IADP, IRDP, Panchayati Raj, NGOs and Evaluation
(PGS 505 — Rural Development, Lecture 3)
This lecture moves from one-size programmes to concentrated, integrated and institution-based rural development: first the package approach to agriculture (IADP) and the integrated anti-poverty programme (IRDP), then the institutions that carry programmes out (Panchayati Raj and NGOs), and finally how programmes are evaluated and why they often fall short.
1. Intensive Agricultural District Programme (IADP)
Launched: 1960 (agricultural year 1960–61). Also called: the Package Programme.
First seven districts: Thanjavur (Tamil Nadu), West Godavari (Andhra Pradesh), Shahabad (Bihar), Raipur (Madhya Pradesh), Ludhiana (Punjab), Aligarh (Uttar Pradesh) and Pali (Rajasthan). A second phase added nine more districts in 1963–64.
Background and Idea
A Ford Foundation expert team (report of 1959) advised the government to make an intensive effort to raise food production in selected districts using modern inputs, credit and marketing support. The central idea was that increased agricultural productivity would lead to economic growth, which would bring welfare to society. The programme combined technical know-how, credit and production supplies, and aimed to show that production could rise rapidly when all factors of production were concentrated at the same time in areas with the best conditions. Agriculture, like any industry, needs heavy initial investment before it becomes self-generating. IADP therefore moved from the multipurpose approach of community development to an agriculture-focused package approach.
Preparatory Stage
- Selection of districts with assured water supply, freedom from natural hazards, a well-developed cooperative credit structure and maximum potential for quick production gains.
- Strengthening cooperative institutions and creating awareness among people.
- Selection, posting and training of staff; a benchmark survey of organisation and resources; assessment of input needs.
- Building or hiring godowns, strengthening transport, and setting up an implements workshop and seed and soil testing laboratories.
Implementation Stage
Coverage was phased: 20% of the area in the first year and 65% by the end of five years, so that people could understand the philosophy first. Main features:
- Individual farm and village production plans: a simple plan for most farmers and a detailed one for progressive cultivators.
- Timely and adequate credit and inputs based on the production plan; cooperative marketing societies; better transport.
- Intensified extension education through demonstrations and information media; analysis and evaluation of the programme.
Distinctive Features
- Factors of production were known earlier, but now were supplied simultaneously, in time and in adequate quantity.
- Essential inputs such as fertilisers were to be available to 100% of requirement.
- Credit was no longer restricted to previously credit-worthy farmers; any farmer with a farm production plan and potential for higher yield could receive it.
- More agricultural and cooperative staff were posted; composite demonstrations replaced single-factor demonstrations, and their economics were worked out; staff received periodic training.
Shortcomings
- Weak educational approach; emphasis was on getting farmers to join the programme.
- Unclear staff training; some VLWs were below standard; staff were target-minded, even in preparing production plans.
- Inadequate and late staff posting; poorly functioning workshop, seed-testing and soil-testing laboratories.
- Slow progress in transport and land development; farmers not using pesticides, fungicides and seed treatment on their own.
- Communication problems; very little work in animal husbandry and fisheries; stereotyped production plans; very little participation by women.
What Followed
The package approach was extended as the Intensive Agricultural Areas Programme (IAAP, 1964–65) and then the High Yielding Varieties Programme (HYVP, kharif 1966–67), which linked directly to the Green Revolution.
2. Integrated Rural Development Programme (IRDP)
Launched: 1978–79 in about 2,300 blocks; extended to all blocks of the country from 2 October 1980. Funding: centrally sponsored, shared equally by Centre and States. Agency: District Rural Development Agency (DRDA) in each district.
Background
Earlier programmes had separate target groups and areas (small farmers, marginal farmers and labourers, drought-prone areas, command areas). IRDP was started to bring these efforts together as one poverty-alleviation programme. It began in blocks that were already special programme areas (SFDA, DPAP and CAD), with further blocks taken up for area planning for employment, before being extended to every block.
Working
- Target group: poor rural families, such as small and marginal farmers, agricultural labourers and rural artisans.
- Method: help to families to acquire income-generating assets and skills, through a combination of subsidy and institutional (bank) credit.
- Delivery: DRDA at district level, with block-level planning of beneficiaries.
Related Programmes and Outcome
- TRYSEM (1979): training of rural youth for self-employment.
- DWCRA (1982): development of women and children in rural areas.
- IRDP and its allied schemes were restructured and merged into SGSY on 1 April 1999, which shifted the emphasis to SHGs and credit.
