‘good politics’ by mainstream political parties.
The Republic of India is a large country with a population of over one billion people spread over 3.28 million sq. km. It has a federal structure of 35 states and union territories divided into nearly 600 districts. India has 32 different languages and numerous dialects. In the 19th century, Britain had assumed political control of virtually all Indian lands. By 1947 the people of India declared their independence. India is located in Southern Asia, bordering Burma, Bhutan, China, Nepal and Bangladesh along the Arabian Sea and the Bay of Bengal. India has a diverse landscape with flat to rolling plains along the Ganges River, deserts in the west and the Himalaya mountain range in the north. The nationality of India is Indian with ethnic groups of Indo-Aryan comprising 72% of the population with Dravidian groups comprising 25%, and Mongoloid and others comprise the remaining 3%. Languages include Hindi as the national language which is the primary tongue of 30% of the population. There are 14 other official languages with English being spoken in business and political circles. According to the United Nations, country-specific poverty lines are generally used due to variations between countries and is affected by local tastes and cultural norms. However, definitions are not particularly sensitive to more qualitative needs such as health care, housing and education. According to the ADB, in 1999 India had 26.1% of its population below the national poverty line with 27.1% represented in rural areas and 23.6% in urban areas.
India’s economy encompasses traditional village farming, modern agriculture, handicrafts and a wide range of modern industries and support services. India is a major exporter of software services and workers.
Economic growth slowed in 2002, largely due to a drought-induced drop in agriculture. The industry sector showed increases, which is expected to continue in FY2003 and should lead to a moderate revival in GDP growth. Assuming normal monsoon conditions, the economy is projected to grow by 6% in FY2003 with agriculture and services increasing on average. Exports are expected to increase at over 15% in 2003, based on increasing world demand. Inflation will likely remain moderate at approximately 5%. The fiscal deficit is expected to remain at the average level of 9.5% of GDP during FY2003. Gross Domestic Product (GDP) growth averaged approximately 6% throughout the 1990s, however, it decreased to an average of 5% for FY2000 and FY2001. During FY2002 (ending March 31, 2003) GDP growth was approximately 4.4%. The general decline in GDP growth over the years is primarily attributable to a decrease in the service sectors growth and from external effects such as a global recession, drought, the impact of the government’s large fiscal deficit and slow progress of reforms in certain sectors. The Asian Development Bank forecasts a 6.3% growth in GDP in the FY2003 with agriculture and services increasing on average.
GDP stood at approximately US$2.66 trillion in 2002 of which agriculture comprised 25%, while manufacturing and trade comprised 29.7%. The Government provides welfare schemes for the social services sector and over the past 10 years has increased the budgeted amount four-fold for welfare schemes for Scheduled Castes, Other Backward Classes and minorities as well as welfare and development of scheduled tribes. The Government also provides separate allocations for People with Disabilities (PWDS) under separate schemes. Based on the Government’ economic survey conducted for outlays for the social sector for the fiscal year 2000, rural development, employment and poverty alleviation encompassed the largest share of social welfare schemes at 42% of total expenditures in the social sector. According to the World Health Organization (WHO), the life expectancy at birth was 60 years for males and 61.7 for females. It is estimated by the WHO that as of 1992 there were 48 and 45 physicians and nurses, respectively for every 100,000 people living in India. Total expenditures on health as a percentage of GDP in 2000 was 4.9% according to the WHO, while general government expenditures on health as a percentage of total general government expenditures in 2000 was 5.3%. The WHO estimates that 3.9 million people were living with HIV/AIDS in 2000, while there were 350,000 deaths related to HIV/AIDS in the 15 to 49 year old population in the same time period. The total estimated adult prevalence rate was 0.8% of the total population.
Bansal, R;John,S and Ling PM (2005) made an article on ‘Cigarette Advertising in Mumbai, India: Targeting different Socio-economic groups, Women and Yough’.
Despite a recent surge in tobacco advertising and the recent advertising ban (pending enforcement at the time of this study), there are few studies describing current cigarette marketing in India. This study sought to assess cigarette companies’ marketing strategies in Mumbai, India.
