PERSPECTIVES

jUNE 21, 2014 vol xlix no 25 EPW Economic & Political Weekly 42
Deepening Democracy
and Local Governance
Challenges before Kerala

M A Oommen
Keralas decentralised experience
has demonstrated that democracy
is more than just balloting. But
deepening democracy is a
continuous quest for justice and
freedom. While participatory
democracy has powerful
theoretical arguments, its
empirical basis continues to be
weak. This article explores how
far local governance in Kerala has
deepened democratic practice and
argues that the local governance
system in the state needs to be
reformed and redened.
K
eralas decentralised governance
is different from the rest of India
because it initiated institutional
reforms and moved ahead of others to
devolve powers, responsibilities and funds
to the local governments (LGs). After
nearly two decades of decentralisation
experience, this article explores two
questions. (1) How far has local govern-
ance in Kerala deepened democratic
practice? (2) What lessons does Kerala
offer to make democracy more meaning-
ful and valuable?
Conceptual Framework
Basically, deepening democracy means
making democracy relevant for the lives
that people live. The ideal conceptuali-
sation of democracy as the government
of the people, by the people, for the peo-
ple assumes meaning and content only
when its practice enhances the quality of
the lives that people live. Many includ-
ing scholars confuse democracy with
balloting and majority rule, and parti-
cipation as voting for competing elites
(e g, Schumpeter 1942, 1976; Huntington
1991). Far from it! Several institutions of
representative democracy, including the
party systems, are not fully answerable
and accountable to the people. In con-
cluding his edited volume that reviews
the journey of democracy from 508 BC
to 1993 AD, John Dunn (1992) points out
that present-day representative democ-
racy at best can provide only three serv-
ices: physical security, personal security
of subjects and the protection of a capi-
talist economy. Even at the height of its
present triumph, he points out that rep-
resentative demo cracy does not have
any unique claims to political authority.
For example, from the perspective of so-
cial justice and inclusive development,
representative demo cracy has no sup-
portive evidence or even arguments as a
unique form of organising political life for
the common good.
Deepening democracy is a continuous
process. It should be real at the local
community level. Hence it has a close
link to LGs. Two postulates that must
engage any quest towards deepening
democracy are: (a) the process should be
participatory and inclusive and (b) work
towards a strong public sphere. Partici-
pation in shaping peoples common
living is an intrinsic democratic value
which is realised best at the local level. A
lot depends on the quality of the institu-
tional arrangements created. While social
inclusion is an integral ingredient of
democracy, the terms of inclusion are
what make it meaningful. The appar-
ently inclusive caste system becomes
unacceptable because the terms of inclu-
sion of different people are iniquitous. A
society where inequality in income and
economic opportunities keeps widening,
even if there is poverty reduction, cannot
be inclusive. An inclusive democracy
should ensure dignity for all.
The idea of democracy as the use
of public reason has been advanced
by scholars like John Rawls, Jrgen
Habermas, Joshua Cohen, Amartya Sen
and several others. John Rawls A Theory
of Justice provides the moral basis for a
democratic society where justice is treated
as fairness. It is based on deliberative
rationality. As Rawls (1972: 4-5) observes:
[A] society is well-ordered when it is not
only designed to advance the good of its
members but when it is also effectively regu-
lated by a public conception of justice.
Rawls addresses the problems of social
and economic inequality as problems of
justice. For him inequalities in the distri-
bution of social and economic goods are
justied only if they work to the benet
of the most disadvantaged.
Habermas widens the scope of the
concept of democracy and treats demo-
cratisation as construction of public
sphere. For him, the public sphere
emerges historically as the result of a
process in which individual citizens are
made equal in their capability to demand
A summary of the keynote address delivered
at the opening session of the International
Conference on Deepening Democracy through
Local Governance (19-21 January 2014)
organised by the Government of Kerala at
Thiruvananthapuram.
M A Oommen (maoommen@gmail.com) is at
the Institute of Social Sciences, New Delhi.
