District Consolidation
Thesis And Anti-Thesis

By Mukti Rijal

THE capital city is always abuzz with seminars, workshops and meetings. Some seminar workshops are really useful and specific enough while others end up with dismal note. Recently there was a discourse organised in one of the hotels of the capital city where one could notice tremendous enthusiasm, manifest sense of purpose and living curiosity among the discussants. The speaker was Dr. Harka Gurung and the organizer of the event was Society for International Development Nepal Chapter. The theme of the discussion was fragile districts: futile decentralisation. A galaxy of intellectual elites, planners and development ideologues rarely seen in the seminar going circuit also attended the programme. As the subject of the discourse was very interest rousing and critical those with stakes- intellectual and applied- on development, governance and decentralisation could not but get tempted to attend such interaction.

Prof. Biswakeshar Maskey, president of the Society for International Development Nepal Chapter set the tone for discussion as he articulated ‘ Hyper mobility of capital and information pits one layer of governance against another for investments and resource allocation that limits the capacity of the local self governance units to carry out autonomous policies in the social and economic spheres. The question before us is: what are the right ways of organising local governance and development? How are public goods to be provided? What are the options in terms of capability and sustainability of institutions?’ Dr Harka Gurung in his presentation provided an outline of the decentralisation related efforts in Nepal and said that the power sharing is contingent on the relative strength of the contending parties. In case of Nepal the centre is too pervasive and districts too weak without economic viability. Dr Gurung in his paper circulated among the discussants putforth ‘On an average a terai district was 10.9 times more resourceful than a mountain district. Sample of four districts by elevation zone shows much contrast in both income source and total internal internal revenue. This ranges from Rs 75,000 for Bajhang (mountain) to Rs 21.6 million for Kailali (Terai). Dr Gurung writes in the paper ‘ Higher the elevation of the district, greater the dependence on grant. Thus, the DDCs are utterly dependent on central grant even for their district adminstration. Decentralisation of authority to such entitties without fiscal autonomy has been an exercise in futility. Of the seventy five districts sixty four are in deficit. Among the four districts with a deficit exceeding Rs 2000 million, Doti, Surkhet and Dhankuta have regional offices. Twenty nine districts have a deficit of Rs100-150 million range. Most of these are hill and mountain districts. Five Terai, four hill, three mountains and one inner terai district has a deficit of less than Rs 100 million. Bara has the lowest deficit of Rs 13 million. Only eleven out of the seventy five districts are surplus. These include seven terai, three hills and one inner terai. Based on these data and other substantiation Dr Gurung proposed that the districts should be consolidated and their numbers should come to twenty five. Though Dr Gurung has been advocating for consolidation of the districts for long, this time the debate has spilled on to public discourse , comments and scrutiny. It is to be noted that the Dr Gurung emphasised on the need to make districts viable from economic point of view in an interview he had given to Sunday Despatch -the English weekly of the Gorkhapatra Corporation some years ago which has already gone out of publication. Dr Gurung talked to the Decentralisation Bulletin of the Institute of Governance and Development about the rationale why the number of the districts should be curtailed for consolidation. Similarly, Dr Gurung argued for Pachhis Zilla Ko Nepal (Nepal of twenty five districts) in one of the lead articles published in Himal- the prominent vernacular fortnightly. Dr Gurung thus seems steadfast and consistent in his proposition.

Dr Gurung’s proposition provoked appreciative and critical comments from the elites and scholars present in the event. Dr. Badri Prasad Shrestha-former vice chairman of the National Planning Commission- argued that the economic basis can not be the only criteria for district consolidation. He contended that the revenue from the Biratnagar customs should not be calculated as the exclusive income for the Morang district to prove economic viability. That is the national income. He said physical resource base, economic integration, equitable development, interdependence and interaction merit consideration. Dr Bal Gopal Baidya cast his doubts on the proposition saying how feasible would be the consolidation of the districts from political point of view. Reduction of the districts may not entail tightening on the expenditures. Mr Bihari Krishna shrestha termed the proposition for district consolidation as too simplistic and such a reductionist approach goes against diversity.

Dr, Jagadish Chandra Pokharel-incumbent National Planning Commission member-pleaded that the increase in size does not automatically lead to increment in revenue growth and remarked that no one can say about what should be the ideal size of the districts. It differs from context to context. Mr Shailendra Kumar Upadhyaya stressed on the need to give consideration to cultural, ethnic and linguistic factors while mulling over the issue of district consolidation. Durgesh man Singh argued that there was a trend of making local units smaller in India and elsewhere. Proposition on the district consolidation may not be worthwhile. Dr Purna Kant Adhikari talked at length about the manifestation of the centralist tendencies and said that there should be reining in on them. Dr Parthibeswor Timilsina argued that efficiency, effectiveness and participation not the size should be the central criteria.

Dr Harka Gurung’s thesis has provoked discussion and it is time this should be furthered. It is very difficult to say whether redemarcation of the district is an insurance for decentralisation but the issue needs to be discussed. The debate would add new perspective to decentralisation in the country.

What Ails Nepalese Bureaucracy

By Rebati Raman Paudel

Management experts do not seem to be unanimous when they are supposed to define the concept of managerialism. It is because of this disagreement on the subject that gives way to controversy about the role played by public administration and public service in the process of reaching the goals of the organizations. The interesting thing noticeable in this regard is that the academicians differ from the public servant’s view about the nature of work that the people involved in government service perform. A frequently asked question is whether the services offered by the public servants should be regarded as managerial or administrative.

The traditional school of thought endorses the opinion that there is no managerial role for the public servants. To this school, the primary concern of such people rests with administration. Denial of any role of management to the public servants, being the characteristics of the traditionalists, their opinion is losing relevancy in the world. Thus, it is no wonder that the traditional view of the role of the public servants is now accused of being inefficient and ineffective. Public management, as opined by the contemporary experts on management, is something that accommodates the differences between the public and private sectors. It accepts the public servants work as an example of managerial service.