Rijo M.John (2006) studied ‘Household’s Tobacco Consumption Decisions’. This article analyses consumption patterns, socio-economic distribution and household choice of a variety of tobacco products across rural and urban India. Using a multinomial logic model, we examine the choice behaviour of a household in deciding whether and which tobacco products to consume.
Editorial (2009) an article on ‘Socio-economic Issues in India’. Constitutionally India is a secular state, but large-scale violence have periodically occurred in India since independence. In recent decades, communal tensions and religion-based politics have become more prominent, coinciding with a rise in Islamic terrorism.
Vannhim (2009) studied ‘Gender Inequality in India’. In this study the author opined that “No nation, no society, no community can hold its head high and claim to be part of the civilized world if it condones the practice of discriminating against one half of humanity represented by women” That was a sentence from the speech of Prime Minister Manmohan Singh at national conference to oppose gender inequality in 2006, but in reality this situation is becoming worse and worse, especially when the widespread practice of aborting female fetuses happens every day everywhere without people’s care and strict law.
Thus socio-economic indicators provide an opportunity to understand, in general, the status of an individual.
The socio-economic position helps an individual to assert his or her position in the society. Educational levels, occupational positions and income earnings do influence the behavioral pattern of individuals. These achievements instill confidence individuals and stimulate them to take part in the societal and political activities. Astrictive qualities like case and religion have also a greater role to play, especially in Indian situation in determining the status of a person. The lower caste status is a barrier in the way of an individual to achieve his or her goal. An attempt would be made by the researcher to enquire into the socio-economic indicators of Vizianagaram District and present on analysis of populist measures that have emerged in the course of undertaking the present study.
Socio-economic Profile of Vizianagaram District:
No two districts can be said to be same in terms of land, area, size of population, strategic location, natural resources, cultural patterns, social structures, political dynamics and economic development. The Republic of India occupying the central sector of the Asian subcontinent is the sub-continent of Asia and is the second most populous nation and seventh largest country of the world having 439 districts.
Andhra Pradesh is a state of India having 23 districts and Vizianagaram is a district of Andhra Pradesh. Andhra Pradesh is divided into four natural regions viz., Andhra, Rayalaseema and Telengana regions.
Historical background:
The history of Vizianagaram District is connected with hoary past of Kalinga, one of the Political divisions of ancient India. Only in modern times, the upper part of Kalinga was gradually merged into Orissa State and the lower part into Andhra Region.
After abolition of the Zamindaris in 1948, Visakhapatnam district was found to be unwidely for administrative purposes. Consequently, Srikakulam District was carved out in 1950, bifurcating it from Visakhapatnam District. The Constitution of Vizianagaram District in 1979, by transferring the taluks of Parvathipuram, Kurupam, Salur, Bobbili, Badangi and Cheepurupalle from Srikakulam District and some taluks of Visakhapatnam, forms the latest development in the history of the district.
Geographic Profile of Vizianagaram District:
Vizianagaram District was formed as 23rd district in the State on 1st June, 1979 with headquarters at Vizianagaram in terms of G.O.Ms.No:700/Revenue(U)Department, Dt.15th May, 1979 with portions carved from Srikakulam and Visakhapatnam District.
The district is a part of the Northern Coastal plains of Andhra Pradesh State and lies between 17° – 15’ and 19° -15’ of the Northern Latitude and 83° – 0’ to 83° – 45’ of the Eastern Longitude. It is bounded on the East by Srikakulam District, on the West and South by Visakhapatnam District, on the South-east by Bay of Bengal and North-West by Orissa State.
The District was formed with 9 taluks viz., Viianagaram, Gajapathinagaram, Srungavarapukota and Bhogapuram taluks from Visakhapatnam district, Bobbili, Parvatipuram, Salur, Kurupam and Cheeprupalli from Srikakulam District. In December, 1979, 3 more taluks were added by creating Nellimarla, Viyyampeta, Badangi and GummaLakshmipuram duly bifurcating the taluks of Vizianagaram, Srungavarapukota, Bobbili and Kurupam respectively making the total taluks to 13 and these taluks have been further subdivided into 52 Firkas. For administrative convenience, the district is divided into 2 Revenue Divisions viz., Vizianagaram and Parvathipuram. In may, 1985 the taluks and firkas were replaced with 34 Revenue Mandals in the District.