PERSPECTIVES
Economic & Political Weekly EPW jUNE 21, 2014 vol xlix no 25 43
from the ruling class public accountability
as well as moral justication for state
actions. Through his various writings
Habermas advanced a radical procedur-
alist model of deliberative democracy in
which all major political decision-making
is linked to discursive processes of a
political public sphere. Here administra-
tive decisions reect the consensus that
emerges at the level of the public opinion.
However, in most democracies in con-
temporary world, the collapse of public
sphere is very perceptible. But publicity
continues to be an organisational principle
of our political order (Habermas 1991: 4).
So long as publicity is an accepted prin-
ciple of contemporary world, the case for
building a rational public sphere is un-
assailable. Wrong publicity can have
dangerous consequences. The question
of making public sphere meaningful and
dynamic in social life is, therefore, the
key to democratising democracy. In the
public sphere, new issues, new actors
(workers, women, marginalised people,
etc) come forward and argue out their
case by appealing to the best of reason.
This is the only way to break the elitistic
democratic traditions. To quote Habermas
(1984, Vol 1: 397):
If we assume that the human species main-
tains itself through the socially coordinated
activities of its members and that this coor-
dination has to be established through com-
munication and in certain central spheres
through communication aimed at reaching
agreement then the reproduction of the
species also requires satisfying the conditions
of rationality that is inherent in communica-
tive action.
In a later work Habermas (1996: 367)
points out:
the communication structures of the pub-
lic sphere must be kept alive by an active
civil society. The core of civil society com-
prises a network of associations that institu-
tionalises problems-solving discussion on
questions of general interest inside the
framework of organised public spheres.
He thus assigns a key role to civil society.
Given the diverse typology of civil society,
it is difcult to identify the truly demo-
cratic agents of social change. Habermas
is for a civil society that draws its suste-
nance from the everyday life of the people.
The quality of public sphere depends
on how best it is inuenced by public
reason without being manipulated by
populist leaders, and vested interests
which include the media. Habermas
highlights normative standards the me-
dia should follow to have meaningful
deliberative politics and public sphere.
He assumes that the public processes of
communication can take place with less
distortion the more they are left to the
internal dynamics of a civil society that
emerges from the life-world. The media
and political parties will also have
to participate in the opinion and will-
formation from the publics own perspec-
tive rather than patronising them and
extracting mass loyalty from the public
sphere for staying in power (ibid: 379).
Sometimes intellectuals and concerned
citizens raise issues which nd a natural
entry into mass media and from that
into public agenda. In brief, building and
maintaining a key public sphere based
on public reason is crucial to a good
democratic society. But Habermas is
criticised for not providing the link
between pubic reason and public policy
changes. Further his exclusive emphasis
on consensus as the aim of communica-
tion and his inadequate appreciation of
differences and dissent as something
necessarily to be overcome do not seem
to be practicable. Even so, his contribu-
tion to the theory and practice of demo-
cracy remains signicant.
Joshua Cohen, like Habermas, is a
radical democrat who owes a great deal
to the ideas of discursive democracy
of the latter. Surely, what we are looking
at is not aggregation of individual inter-
ests, but reasoned public outcome. But
this is a formidable task because of the
realities of organised social and admin-
istrative power. Cohen suggests direct-
ly-deliberative polyarchy (1999: 411) as
a practical improvement on Habermas.
While recognising the limits of legisla-
ture and administration in problem-
solving, he seeks to empower and facili-
tate it through directly-deliberative arenas
operating in closer proximity than the
legislature to the problem (ibid: 413).
The legislature can even declare certain
areas of policy such as education, en-
vironmental health, etc, to be addressed
by deliberative polyarchic action. There
are several areas and ways in which
democratic values and problem-solving
can be linked.
Amartya Sen is another scholar who
works for improving the quality of de-
mocracy. Besides his prolic writings on
agency, rights, capabilities and freedom,
he argues for a government by discus-
sion, based on public reason (the latter
idea he elaborates in his The Idea of
Justice). Sen critically supports Rawls,
Cohen and Habermas. He points out how
important openness of communication
and argument is for formation of value
(Sen 2009: 336).
