Understanding the Role of Participation in Public Service Delivery: Evidences from Rural West Bengal, India

REFERENCES

• Aitken, M. (2010). Planning: Empowerment or social control? A three-dimensional view of public participation in Scottish land-use. Planning Theory, 9(3), 248–264.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Akinboade, A. O., Mokwena, M. P., & Kinfack, E. C. (2013). Understanding citizens’ participation in service delivery protests in South Africa’s Sedibeng district municipality. International Journal of Social Economics, 40(5), 458–478.
   Google Scholar
• Banerjee, A. V., Banerji, R., Duflo, E., Glennerster, R., & Khemani, S. (2006). Can information campaigns spark local participation and improve outcomes? A study of primary education in Uttar Pradesh, India. World Bank Policy Research Working Paper 3967. Washington, DC: World Bank.
   Google Scholar
• Banerjee, A. V., Banerji, R., Duflo, E., Glennerster, R., & Khemani, S. (2010). Pitfalls of participatory programs: Evidence from a randomized evaluation in education in India. American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, 2(1), 1–30.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bardhan, P., & Mookherjee, D. (2012). Political clientelism and capture: Theory and evidence from West Bengal, India. Working Paper 2012/97. Helsinki, Finland: United Nations University-WIDER.
   Google Scholar
• Behar, A., & Kumar, Y. (2002). Decentralisation in Madhya Pradesh, India: From panchayati raj to gram swaraj (1995 to 2001). Working Paper 170. London, England: Overseas Development Institute.
   Google Scholar
• Besley, T., Rao, V., & Pande, R. (2005). Participatory democracy in action: Survey evidence from South India. Journal of the European Economic Association, 3(2/3), 648–657.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brandsen, T., & Pestoff, V. (2008). Co-production, the third sector and the delivery of public services: An introduction. In T. Brandsen & V. Pestoff (Eds.), Co-production. The third sector and the delivery of public services (pp. 1–9). London, England: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Briscoe, J. (1997). Lesson for the water sector. Washington, DC: World Bank.
   Google Scholar
• Brodie, E., Cowling, E., & Nissen, N. (2009). Understanding participation: A literature review. London, England: Institute for Volunteering Research, NCVO, IVR and INVOLVE.
   Google Scholar
• Chambers, R. (1994). Participatory rural appraisal (PRA): Analysis and experience. World Development, 22(9), 1253–1268.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chattopadhyay, R., Chakrabarti, B., & Nath, S. (2010). Village forums or development councils: people’s participation in decision-making in rural West Bengal, India. Commonwealth Journal of Local Governance, Special Issue, 66–85.
   Google Scholar
• Chattopadhyay, R., & Duflo, E. (2004). Efficiency and rent seeking in local governments: Evidence from randomized policy experiments in India. Mimeo. Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
   Google Scholar
• Cornwall, A. (2004). Introduction: New democratic spaces? The politics and dynamics of institutionalized participation. IDS Bulletin, 35(2), 1–10.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cotlear, D. (2000). Peru: Reforming health care for the poor. LCSHD Paper Series No. 57, Human Development Department. Washington, DC: World Bank.
   Google Scholar
• De, A., Khera, R., Samson, M., & Shiva Kumar, A. K. (2011). PROBE revisited: A report on elementary education in India. New Delhi, India: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Devrajan, S., & Shah, S. (2004). Making services working for India’s poor. Economic and Political Weekly, 39(9), 907–919.
   Google Scholar
• Dreze, J., & Sen, A. (1995). India: Economic development and social opportunity. New Delhi, India: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Government of India. (2011). Roadmap for the panchayati raj (2011–16): All India perspective. New Delhi, India: Ministry of Panchayati Raj, Government of India.
   Google Scholar
• Hoddinott, J., Adato, M., Besley, T., & Haddad, L. (1999). Participation and poverty reduction: Issues, theories and new evidence from South Africa. Washington, DC: World Bank.
   Google Scholar
• Hust, E. (2004). Women’s political representation and empowerment in India: A million Indiras now? New Delhi, India: Manohar Publications.
   Google Scholar
• Isham, J., & Kahkonen, S. (1999). What determines the effectiveness of community based water projects? Evidence from Central Java, Indonesia on demand responsiveness, service rules and social capital. Social Capital Initiative Working Paper No. 14, Social Development Department. Washington, DC: World Bank.
   Google Scholar
• Isham, J., Narayan, D., & Pritchett, L. (1995). Does participation improve performance? Establishing causality with subjective data. World Bank Economic Review, 9(2), 175–200.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jimenez, E., & Sawada, Y. (1999). Do community managed schools work? An evaluation of El Salvador’s EDUCO programme. World Bank Economic Review, 13(3), 415–441.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Koutsoyiannis, A. (2001). Theory of econometrics. New York, NY: Palgrave.
   Google Scholar
• Marschall, M. J. (2004). Citizen participation and the neighbourhood context: A new look at the co-production of local public goods. Political Research Quarterly, 57(2), 231–244.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ostrom, E. (1996). Crossing the great divide; co-production, synergy, and development. World Development, 24(6), 1073–1088.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pammer, W. J. (1992). Administrative norms and the co-production of municipal services. Social Science Quarterly, 73, 920–929.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pandey, P., Goyal, S., & Sundararaman, V. (2010). Public participation, teacher accountability and school outcomes in three states. Economic and Political Weekly, 75(24), 75–83.
   Google Scholar
• Paul, S., Balakrishan, S., Gopakumar, K., Sekhar, S., & Vivekananda, M. (2004). State of India’s public services: Benchmarks for the states. Economic and Political Weekly, 39(9), 920–933.
   Google Scholar
• Pritchett, L., & Woolcock, M. (2004). Solutions when the solution is the problem: Arraying the disarray in development. World Development, 32(2), 191–212.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rai, S. M., Bari, F., Mahtab, N., & Mohanty, B. (2006). South Asia: Gender quotas and the politics of empowerment – A comparative study. In D. Dahleup (Ed.), Women, Quotas and Politics (pp. 222–246). London, England: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Reinikka, R., & Svensson, J. (2002). Assessing frontline service delivery. Development Research Group. Washington, DC: World Bank.
   Google Scholar
• Roy, M. N. (2008, May). Parisheba pradan O panchayat (Panchayat and service delivery). Panchayati Raj, 1(6), 5–15.
   Google Scholar
• Sharp, E. (1980). Toward a new understanding of urban services and citizen participation: The co-production concept. Midwest Review of Public Administration, 14(2), 105–118.
   Google Scholar
• Shvedova, N. (2005). Obstacles to women’s participation in parliament. In J. Ballington & A. Karam (Eds.), Women in parliament: Beyond numbers (pp. 93–110). Stockholm, Sweden: International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance.
   Google Scholar
• Von Braun, J., & Grote, U. (2000). Does decentralization serve the poor? Paper presented on INF Conference on fiscal decentralization. Washington, DC: International Monetary Fund.
   Google Scholar
• Webster, N. (1992). Panchayati raj and decentralisation of development planning in West Bengal: A case study. Calcutta, West Bengal: K.P. Bagchi & Co.
   Google Scholar
• Williams, G. (2004). Evaluating participatory development: Tyranny, power and (re)politicization. Third World Quarterly, 25(3), 557–578.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• World Bank. (2004). World development report: Making services work for poor people. Washington, DC: Author.
   Google Scholar