Population:
The population of this district as per the Census Reports is – Census 1981 18.04 Lakhs, 1991 21.10 Lakhs and 2001 22.49 lakhs of population. This clearly indicates that gradual increase is found from one Census to Census. The Male population in 1981 Census is 8.99 Lakhs, followed by 1991 10.55 Lakhs and 2001 11.20 Lakhs. Whereas the Female Population is in 1981 Census reported as 9.05 Lakhs followed by 1991 Census 10.55 Lakhs and 2001 11.30 Lakhs. From the above it can be concluded that the gradual increase in population in respect of Female category is higher than Male Population.
Further, out of the total population 22.49 Lakhs of this District as per report of Census 2001 that Scheduled Caste population is 2,38,023 (1058%). Out of total population of Males 11.20 Lakhs, the SC Male population is 1,19,116 (10.63%), where out of 11.30 Lakh Population female the SC Female is 1,18,907 (10.52%).
Agriculture:
The major agriculture in this district is Rice, Groundnut, Mazie, Sugar Cane, Bazra, Koraa, Redgram etc. Out of which, the major cultivation is preferred to Sugar Cane in view of the demand from Sugar Industries in this district. Cultivating Mesta, Rice, Groundnut, Mazie are preferred by the Farmers. The Farmers are preferred least to cultivate Bazra, Korra, Redgram.
Land Assigned for Agriculture Purpose:
Out of Ac.3512.00 land, assigned to Scheduled Caste people Ac.745.00 (21.22%), Scheduled Tribe people Ac.1042.00 (29.67%), Backward Class People Ac.1586.00 (45.16%) and other community people Ac.139.00 cts. (3.95%).
District administration in a sense comprehends a wide spectrum of public administration in India.
District administration includes all the agencies of the government, the individual officials, functionaries and public servants. It comprehends all institutions for the management of public affairs in the district, all the corporate bodies such as Panchayats of different kinds, Panchayats, Municipal councils of every kind. Thus district administration provides the principal point of contact between the citizen and the process of government. It is the cutting edge of tool of public administration and this is what constitutes its vital significance in the nation’s government.
Factors of Development:
Development is affected by a number of factors like natural resources, environment technology and economic growth, which are interactive and interdependent. Environment, including natural resources like land, water, forest, fisheries, minerals and economy comprising among other things, production, consumption and distribution activities are interactive and are interdependent. The report of the World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED), says our common future was the first major international initiative that enhanced the awareness of policy makers about the complexity of relationship between environmental problems, economic growth and needs of people, rich and poor.
After independence, India has adopted the strategy of planned development as the Constitution declared India a Democratic Socialist State having commitment to socio-economic justice through the democratic process and organized planning. Planning is needed both at the individual, district, state and national levels. Its need is bring realized both by socialist as well as capitalist countries. In developing countries it is increasing being realized that without planning it is impossible to have economic development and solve nation’s economic problem on the one hand and to industrialize the country on the other. Planning is needed for ending poverty and unemployment. It is a rational process of human behavior. Planning both at administrative, social and economic levels is increasingly occupying a important and significant place in our social, economic and political set-up.
The first Five-Year Plan of (1951-52 to 1955-56) had a twofold objective. It attempted to correct the disequilibrium in the economy and ensure all round balanced development. It further aimed to raise national income and achieve steady improvement in the living standards over a period of time. The plan accorded highest priority to agriculture, including irrigation and power projects, transport and communication.
The Second Five-Year Plan of 1956-57 (1956-57 to 1960-61) aimed at the establishment of socialistic pattern of society in India. It projected to achieve 25 percent increase in the national income by giving priority to rapid industrialization with particular emphasis on basic and heavy industries. It broadened the horizon of employment opportunities to reduce inequalities in income and wealth and to achieve more even distribution of economic power.