Fundamental Values
In short, deliberation, building a public
sphere, direct participation of citizens
and working towards an inclusive society
are all fundamental democratic values.
Deepening democracy cannot be con-
ceptualised without reference to these
values which are critical for working
towards responsive, accountable and
participatory local governance. Boadway
and Shah (2009: 242) dene local gov-
ernance thus:
Good local governance is not just about pro-
viding a range of local services but also
about preserving the life and liberty of resi-
dents, creating space for democratic partici-
pation and civic dialogue, supporting market-
led and environmentally sustainable local
development, and facilitating outcomes that
enrich the quality of life of residents.
This is a comprehensive denition of
local governance. Given adequate support
through institutional reforms (as Kerala
has done), the 73rd/74th Constitutional
Amendments open great possibilities for
building local democracy. Contrary to
what scholars like Bardhan (2002) argue,
the approach underlying these amend-
ments is not to be considered as an ex-
tension of the scal federalism literature
of the west. The gram sabha (village
assembly) where all citizens are expected
to participate and deliberate on the
working of their LG, the constitutional
mandate to create institutions of self-
government to plan for economic devel-
opment and social justice, the establish-
ment of the district planning committee
(DPC) to consolidate local plans at the
district level and so on do not mesh well
with the scal federa lism postulates.
1

Keralas initiatives in institutionalising
several participatory mechanisms for
decentralised planning, devolution of
PERSPECTIVES
jUNE 21, 2014 vol xlix no 25 EPW Economic & Political Weekly 44
substantial investible resources to LGs,
enlisting support of women neighbour-
hood groups to bridge the gap between
LGs and communities are far removed
from the known norms of scal federalism.
Decentralisation:
Some Magnitudes and Trends
The degree of decentralisation to LGs
may be measured in terms of (a) the
magnitude of resources notably investi-
ble resources devolved by the higher
level governments to the LGs and the au-
tonomy given to manage them; (b) the
percentage of local expenditure to the
total public expenditure; and (c) local
expenditure as a percentage of gross
domestic product (GDP)/state domestic
product (SDP).
The rst major decision of the Left
Democratic Front (LDF) government that
came to power in mid-July 1996 was to
transfer 35-40% of the state plan outlay
(based on valid estimates) to LGs. This
was followed by the initiative of the
State Planning Board which worked out
through a learning by doing exercise, a
methodology for decentralised planning
to be pursued autonomously by the
LGs. Table 1 shows two measures of
devolution, viz, the ratio of LG plan
grant to state plan outlay and total
transfers as a ratio of states own tax
revenue (SOTR).
It is clear from Table 1 that
on an average from 1997-98
to 2011-12 the state has de-
volved nearly 25% of its in-
vestible resources (develop-
ment fund/plan outlay) to
the LGs and the annual devo-
lution ranges from 20.65% in
2009-10 to 33.33% in 2002-03.
The gure shows the per
capita transfers. Although the
nominal per capita transfers
show an almost steady in-
crease (1.53% per annum),
the real per capita numbers
using SDP deators at 1993-94
prices (with 1997-98=100)
increased only at a slower
pace (0.73%). The 15-year
average of the total resource
transfers including non-plan
transfers vis--vis the total
state tax revenue works out to 18.48%.
Although this is not a small achievement
in terms of the magnitude of devolution,
the steady decline in the fund ow to LGs
as a percentage of SOTR is a disturbing
one. In fact, in 1998-99, it was as high
as 28.7%, but declined to 14.87% in
2010-11. Although the LGs did not share
states tax revenue buoyancy, the per capi-
ta real transfers did not register a fall.
