Accounts and accountability: Theoretical implications of the right-to-information movement in India

Third World Quarterly

Volumn 20, Issue 3, 1999, Pages 603-622

  Jenkins, Rob ^a,b   Goetz, Anne Marie ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF LONDON   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF SUSSEX   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CORRUPTION;

EID: 0033376848     PISSN: 01436597     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/01436599913712     Document Type: Article

References (41)

1. In using this descriptor, the MKSS follows a stream of thinking on the role of voluntary organisations in Indian politics which can be traced to the theorising of Rajni Kothari, who coined the term in the mid 1980s. For a more recent elaboration of this concept, see his 'The rise of people's movements', Social Action, 40, (3), 1990, pp 232-240.
2. In addition to protesting against collusion between ration-shop owners and government inspectors, the MKSS operates its own ration shops. An experiment in 1996 by an innovative civil servant in the neighbouring state of Madhya Pradesh brought transparency principles to the operation of the PDS in the region under his authority. He issued an order requiring ration shops to prepare duplicate copies of monthly registers of all stocks, sales and ration cards. These were then deposited in sub-district offices and made available for inspection or photocopying. Sec Harsh Mander & Abha Singhal Joshi, The movement for right to information in India: people's power for the control of corruption', paper presented to the Human Rights Initiative Conference, Harare, January 1998.
3. 3'Public hearings: why and how?', in Transparency: Bulletin of the Right to Information Movement, 3(1), 1998, p 3.
4. Mukhopadhyay also argues that the participatory approach to auditing government expenditure is more effective than formal audits in illuminating local spending discrepancies, which arc elided in massive formal audits. See his 'Three styles in social audit', Lokayan Bulletin, 12 May 1996, pp 35-44.
5. Harsh Mander, 'Battles for people's power', mimeo, 1996.
6. 6 The collector for Ajmer District, for instance, ensured that police complaints were filed against two chairpersons of elected village councils, and recovered land-revenue arrears which had been misappropriated. See Mander & Joshi, 'The movement for right to information in India.
7. See Rob Jenkins, Democratic Politics and Economic Reform in India, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999, forthcoming.
8. This was the phrase used by a high-ranking civil servant in the Rajasthan government when discussing proposed reforms to the state's system of local government. Interview, 5 March 1999, Jaipur.
9. For an overview of the changing nature of thinking on rights, see J Galtung, Human Rights in Another Key, Cambridge: Polity Press, 1994.
10. Susanna Davics, 'Democratization and sustainable rural livelihoods', in Mark Robinson & Gordon White (cds), The Democratic Developmental State, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998, p 289.
11. Ibid, p 291.
12. Ibid, p 289.
13. See, for instance, Niraja Gopal Jayal, 'The state and democracy in India, or what happened to welfare, secularism and development?', paper presented at the 'India 50' Conference, University of Sussex, 25-28 September 1997.
14. A cautious version of this distinction was made by Yogendra Yadav in his presentation on the strength and durability of democratic institutions at a workshop on 'India at Half-Century', Institute of Commonwealth Studies, London, May 1997.
15. Manoranjan Mohanty, 'Introduction', in M Mohanty & Partha Nath Mukhcrji, with Olle Tomquist (eds), People's Rights: Social Movements and the Stale in the Third World, New Delhi: Sage, 1998, pp 22-23.
16. Ibid, p 23.
17. Ibid, emphasis added.
18. Aditya Nigam, 'Right to work: reading "rights" through discourse on "work" ', Economic and Political Weekly, 31 January 1998, p PE-16.
19. Amnesty Intcmation, India: Submission to the Human Rights Committee Concernig Implementation of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, July 1997 (AI Index: ASA 20/27/97, Dist: SC/CO), pp 71-72.
20. Christopher Mcrrctt, 'In a state of ambivalence: the case of freedom of information in South Africa', in Barbara Turfan el al (eds), Emerging Democracies and Freedom of Information, London: Library Association Publishing, 1995, p 160.
21. Bombay Environmental Action Group and others v Punc Cantonment Board, AIR 1982 SC 149; subsequently published by Ministry of Environment and Forests, Government of India, Right to Know: Judgement of Bombay High Court and Supreme Court Order, 1986.
22. S P Sathc, 'The right to information: pre-condition for a transparent government', Anubhav, February 1997, p 6.
23. Ibid.
24. See Robert Chambers, Whose Reality Counts: rutting the First Last, Rugby: Intermediate Technology Development Group, 1997.
25. For a thorough review of the literature, see Marisol Estrclla & John Gaventa, 'Who counts reality: participatory monitoring and evaluation', paper prepared for the International Workshop on Participatory Monitoring and Evaluation: Experiences and Lessons, held at the International Institute of Rural Reconstruction, Cavité, Philippines, 24-29 November 1997.
26. Jonathan Fox, 'Transparency for accountability: civil-society monitoring of multilateral development banks' anti-poverty projects'. Development in Practice, 7(2), 1997, pp 167-72.
27. See Robert Mosse, Authority, Gender and Knowledge: Theoretical Reflections on the Practice of Participatory Rural Appraisal, London: Overseas Development Institute, 1993.
28. Vinod Pavarala, 'Participatory development, new social movements and the right to information', Exchanges, 18, September 1997.
29. Anil Bhatt, 'Voluntary action in India: role, trends and challenges', Economic and Political Weekly, 22 April 1995, p/870.
30. See IDS Bulletin, Special Issue on 'Liberalisation and the new corruption' (edited by Barbara Harriss-Whitc and Gordon White), 27(2), 1996.
31. These accountability mechanisms, labelled 'hierarchical control' by Samuel Paul, emphasise supervision and control of service providers through an upward chain of command, rather than through the participation of the public in key decisions. See S Paul, Does Voice Matter? For Public Accountability, Yes, Policy Research Working Paper No 1388, Washington DC: World Bank, December 1994.
32. Georg Kopits & Jon Craig, Transparency in Government Operations, IMF Occasional Paper No 158, January 1998.
33. Discussions of women and civil society in developing countries which make this point include Sue Ellen Charlton, Jana Evcrctt & Kathleen Staudt (eds), Women, The State, and Development, New York: State University of New York Press, 1989; and Aili Mari Tripp, 'Gender, political participation and the transformation of associational life in Uganda and Tanzania', African Studies Review, 37(1), 1994, pp 107-31.
34. Chcryl W Gray & Daniel Kaufman, 'Corruption and development', Finance and Development, March 1998, final paragraph.
35. Management Development and Governance Division, Bureau for Policy and Program Support, United Nations Development Program, Corruption and Good Governance, Discussion Paper No 3, July 1997, pp 80-81.
36. Ibid, pp 75-76.
37. Ibid, p 78.
38. Surcsii Balakrishnan & Sita Sckhar, Public Services and the Urban Poor in Mumbai: A Report Card, Bangalore: Public Affairs Centre, May 1998, p 24.
39. Ibid.
40. UNDP, Corruption and Good Governance, p 80.
41. 41 Gray & Kaufman, 'Corruption and development', final paragraph.