The Third Five-Year Plan 1961-62 (1961-62 to 1965-66) aimed at securing marked advance towards self-sustaining growth and secure an increase in the national income over 5 per cent per annum, to increase it by about 30 percent. It aimed to achieve the target by giving priority to self-sufficiency in food grains and increase in agricultural production to meet the requirement of industry and exports. It also targeted to expand basic industries like steel, chemicals, fuel and power and to establish machine-building capacity for requirements of further industrialization. It aimed to utilize fully the manpower resources of the country and ensure a substantial expansion in employment opportunities. It further aimed to establish progressively greater equality of opportunities and bring about reduction in disparities of income and wealth and a more even distribution of economic power.
Mid 60’s was one of the critical periods in the history of Five-Year Plan in India. Series of crisis left many economists to ponder over the effectiveness of planning in India. The first among the series of crisis was the Indo-Pak war of 1965. The was ravaged Indian economy needed some kind of a special effort by the economic planners in the country. The first two decades of development planning in India saw the implementation of rural development programmes like community development projects National Extension Services, Land Reforms and Co-operative Farming. Although it was initiated with much fund fare it did not benefit the targeted groups i.e., the rural community. In 1968 the Planning Commission organized a number of studies on the problems of small farmers in different areas. The small Farmer Development Agency Scheme (SFDA) 1971 was launched with a view to provide special preferential arrangements for the supply of inputs to the potentially viable small farmers. During the Fourth Five-Year Plan along with the SFDA another agency called the Marginal Farmers and Agricultural Labourers Development Agency (MFAL) was introduced to help the sub-marginal and landless workers. While SFDA covered the entire district, the MFAL was confined to blocks and tahasils. The Fourth Five-Year Plan 1969 (1969-70 to 1973-74) aimed at raising the standard of living of the people through programmes which at the same time designed to promote equality and social justice. The Plan laid particular emphasis on improving the conditions of the less privileged and weaker sections of the society especially through the provision of employment and education. Efforts were also directed towards reduction of concentration and wider diffusion of wealth, income and economic power.
The twin objectives of the Fifth Five Year Plan 1974-79 (1974-75 to 1978-79) were the removal of poverty and the attainment of Self-reliance. It envisaged 4.37 percent overall growth of gross domestic product, expansion of productive employment, a national programme of minimum needs, emphasis on agriculture, key and basic industries producing goods for mass consumption, extended programmes of social welfare and an equitable prices.
During the Fifth Five-Year Plan period, the 20-Point Programme was launched on 1st July, 1975 as precursor to ‘Garibi Hatao’ programme to alleviate the conditions of the poorer sections of the society. A revised programme was annulled on 14th July, 1982, which has been under implementation from 1982-83 onwards. The coverage of the progrmme has been broadened to include a number of major areas of social concern such as provision of safe drinking water, health facilities, family planning, expansion of education, equality for women, justice to scheduled castes and scheduled tribes. It aimed to generate new opportunities for youth, housing for the under privileged sections, enhancement of agricultural production and productivity reduction in income inequalities, removal of social and economic disparities, raising quality of life and protection of environment.
The new 20-Point Programme of 1986 prepared under the guidance of Late Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi in the light of experience gained in the implementation of the 20-point programme of 1975 and 1982. In general it aimed at and improving the quality of life of the people. It is not a declaration of intention but charter of emancipation for poor.
The Sixth Five-Year Plan of 1980-81 (1980-81 to 1984-85) has been formulated after taking into account the achievement and short comings of the past three decades of planning. Janata Government had fixed its own targets but before the plan could be implemented the government went out of power and the Congress (I) government prepared its own plan. The plan aimed at removal of poverty and to make the country self-reliant, though it was recognized that the task of this magnitude could not be accomplished in a short period of five years. The main strategy was to strengthen the infrastructure for both agriculture and industry to create conditions for growth in investment, output and exports and provide through special programmes designed for the purpose. The objective of the plan document is envisaged to create opportunities for employment, especially in the rural areas and unorganized sector and meet the minimum basic needs of the people. Further, the document aimed at to achieve the objectives through the involvement of the people in formulating specific schemes of development at the local level. It was further aimed to secure speedy and effective implementation and to attain a growth rate of 5% per annum and gross domestic product at 3.3% per annum.