From a negligible share of a little over
4% of public expenditure and 0.73% of net
state domestic product (NSDP) in 1993-94,
there was a threefold jump to 12.04% and
2.40%, respectively, in 1998-99. These
were more or less stably maintained till
2011-12. But when compared to several
other countries, such as Latin America,
South Africa, not to speak of the Nordic
countries, Kerala lags way behind in
terms of public expenditure share and
GDP share (World Bank 2008: 296). The
development funds (previously called
plan grants) devolved are untied investi-
ble resources. The major conditionality
for the entitlement of plan grants by a LG
is the formulation and implementation of
a local plan. The creation of a multistage
process of planning, starting from call-
ing the ward sabha to identifying the
felt needs of the citizens, discussions at
the development seminar to projectisa-
tion by the various working groups, vet-
ting by technical advisory group and -
nal clearance by the DPC, has widened
the avenues for participation by people.
But deepening democracy is a continuous
pursuit. Unless assidu ously fostered, slip-
pages are bound to happen. The conclu-
sions of a Government of Kerala Report
(2009) appointed to evaluate decentrali-
sation are worth recalling:
When a great effort gets ritualised you cele-
brate the shadow; local democracy and the
multi-stage process of decentralisation re-
main in retreat. Fall in Gram Sabha/Ward
Sabha attendance, and manipulation of it,
the studied shying away by the upper class
and educated from Gram/Ward Sabha meet-
ings, the lling of expert bodies with parti-
sans (Working Group, Technical Advisory
Group, etc), preparation of projects by
clerks, complete lack of professionalism and
team work among DPC members and so on
have made decentralised governance a cari-
cature of what it ought to be (p 62).
Probably much could not be expected
in terms of deepening democratic prac-
tice so long as the entire process was
tied down to routine formulations of
annual plans.
Issues and Challenges
Strong political will to decentralise
along with efforts towards converting
every ward into a gram sabha for articu-
lating peoples preferences and evolving
a participatory methodology laid the
Table 1: Trend in the Devolution of Resources to Local
Governments (by the Kerala State Government 1997-98 2011-12)
Year Ratio of LG Total Transfers Per Capita Per Capita
Plan Grant to to LGs Transfers Transfers in
State Plan (Plan + Non- Plan) (Rs) Real Terms at
Outlay as Percentage 1993-94 Prices
of SOTR (Rs)
1997-98 26.23 23.24 337.07 337.07
1998-99 30.65 28.7 429.89 339.81
1999-2000 31.38 27.45 459.24 342.41
2000-01 29.56 24.95 471.97 344.88
2001-02 28.19 21.79 415.91 347.21
2002-03 33.33 24.84 584.51 350.81
2003-04 29.73 22.53 587.22 353.94
2004-05 28.13 20.99 606.06 357.02
2005-06 25.61 20.78 654.75 360.05
2006-07 22.54 17.17 660.48 363.00
2007-08 22.14 16.63 732.47 365.91
2008-09 21.69 15.36 791.5 368.78
2009-10 20.65 15.56 872.3 371.58
2010-11 22.72 14.87 1040.46 374.31
2011-12 23.24 15.45 1280.27 376.93
15 Year Ratio 24.98 18.48 624.82 356.91
Source: Worked out from CAG Reports for various years and Government of
Kerala (2011) and SOTR from Budget in Brief (various years), Government of
Kerala.
Figure: Per Capita Transfers in Nominal and Real Terms
0
200
400
600
800
1,000
1,200
1,400
1997-98 1998-99 1999-2000 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12
Per capita transfers in real term at 1993-94
base using SDP deflators
Nominal per capita transfers
PERSPECTIVES
Economic & Political Weekly EPW jUNE 21, 2014 vol xlix no 25 45
foundations for decentralised democratic
planning in Kerala. It demonstrated to
the world the powerful lesson that demo-
cracy is about more than balloting. But
deepening democracy is a continuous
quest with considerable instrumental
value for justice and freedom. It needs
progressive support. This has been a
great casualty. I wish to raise two general
postulates as already noted and some
specic issues that are fundamental to
strengthen the process of local govern-
ance in the state.
First, Keralas local governance should
be yoked to the goal of inclusive society.