3. Sampoorna Grameen Rozgar Yojana (SGRY)
Launched: 25 September 2001, a centrally sponsored scheme formed by merging the Employment Assurance Scheme (EAS) and the Jawahar Gram Samridhi Yojana (JGSY). Operational from: 2002–03.
Objective: additional wage employment in rural areas, along with food security and the creation of durable community, social and economic infrastructure. It was self-targeting, with special emphasis on women, Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and parents of children withdrawn from hazardous occupations.
- Two streams: the first at district and intermediate Panchayat level and the second at village Panchayat level, each with 50% of the funds.
- Outlay: ₹10,000 crore, with 50 lakh tonnes of foodgrains provided free to States each year and the rest used for wages and materials. The cash component was shared 75:25 between Centre and States.
- Wages: 5 kg of foodgrains per day of work as part of wages, with the balance paid in cash so that notified minimum wages were assured.
- Works: drought proofing, soil and moisture conservation, watershed development, traditional water resources, afforestation, link roads, school buildings, dispensaries, veterinary hospitals, marketing infrastructure and Panchayat Ghars.
- Monitoring: overall supervision by the Zila Parishad, with vigilance and monitoring committees, officer visits and independent evaluation.
Unlike NREGA (Lecture 2), SGRY was a scheme and not a legal guarantee.
4. Panchayati Raj Institutions (PRIs)
Panchayati Raj Institutions are local self-governing bodies of elected representatives in rural areas. With the stress on democratic decentralisation, PRIs are given a crucial role in implementing most rural development programmes.
Concepts
Democracy comes from the Greek demos (people) and cracy (rule): government of the people, by the people, for the people.
Decentralisation is the distribution of power and functions from a central authority to regional and local authorities. Narain (1981) described democratic decentralisation as widening people’s participation, authority and autonomy by devolving power to people’s representative bodies in three dimensions: political decision-making, financial control and administrative management, with minimum interference from higher levels.
Panchayat comes from pancha, five: a council of five. Traditionally it was an assembly of elders settling disputes by local custom. Panchayati Raj today is a constitutional, elected and decentralised unit of rural self-government that enables people, especially the weaker sections, to take part in decisions and local management.
Historical Development
- Village councils are ancient, with informal, custom-based panchayats continuing through the medieval period; colonial rule centralised control.
- The Constitution (1950) directs the State to organise village panchayats (Article 40), but practice varied widely across States.
- Balwant Rai Mehta Committee (1957), set up to examine community development and NES, recommended a three-tier structure of Gram Panchayat, Panchayat Samiti and Zila Parishad. Rajasthan was the first State to adopt it, in 1959.
- 73rd Constitutional Amendment Act, 1992, in force from 24 April 1993, gave PRIs constitutional status.
73rd Amendment: Key Features
- Three-tier Panchayats in States with a population above 20 lakh; the Gram Sabha at the base.
- Direct elections of members; regular elections every 5 years.
- Reservation: seats for SC and ST in proportion to population and at least one-third of seats for women (several States have raised this to 50%).
- Independent State Election Commission and State Finance Commission.
- Panchayats prepare plans for economic development and social justice and implement schemes in relation to 29 subjects of the Eleventh Schedule, and may levy and collect taxes, duties, tolls and fees.
- Funds come from three sources: grants recommended by the Central Finance Commission, funds for centrally sponsored schemes, and State releases on the State Finance Commission’s recommendations.
Basic Principles of Panchayati Raj
- A three-tier structure of local bodies from village to district.
- A genuine transfer of power and responsibility, with adequate resources.
- All development programmes at the three levels handled through these bodies.
- A system that allows further decentralisation in future.
The Three Tiers
| Tier | Composition | Main functions |
|---|---|---|
| Gram Panchayat (village or group of villages) | Elected from wards by the Gram Sabha (all adult voters of the village); headed by the Sarpanch; a secretary and village-level worker assist. Reserved seats for women, SC and ST. Meets at least once every six months. | Representative (voicing community opinion); regulatory and administrative (regulating conduct, collecting taxes); service and development (education, health, agriculture). Includes public health and sanitation, water supply, street lighting, maternity and child welfare, birth and death registration, village roads, tanks, wells and drains, and promotion of agriculture, cooperatives and cottage industries. |
| Panchayat Samiti (block) | Intermediate tier and main executive body at block level; the Block Development Officer (BDO) is the government-appointed chief executive and leader of the block officers. Membership typically includes Sarpanches of the block and representatives of reserved groups, with legislators in many States. President and Vice-President are elected by the members. | Block administration; preparing, executing and coordinating development programmes; plans for agriculture, animal husbandry, fisheries, small industries, health and cooperatives; approving Panchayat budgets and supervising Gram Panchayats; managing elementary schools. |
| Zila Parishad (district) | Includes heads of the Panchayat Samitis, members of Parliament and State legislators of the district, and reserved-group representatives, with the elected Chairperson and Vice-Chairperson. District officers, such as the Collector, provide guidance and assistance. | Executing and coordinating rural development plans in the district; approving Panchayat budgets and distributing funds; supervising Panchayat Samitis; advising government on rural development schemes. |
Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads work through standing committees on subjects such as education, planning, industries, social welfare and finance.