The Seventh Five-Year Plan 1985-86 (1985-86 to 1989-90) came into operation on 1.3.1985 and covered plan period from 1985-89. It main strategy is removal of poverty, providing social justice, economic expansion and technological development and bringing about a sharp reduction to the rate of population growth. It laid stress on agriculture by introducing land reforms, irrigation, drainage and management of multiple cropping. It also wanted to self-reliant industrial economy and has the fullest human resources development. It wanted to put stress on anti-poverty programmes. The main aim of the plan is to remove illiteracy, unemployment, and poverty and provide food, clothing and shelter, health, education and other basic amenities through Minimum Needs Programme. According to some critics there was nothing new in the strategies and programmes however, a new hope seemed to have been created by the reconstitution of the Planning Commission and liberalization of imports in order to give a boost to development and hike the customs revenue.
That was far higher than the longer-term trend rate of 3.5 percent per annum and also higher than the average annual trend growth rate of 4.3 percent a year during the decade 1974-75 to 1984-85.
The development of agriculture should inevitably have to be given priority. Problems of crop combination perspective, land and water management, productivity, agro-processing industries, backward areas development diversification of technology to modernize stagnant agriculture needed carefully formulated plans for solution of problems. It was argued that the agricultural sector should receive preference over the industrial sector in view of the size, nature and demographic and other peculiarities of the country. It was believed by many, if India aims to enter into 21st Century, it has to put emphasis on faster growth of industries. It would help to achieve the projected target of providing increased employment. A notable feature of the plan document was it tried to redefine the role of small industries. It emphasized for setting up or agro-industrial development in rural areas. Through this the document aimed to achieve the goal of self-reliance.
Human Development has been the ultimate goal. The effort of the plan was directed towards achieving employment generation, population control, literacy, education, health, drinking water. In addition provision for adequate food and basic infrastructure were the other priorities. As a welcome step, the planning process in India seeks to make people’s initiative and participation a key element in the process of development.
Working of DRDA in Vizianagaram District:
District administration is defined as the management of public affairs within a territory marked off for the purpose. After Independence, the District Administration was made a partner in the development process in which the Collector emerged as the overall agent of the State Government occupying a cardinal position. As the implementation of the development programmes, the task was onerous calling for missionary zeal, scientific foresight and all pervading spirit of selfless service. With the introduction of Panchayati Raju, structure had emerged at the district level where the Collectors Association with the emergent system and the role assigned under it varied from State to State. The role of Collector in development administration does not find a clear and precise definition. Except in the fields of revenue, law and order and natural calamities, his role, as a coordinator seems to be nebulous. In recent years though the Union and State Governments have launched several special projects, the Collectors face gnawing problem of inter-sector transfer of funds.
The execution of Five-Year Plans for rural development is ultimately the responsibility of the District Administration, where in the District Collector plays a key role. Originally, he was in charge of collection of revenue, and then he was entrusted with administrative and some judicial responsibilities for maintaining law and order. Now he is also responsible for the development work in his district. There is no limit to what a District Magistrate can get close so it is felt that it is too much to load him with developmental work. The task of implementing development programmes is very difficult and time consuming. It required patience, tack, dedication and vision. So, it requires a specialized cadre of men and women who should have dedicated their lives to developmental work.
To reduce the burden of Collector of supervising developmental work, the developmental functions of Collector were vested in the name of ‘Project Officer’ to lookafter ITDA Projects for implementation in Tribal Agency areas and in plains the responsibilities have to be given to the respective departments. It was ultimately decided to set one single integrated organization. The task of the organization was to oversee and effectively implement poverty alleviation programme. Consequently District Rural Development Agency (DRDA) was set up in 1980, with Collector as the Chairperson.
While analyzing the function of DRDA it can be point out that the overall charge of the planning implementation, monitoring and evaluation of all anti-poverty programmes in the district can be divided into broad areas. Firstly, to keep the district and Mandal agencies informed of the basic parameters and the requirements of the programmes and the task to be performed by all these agencies. Secondly, to coordinate and oversee the surveys, preparation of prospective plans and annual plan of the blocks and finally prepare a district plan. Thirdly to monitor and evaluate the programmes implementation by government and governmental agencies to ensure its effectiveness. Fourthly to secure inter-sectoral and inter departmental co-ordination and co-operation. Fifthly, to give publicity of the achievements made under the programs and disseminate knowledge and build up awareness about the programmes. Sixthly to send periodical returns to the state government in the prescribed formats. Coming to the functions of DRDA in Vizianagaram District it can be had the clear picture and to assess the analysis of the anti-poverty programmes of rural Development, which are implemented in this district.