Our concept of inclusive society is dif-
ferent from the amorphous concept of
inclusive growth
2
which is the avowed
goal set by the Eleventh and Twelfth
Five-Year Plans before the nation. As al-
ready noted, the terms of inclusion are
more important than the fact of inclu-
sion via a trickle down growth process. I
have argued elsewhere (Oommen 2013)
that reckoned in terms of measures of
distribution of land, per capita consumer
expenditure, wage income differentials,
social security entitlements and the like,
Kerala confronts growing inequalities.
Besides that, the service-led high growth
of the state during the last decade has
created a dual channelisation, modern
and traditional, that considerably accen-
tuates the polarised process of inequality.
The sherfolk, scheduled castes (SCs)
and scheduled tribes (STs) continue to
remain marginalised (for detailed evi-
dence, see GoK 2011, chapter 8). This
phenomenon cannot be ignored by any-
one genuinely concerned with deepen-
ing democracy. While LG projects like
Ashraya (a project to identify and reha-
bilitate the poorest of the poor in a LG)
as well as the recommendation of the
Fourth State Finance Commission for
inclusion of the excluded are impor-
tant steps the problem of inequality and
growing marginalisation of the poor
needs a comprehensive approach and
clear policy choices.
The second postulate relates to the
promotion of the idea of democracy as the
use of public reason. Although Keralas
public action tradition has been highly
commented upon by several scholars
(e g, Dreze and Sen 1989, 1995, 2002;
Jeffrey 1993), a public sphere, based on
public reason, has yet to take a rm shape
in Kerala. Public reason and the politics
of voice in Kerala including the ubiquitous
media have failed to become a counter
force to the endemic vested interests,
communalism, clientelism, alcoholism
and several other negative factors that
envelop Kerala society today. No civil
society of Kerala seems to be seized
of the matter. Even such mass-based
organisations like the Kudumbashree
and the Kerala Sasthra Sahitya Parishad
need considerable reorientation to be
the voice of reason and common good.
The gram sabha which was very active
during the early days of decentralised
planning has failed to become a local
public sphere.
The manner in which several issues
which are vital to the well-being of the
people and the future of local democracy
in the state were debated and responded
shows that public reason and scientic
communication are in retreat. That the
predators of nature could successfully
persuade the political parties and the
central and state governments to bypass
the reasonings of the Western Ghats Eco-
logy Expert Panel (widely known as the
Gadgil Committee) including their argu-
ment that ultimate decisions on local
space rest with the gram sabha shows that
public reason is at a discount. Even so,
that the people of Plachimada panchayat
in the Palakkad district, despite initial
resistance, successfully fought their case
against Coca-Cola on the basis of scien-
tic facts relating to pollution and deple-
tion of groundwater shows that proper
communication and public reason could
be made the basis for deepening demo-
cracy and building local public sphere in
Kerala. But these are exceptions, and
certainly not the rule.
Conclusions
There are four specic issues that need
to be addressed to strengthen local gov-
ernance in the state. First, the nancial
reporting system of LGs in Kerala contin-
ues to be generally unreliable, irregular
and inconsistent. Good nancial report-
ing is the key to proper monitoring,
good nancial management and the
best way to reduce corruption. Keralas
local government needs con sistent data
at least for seven accounts (development
fund, state-sponsored schemes, general
purpose fund, maintenance fund, centrally-
sponsored schemes (CSSs), own source
revenue and borrowed funds) for the
ve tiers (district panchayat, block
panchayat and gram panchayat, corpo-
rations and municipalities) of the local
governance system. This can happen
meaningfully only when LG budgeting
is made an integral tool of scal man-
agement. But most LGs treat budgeting
as a necessary evil. Local budgets do not
attract debates as at the state and union
level. The income expenditure numbers
given have no sanctity. Budgets are
not strategically tied to planning. It is
difcult to obtain valid and consistent
budget data, annual nancial statements,
demand, collection and balance (DCB)
data, and so on from most of the LGs.
That all the 1,209 LGs have internet
connectivity and they are currently net-
worked through the Information Kerala
Mission offers hope for building trans-
parent and accountable local govern-
ance in the state. This is a major chal-
lenge. In most municipal budgets of the
world, such as in Brazil, the local budget
is the point of peoples entry.
