Small State Lead to Better Governance.Myth or Reality
Small State lead to better Governance. Myth or Reality?
Starting with 16 states in 1971,India is today a union of 29 states with the creation of Telengana Though earlier, the states were re-organised on linguistic basis, the big states have proved to be unwieldy in terms of governance
Urbanisation explains a major part of the growth story and that is not just true in Andhra Pradesh but in Most other parts of Andhra Pradesh are laggard regions too, not only Telangana, most Indian states. Since the late 1990s, the Andhra Pradesh leadership focused its attention on promoting the state, primarily Hyderabad, as a major platform for the ICT industry; the R&D sector, especially in the pharmaceutical industry and some industries in the manufacturing sector
One can see that conditions in Jharkhand, Chhattisgarh or Uttaranchal -- states that were carved out of Bihar, Madhya Pradesh and Uttar Pradesh respectively are no better today than they were in the pre-bifurcation period. What it has done, however, is add three more chief ministers, dozens of state ministers and create large bureaucracies.
All that the division of states does is to create additional bureaucracies, more chief ministers and his/her council of ministers and a large and fast growing public administration system over time which consumes, to my mind, a huge amount of public resources which I'd rather spend on schools, health clinics, provision of clean drinking water, roads and so on."
I do not subscribe to the view that smaller the size of the states will help them develop better or faster. I haven't come across any empirical evidence to show that the smaller size had led to better management or development
Small states are vulnerable to be taken over by closed groups or lobbies. This can defeat the purpose of establishing small states and the benefits associated with it. A few greedy politicians in collusion with mining and real estate lobbies can derail empowerment of the poor in the otherwise
Starting with 16 states in 1971,India is today a union of 29 states with the creation of Telengana Though earlier, the states were re-organised on linguistic basis, the big states have proved to be unwieldy in terms of governance
Urbanisation explains a major part of the growth story and that is not just true in Andhra Pradesh but in Most other parts of Andhra Pradesh are laggard regions too, not only Telangana, most Indian states. Since the late 1990s, the Andhra Pradesh leadership focused its attention on promoting the state, primarily Hyderabad, as a major platform for the ICT industry; the R&D sector, especially in the pharmaceutical industry and some industries in the manufacturing sector
One can see that conditions in Jharkhand, Chhattisgarh or Uttaranchal -- states that were carved out of Bihar, Madhya Pradesh and Uttar Pradesh respectively are no better today than they were in the pre-bifurcation period. What it has done, however, is add three more chief ministers, dozens of state ministers and create large bureaucracies.
All that the division of states does is to create additional bureaucracies, more chief ministers and his/her council of ministers and a large and fast growing public administration system over time which consumes, to my mind, a huge amount of public resources which I'd rather spend on schools, health clinics, provision of clean drinking water, roads and so on."
I do not subscribe to the view that smaller the size of the states will help them develop better or faster. I haven't come across any empirical evidence to show that the smaller size had led to better management or development
Small states are vulnerable to be taken over by closed groups or lobbies. This can defeat the purpose of establishing small states and the benefits associated with it. A few greedy politicians in collusion with mining and real estate lobbies can derail empowerment of the poor in the otherwise