BRGF (Grameena Rojgar Yojana):
The funds under this scheme in 2007-08 under 11th Plan period have been released under the approval by the High-Power Committee of BRGF Planning. The aim of this scheme is to meant to eradicate the disparity regional developments and provide funds where there is deficiency to meet the executions for developmental activities. In this scheme 50%, 30% and 20% grants have been allocated to Gram Panchayats, Mandal Prajaparishads and Zillah Praja Parishads and four Municipalities respectively.
Fashion Technology Project:
The Fashion Technology Project under Swarna Jayanti Gram Swarajgar Yojana Scheme is started by the Government of India under the SGSY –II Scheme to enhance the additional income to the Self-employment Societies. To meet the objective of this scheme has been estimated to a tune of Rs.1215.32 Lakhs. Out of which an amount of Rs.218.02 Lakhs being the first phase and the Government of India and Rs.72.67 as its share to bare the expenditure under this scheme. The scheme will be continued for three years i.e., from October, 2006 to September, 2010. Accordingly, for about 7000 Self-financed groups will be given training Embroidery, Garments Clothes preparation. In the first phase an amount of Rs.86.00 Lakhs was spent for four months training to the Instructors in NIFT Institute i.e., 30 Women trained in advanced garment production, 40 Women trained in preparation of Surface Armamentation. The District Rural Development Agency has procured the necessary machines and tools from East Godavary District with reasonable rates. The DRDA make efforts through this scheme, 780 members after completion of their training have already been recruited in various Garment Industries and still 680 members are going to be completed within the next couple of months. Further, DRDA has provided 300 Machines in TTDC and Mahilapranganam, 150 machines in Nellimarla, Garividi, Cheepurupalli and 100 Machines in S.Kota Mandals for the purpose of training the unemployed Women. The DRDA make necessary arrangements to train the unemployed Women of 300 members in Bobbili Mahilapranganam, Dwakra Bazar, Vizianagaram in Surface Armamentation. (Source: DRDA, Vizianagaram District).
A.P.Housing Board Limited:
During 2007-2008 under the I.A.Y (Indira Avasa Yojana) Scheme is sanctioned for Rs.1080.75 Lakhs provided to 4,323 Schedule Caste and Scheduled Tribe community peoples have benefitted. Accordingly, 4,174 dwelling houses have been constructed and completed and an amount of Rs.939.15 has been spent for this purpose in all 34 mandals in Vizianagaram District.
Prime Minister Gram Shadak Yojana Welfare Activities:
The objective of the scheme is to provide better transportation facilities connecting to National High Way Roads. Accordingly priority was given for development of road facilities in all the rural areas. The total road formation works were taken place 203.38 Kms. in this district and an amount of Rs.2867.04 Lakhs have been made being expenditure.
Integrated Waste Land Development Programme (IWDP):
The IWD Programme was introduced during 1999-2000 with an object to utilize the waste lands for cultivation purpose. Under this scheme Rs.2670.00 Lakhs has been allocated from 1999 – 2000 to 2006 – 2007 so as to utilize the 48500 Hectares of land spread over all 34 Mandals in Vizianagaram. Accordingly, an amount of Rs.1640.76 Lakhs (61.45%) was spent for the development of 31416 (64.77%) Hectares of waste land was taken for use of agriculture purpose.
Micro Irrigation Development Programmes:
As per the policy of A.P., State Government that Electrical Motors/Diesel Engines will be supplied to the farmers with 70% subsidy for the purpose of Drip Irrigation. Accordingly, Rs.50,000/- to each farmer family is eligible to purchase the water machines. Where, SC and ST community farmers may be allowed to pay 10% of the loan being their subscription and 20% per cent being margin money will be met by the respective SC/ST Corporation and the rest of money will be provided being loan to each farmer. Accordingly, 1617 Farmer families are utilizing the above facility for the use of 3154 hectares of land in this district under Micro Irrigation Development programme.