Second, over the years the decentral-
ised planning methodology followed in
Kerala has changed not necessarily for
the better. While changes are needed
they should work towards more demo-
cratisation. The hallmark of decentral-
ised planning in its earlier vintage was
the participatory structures such as the
gram sabha meeting, the working group
for projectisation and the development
seminar. The latest guidelines, however,
involve 14 stages and each stage is guided
by the rule book and bureaucracy.
3
So
long as planning is a routinised annual
exercise, democratic participation loses
meaning. It is for the local people
to prepare the vision of their future
deve lopment, their sectoral perspective,
planned development trajectory, and so
on. But mixing up administrative and
pro fessional responsibilities with parti-
cipation of people in regard to vision
statement, expression of priorities,
moni toring and so on, can be confusing
and at times counterproductive. In this
PERSPECTIVES
jUNE 21, 2014 vol xlix no 25 EPW Economic & Political Weekly 46
context, the following ndings of an
informed scholar need to be taken up for
further debate:
Citizens and participatory spaces will con-
tinue to partake in imagining future devel-
opment, identifying development needs and
problems, deliberating on alternative solu-
tions, helping formulate projects, forming
public opinion on prioritisation, reviewing
development intervention by different tiers
of government, and above all demanding re-
sponsiveness and accountability. But par-
ticipatory institutions will not take over pub-
lic administration or replace experts/admin-
istrative agencies (Harilal 2013: 59).
In order to promote the democratisa-
tion process, all executive and statutory
measures should facilitate the process of
democratisation. Although preparation
of the long-term district development
plan (Article 234 ZD) could be an ideal
platform for people, administration and
technocrats to cooperate, Kerala has yet
to make it an integral part of the states
development landscape. The multiplici-
ty of guidelines that the central govern-
ment and the Planning Commission
have issued in the context of various
CSSs has added confusion to the making
of district planning. Keralas Kollam
District Plan is widely acknowledged as
a realistic methodology with a partici-
patory approach (GoI 2013: 487) and
certainly needs to be given a fair trial in
the state. How far it could be made an
instrument for deepening democracy
through local governance is a challenge
not only for the state, but also for
the nation.
Third, while public health is a joint
responsibility of all tiers of government,
waste management is the primary respon-
sibility of LGs. The return of vector-borne
diseases like malaria, dengue fever and
the like has placed the proverbial public
health model of Kerala under threat. I
wish to draw particular attention to
Chapter III of Report of the Comptroller
and Auditor General of India (Local Self-
Government Institutions) for the Year
Ending March 2011 on Thiruvanantha-
puram Corporation to illustrate that rea-
sons and facts have been sidelined on
vital issues. The corporation and the
states public health department col-
lectively will have to see why vector-
borne diseases have come back with a
vengeance. Apportioning blame and
engaging in a war of words is a political
game for evading issues and certainly
not the way of public reason.
Fourth, the trifurcation of the local
government administration of Kerala
under three separate ministries effected
from May 2011 goes counter to the con-
stitutional mandate to create organic
institutions of self-government at the
local level. Deepening democracy through
local governance is a great vision and
has to be fostered in an integrated fash-
ion. The mandated district plan formula-
tion requires an integrated planning of
the district space as a whole and calls for
comprehensive solutions. Political com-
promises do not stand scrutiny at the
court of public reason.
To conclude, Keralas decentralised
experience has demonstrated that demo-
cracy is about more than balloting. But
deepening democracy is a continuous
quest for justice and freedom. While
participatory democracy has powerful
theoretical arguments, its empirical basis
continues to be weak. Local governance
system needs to be reformed and rede-
ned as an ongoing project. A society
where inequality in income and eco-
nomic opportunities keep widening, even
when poverty is reduced, is not socially
inclusive. Kerala has a very dynamic and
politically active public, but its associa-
tional life is getting highly fragmented.