5. NGOs and Voluntary Organisations in Rural Development
Why Voluntary Organisations?
The World Conference on Agrarian Reform and Rural Development (Rome, 1979) observed that many rural development programmes in developing countries failed mainly for lack of people’s participation, and that participation could best be brought about by voluntary organisations that work closely with people and understand their needs.
Voluntary organisation: an agency, organised or unorganised, that works for the welfare of a community of its own volition. It is generally non-political, secular, non-profit, non-governmental and philanthropic, and works through programmes and projects to eradicate poverty.
Special Features
- Voluntary action, innovativeness and commitment among workers.
- Flexibility to suit local conditions; minimum procedural formalities.
- High motivation and a better grasp of people’s needs and problems.
Functions
- Facilitating communication between people and government.
- Helping communities identify and voice their needs.
- Supporting participation and group formation.
- Training and building the capacity of community groups.
- Channelling resources to the community level.
Examples of well-known Indian voluntary organisations include the BAIF Development Research Foundation (formerly Bharatiya Agro Industries Foundation) and MYRADA (Mysore Resettlement and Development Agency). Funding comes from government, non-government and foreign agencies, and donations.
Weaknesses
- Many are headed by strong, dominant personalities with little devolution of authority, which makes them a “one-man show”.
- Recruitment is often based on personal considerations.
- Over-dependence on funding agencies and government rather than local resource mobilisation.
- A tendency to blame other agencies in case of failure.
6. Evaluation of Rural Development Programmes
The success of a programme depends largely on effective delivery and implementation at the grassroots, so that benefits reach the rural poor in full measure. The Ministry of Rural Development therefore uses a multi-level, multi-tool system of monitoring and evaluation, especially for poverty alleviation and employment schemes.
Monitoring Mechanisms
- Performance Review Committee; review meetings between Union and State ministers and officers.
- The Area Officer Scheme and field visits by officials.
- Periodic progress reports, audit and utilisation certificates, and video conferencing.
- Vigilance and Monitoring Committees at State and district levels, including Members of Parliament, State legislators, representatives of PRIs and NGOs, to bring transparency.
- District-level monitoring through external agencies, with periodic reporting and physical verification of assets created.
- National Level Monitors, usually retired senior officials, who inspect programmes and verify complaints.
- E-governance: online reporting by District Rural Development Agencies.
Evaluation Studies
- Quick and concurrent evaluation of major programmes while they are running.
- Impact assessment studies at village level in selected districts, by reputed institutions.
- Documentation of case studies, success stories, best practices and lessons learnt, and assessment of stakeholder views and institutional issues.
- Identifying gaps in implementation at village, block, district and State levels.
The monitoring portals and committee names in use change over time, so check current Ministry guidelines for the latest arrangements.
7. Constraints in Implementing Rural Development Programmes
| Constraint | Explanation |
|---|---|
| Inadequate coordination | Programmes are meant to be planned by the DRDA together with other departments, financial institutions and people’s representatives, but these agencies often stick to their own approaches, so cooperation and coordination fail. |
| Inadequate funds | Rural sectors are traditional and need heavy investment to change technology and uplift weaker sections. Funds are allocated in fixed amounts, and the share for local problems is often small. |
| Leakage of benefits | Programmes aim at small and marginal farmers, labourers, artisans, SC/ST and deprived women, but benefits often reach non-target groups. |
| Low sustaining impact | Assets created through credit and subsidy, especially livestock, are often short-lived and do not raise the beneficiary’s production and productivity. Lack of awareness about programmes adds to this. |
| Welfare over productivity | Most programmes follow welfare principles with credit and subsidy components. Very high subsidy and expectation of loan write-offs reduce the motivation to be productive. |
| Too generalised | Programmes are designed for general rural problems and neglect specific local and area issues. They should be micro in nature and growth-oriented. |