Drinking Water Supply in Rural area under ARSWS Scheme:
According to DRDA statistical information that out of 2874 villages in Vizianagaram district drinking water was provided to 1600 (55.67%) villages and the rest of 1274 (44.33%) villages are yet to be provided drinking water.
A.P. NEDCAP:
The objective of this scheme is to implement and development of Bio-gas Plants and their proper utilization so as to saving the Coal, Petroleum, wood and such other natural resources utilization particularly in rural areas and to protect the health of rural female. This scheme is meant for low category farmers as well as Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe farmers. Out of the cost of a Bio-gas plant unit of Rs.9750/-, an amount of Rs.5500/- is given to each farmer being the subsidy and the rest of the amount has to be borne by the farmer being the loan subject to repay the same to the government in an easy instalment basis. As per the NEDCAP, Vizianagaram 500 units have been provided and Rs.48.75 lakhs was accorded to that extent. Out of which 27.50 lakhs was given being subsidy and Rs.21.25 lakhs being the share of the individual.
GRAM PANCHAYATS:
The basic assessment of a nation’s development is depending on Village in all aspects. Keeping this into consideration, the grants have been released to the Gram Panchayats to meet the developmental activities in the respective villages in Vizianagaram District. Out of the total grants of Rs.14.35 lakhs released by the Government of India, an amount of Rs.13.06 lakhs (91%) was spent. Further, an amount of Rs.10.37 lakhs (79.4%) for Sanitation, Rs.2.67 (20.44%) for Drinking Water and Rs.0.02 Lakhs (0.153%) for other purpose was spent.
SARVA SIKSHA ABHIYAN (SSA):
Rajiv Vidya Mission (SSA) Scheme functioning in this district is to provide necessary facilities to the Schools in Rural and Urban localities so as to attain the national objective that to provide ‘education for all’ as the Constitution slogan to provide education to all the children upto 14 years. During Academic Year 2006 -2007, an amount of Rs.1249.99 Lakhs was provided for the construction of 540 additional classrooms. Out of which 363 classrooms constructed and the expenditure to a tune of Rs.1140.92 lakhs was made and the additional amount of Rs.109.07 lakhs is still needed to meet the construction of remain 177 classrooms.
During the financial year 2007-2008, an amount of Rs.806.20 lakhs was estimated being the expenditure for the construction of 278 classrooms to provided to the needy schools in rural and urban localities. Accordingly the Director of Rajiv Vidya Mission, Government of A.P., has accorded to start the execution. However, 150 classroom constructions was executed with an amount of Rs.297.25 lakhs being grant released and Rs.508.95 lakhs is yet to be released to complete the remaining 128 classrooms construction in respective schools in this district.
The SSA has also accorded for Rs.7.20 lakhs for providing minimum facilities in urban areas i.e., providing drinking water, 18 constructions of Lavatories etc. According to SSA 6 Lavotories have been constructed with provision of safety drinking water in 4 schools with a cost of Rs.11.50 lakhs and the rest of 12 lavatories construction is under progress.
The objective of SSA is to provide ‘Education for All’. Accordingly to provided education 2617 children between 6 – 8 years age. The SSA has also spent an amount of Rs.22,00,900/- during 2007-2008 being remuneration paid to the 183 Para Teachers paid at the rate of Rs.1500/- each per month.
The Home based Education Scheme is also introduced by SSA during 2007-2008 so as to provide education to 288 physically handicapped children at their residence and 20 mandal resource persons are engaged at an amount of Rs.5000/- p.m. being remuneration.
Similarly, the SSA, Vizianagaram has also provided Rs.44,44,502/- during 2006-2007 for 39 Bridge Courses to be provided to the Child Labour education so as to meet the constitutional objective.
CONCLUSIONS:
According to Subramanian, Narendra (2007) Populist political forces have played significant roles in Indian politics, and have varied in their vision of political community, in the social groups they targeted, in the policies they pursued, and in their impact on democracy. The Indian National Congress had populist aspects in the interwar period and then again under