There is a need to strengthen the
communicative system based on public
reason so that Keralas public sphere,
including its local public sphere, gets
progressively oriented on a rational
democratic footing.
Notes
1 The scal federalism literature is best presented
in Oates (1972, 1999). For a brief review of
scal federalism literature and their relevance
for Indian local governments see Oommen
(2005).
2 On this see Oommen (2011).
3 Government of Kerala (2013), Twelfth Five-Year
Plan (2012-17); LSGI Plan Formulation, Subsidies
and Allied Subjects Related Guidelines, GO/
M.S/No.362/2013 LSGI, Thiruvananthapuram,
16 January 2013.
References
Bardhan, Pranab (2002): Decentralisation of
Governance and Development, Journal of
Economic Perspectives, Vol 16, No 4.
Boadway Robin and Anwar Shah (2009): Fiscal
Federalism: Principles and Practice of
Multi- order Governance (New York: Cambridge
University Press).
Cohen, Joshua (1999): Reections on Habermas
on Democracy, Ratio Juris, Vol 12, No 4.
Dreze, Jean and Amartya Sen (1989): Hunger and
Public Action (Oxford: Clarendon Press).
(1995): India: Economic Development and Social
Opportunity (New Delhi: Oxford University
Press).
(2002): India: Development and Participation
(New Delhi: Oxford University Press).
Dunn, John, ed. (1992): Democracy: The Unnished
Journey 508 BC to AD 1993 (New York: Oxford
University Press).
GoI (2011): Report of the Western Ghats Ecology
Expert Panel, The Ministry of Environment and
Forests, Government of India, New Delhi.
(2013): Towards Holistic Panchayat Raj,
Twentieth Anniversary Report of the Expert
Committee on Leveraging Panchayats for Ef-
cient Delivery of Public Goods and Services, Gov-
ernment of India, New Delhi.
GoK (2009): Report on Committee for Evaluation
of Decentralised Planning and Development,
Government of Kerala, Thiruvananthapuram.
(2011): Report of the Fourth State Finance
Commission Vol I & II, Government of Kerala,
Thiruvananthapuram.
Habermas, Jurgen (1984): The Theory of Communi-
cative Action, translated by Thomas Burger
with the assistance of Frederick Lawrence
(Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press).
(1991): The Structural Transformation of the
Public Sphere, translated by Thomas Burger
with the assistance of Frederick Lawrence
(Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press).
(1996): Between Facts and Norms, translated by
William Rehg (Cambridge, Massachusetts:
MIT Press).
Harilal, K N (2013): Confronting Bureaucratic
Capture: Rethinking Participatory Planning
Methodology in Kerala, Economic & Political
Weekly, Vol XLVIII, No 36, September.
Huntington, Samuel P (1991): How Countries Demo-
cratise, Political Science Quarterly, Vol 106,
No4 (Winter 1991-92).
Jeffrey, Robin (1993): Politics, Women and Well-
being (New Delhi: Oxford University Press).
Oates, Wallace E (1972): Fiscal Federalism (New
York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich Inc).
(1999): An Essay on Fiscal Federalism, Jour-
nal of Economic Literature, 37, September.
Oommen, M A (2005): Rural Fiscal Decentralisa-
tion in India: A Brief Review of Literature in
L C Jain (ed.), Decentralisation and Local Gov-
ernance (New Delhi: Orient Longman).
(2011): On the Issue of Inclusive Growth ,
Economic & Political Weekly, Vol XLVI, No 29.
(2013): Growth, Inequality and Well Being:
Revisiting Fifty Years of Keralas Development
Trajectory (under publication).
Rawls, John (1972): A Theory of Justice (Oxford:
Clarendon Press).
Schumpeter, A Joseph (1942, 1976): Capitalism,
Socialism and Democracy, Fifth Edition (New
South Wales, The United Kingdom: George
Allen & Unwin).
Sen, Amartya (2009): The Idea of Justice (London,
Allen Lane, Penguin Books).
World Bank (2008): Decentralisation and Local
Democracy in the World (Washington DC:
The World Bank and United Cities and Local
Governments).