Puzzling

Sometimes the terms like administration and management are puzzling mainly because these words are not uniformly defined. Although the words, administration and management can easily substitute each other the reality is different. They are not synonyms as sometimes they are erroneusly considered to be. The debate associated with the uniform definition of managerialism also centers around the points that draw a line because these two terms is not free from the criticism for vagueness. The modern authorities on management hold the view that it is not only the issue of the lack of conceptual clarity because the demand for management, unlike administration, is commonly regarded as a fundamentally different basis of action by those who direct the public sector.

Should one endeavour to find the correct definition of the words in the English language dictionary, one would find it more confusing because for a simple reason that there is no precision in defining the above words. The Oxford dictionary defines administration, ‘as an act of administering’. Based on this definition we can interpret the word administration to mean, to manage the affairs of. But the term management has been defined more broadly than the word administration.

A cursory examination of definitions leads us to conclude that both the words administration and management carry different meanings and there is no reason to contend that they are synonyms. Management implies something more than what administration stands for. The former has a room for individual activity which is associated with the job of a public servant. Administration seeks to confine to the corridors of activities connected with things like maintenance of records and information processing. It is more directed to paper work, and activities concerned with the application of rules, procedures and policies determined by others. Considering this, it can be argued that administration, unlike management has limited scope for individuals to exercise their independent judgement when they are doing the public service.

Management is best defined as "the process, activity or study of carrying out the task of ensuring that a number of diverse activities are performed in such a way that a defined objective is achieved especially the task of creating and maintaining conditions in which desired objectives are achieved by the combined effort of group of people (which include the person carrying out the management) and also a group of people within an organization who are primarily concerned with the management of the organization.

In short, public administration can be taken as an activity that involves the service of the people but in which the public servants carry out policies essentially derived from other. Providing very limited flexibility for the individuals’ own thinking in the conduct of affairs-public administration focuses on the translation of policies and programmes into practice. Public management, on the other hand, involves organization to achieve objectives with maximum efficiency, as well as genuine responsibility for results.

Public management concept understood in the light of the above clarification is hardly practices in the Nepalese bureaucracy which is one of the fundamental reasons responsible for the unsatisfactory results from a nation’s public service. Notwithstanding, the several findings published following the institution of commissions and committees to look into the problems of the bureaucracy and ways to rectify the past mistakes, no commendable measure seems too have been undertaken to ameliorate the situation. Our civil service is suffering from many chronic diseases, to stamp out which requires a vision at the political level with complete disregard for petty party interests. No matter how many times we endeavour to bring about amendments in the existing rules and regulations, status quo will remain unless a new thinking is applied when the top ranking government officials are allowed to work not only as administrators who simply carry out the procedural matter without having to use their directions for the benefit of the public service organizations but as real managers who assume policy making roles.

Dedication

Let there be an environment to ensure the assumption of the role of true managers by our senior public servants who may feel that they have positive contributions to make the realization of the lofty objectives of the organization they are involved in. At a time of increased challenges of giving pace to economic development of the country that necessiates the mandarins of our civil service to take up responsibilities more sincerely and with dedication, their non-acceptable as the genuine managers of the institutions they are supposed to lead, does raise legitimate question whether we are heading towards the right direction in making the maximal use of the expertise, skills and competence of the government people for the welfare of countrymen.

Taking Out An Insurance Policy

By Uday Lama

THOSE Kathmanduites who understand and acknowledge the futilities and fatalities of life do not hesitate to have themselves covered under insurance schemes. It is but a step to safeguarding one’s life and posessions through monetary compensation. After the initial hassle it needs only the signature on the dotted line to be eligible to be a policy-holder.

There are several insurance firms operating in and around the valley which provide security in such fields as accidents, damages incurred by fire and theft and burglary. These are all managed and run by private entrepreneurs who are eyeing a growing market.

Not to be outdone are the insurance agents who persuade potential clients to take out a policy—with no base to call their own and surviving only on the goodwill shown by them and the company. Yet they play an instrumental role in getting a message across – the general and particular benefits of having oneself covered just in case.

Filing for a policy may cause one a bit of headache and there could be procrastination because of the pros and cons. But eventually a decision is arrived at with or without outside help and the line is crossed. There is no saying how the extra effort expended in the right direction can prove to be boon.

Being aware of the implications of such a move does help in recognising the risks of not having oneself covered in time. No one can foresee or prevent the onset of an incident that can occur any moment. Being insured does minimize the costs involved and pays out the claims to damages.

But there is a catch here for one has to pay a premium every month on a regular basis. This is only a small price to pay for that feeling of security and peace of mind. And there is every guarantee that the payment will be returned tenfold or a hundredfold if the case requires it. This is in short the legal nature and working policy of every insurance firm and there is no undermining it. But the case registered must be genuine and the complaint of a personal nature.

Before one decides on which firm to do business with it is important to check out its history (however brief it may be), background and the number of cases handled. One should also bear in mind that any relations with the guarantor of the papers – checked and duly signed – have to be on solid grounds. And there should be no falsification or half truths right from the beginning.

Any loophole in the clauses written down for good effect has to be taken care of at the outset before the whole thing can make sense. The company-client relations are based on mutual trust and goodwill and any exchange of money is taken in good faith. This is a continuing affair that lasts for many years and nothing can shake it.

For after all it is an image building exercise and no promotional campaign can alter the initial impression or the status quo for both parties has a stake in it. And the momentum has to be carried forward through thick and thin even though there is actual loss and no sign of a profit. The dividends comes from making contacts at the local level and providing services to the clients without immediate returns.