3 - Running City Governments
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 06 August 2021
Summary
Following the decentralisation reforms, city governments were expected to perform a wider and more complex set of policy functions than before. For infrastructure services, they needed physical systems, processing plants and distribution networks previously controlled by the state government. Importantly, they also needed to plan, coordinate and implement in more complex ways, for which they needed new work systems, procedures and implementation methods – which state agencies had developed over the years. City governments would also need to transform themselves into ‘policy entrepreneurs’ (Montero and Samuels 2004; Petridou and Mintrom 2020).
It is in grassroots implementation that any policy finds its ultimate shape, whatever be the intent, as shown by Lipsky (2010) and others. For decentralised service delivery, the final implementer is the local government. It is in the local government that new work procedures have to emerge and sustain. ‘Work procedures’ are the specific methods and sequences through which decisions are taken and implemented within the government organisation. If a bulb in a streetlight fails, how does the local government proceed to respond? If there is a request to extend the sewerage line to a new neighbourhood, how does the local government tackle it? Sound procedures should bring about the intended outcome in an effective and fair manner, apart from being legally compliant.
Local governments also have to devise new procedures to deal with multiple agencies and actors, both within the government and outside it. Previously, specific departments were ‘owners’ of specific policy outputs whereas policy implementation permeates departmental boundaries in the present era of network governance. Hence, emphasis should be on interconnected policy implementation processes rather than only the ability to manage government departments and operations (Conteh and Huque 2014). Local governments need to not only renew their in-house procedures of work but also develop capabilities to deal with matters that cross organisational boundaries. But among our three chosen states, Tamil Nadu and particularly Kerala city governments did not develop such capabilities. An elected representative in Thrissur (Kerala) notes:
It is difficult to get things done here. The minister knows this but is not able to push [for effective implementation]. We propose many city projects, but nothing comes of them, we are not able to implement [them]. There are many problems. Project ideas and project efforts are wasted.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Governing LocallyInstitutions, Policies and Implementation in Indian Cities, pp. 77 - 106Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2021