Abstract
In this article, published reports have been used for analysing state-wise status of SDGs achievements and their correlations with attainments in areas of poverty-reduction and other developmental indicators. Also, progress made by GPs on various metrics related to SDGs has been corroborated with other relevant metrics. For effective functioning and service-delivery capacity of panchayats, it is necessary that they are sufficiently empowered with functions and responsibilities as per aspirations of the provisions of the 73rd Constitutional Amendment, 1993, strengthened with basic infrastructure and technical man- power to harness the full potential of digitisation and also incentivised for augmenting their own sources of revenue.
Introduction
Effectiveness of various developmental and social welfare programmes may increase manifold by synergistic convergence in planning, implementation and monitoring of such programmes at the panchayat level. Gram panchayats (GPs), being constitutionally and legislatively mandated and closest to the people, can ably anchor this responsibility through community participation. Localising implementation of the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), at the panchayat level, may substantially strengthen the prospect of achieving these goals by the year 2030.
Nearly 68% of the population of India lives in rural areas. Rural economy contributes about 46% of the national income (Research and Information Division, 2021). Provisions of basic physical and social infrastructural facilities in rural areas as prevalent in urban areas are essential. India being a signatory to the United Nations 2030 Agenda for Achieving Sustainable Development through seventeen identified goals,1 achievement of these goals in villages by 2030 will substantially help in realising this aspiration.
Assessing the present status on achievement of these seventeen goals at the panchayat and state levels will facilitate in setting the goal-wise roadmap. Readily available data sources which may fulfil this requirement are: (a) SDG India Index Score (SDG, 2020) published by NITI Aayog2 scoring states/UTs in achievement of SDGs through respective targets, (b) Multi-dimensional Poverty Index (MPI 2021) developed by NITI Aayog3 capturing deprivation levels of states/UTs across three dimensions of health, education and standard of living and (c) Mission Antyodaya 2020 Survey4 (MA, 2020) conducted by Department of Rural Development which provides the status of villages across 137 parameters covering twenty-nine subjects listed under the Eleventh Schedule of the Constitution.
Accordingly, these published reports have been used here for analysing SDG-wise prevailing status and their correlations with attainment in areas of poverty-reduction and other developmental indicators. Besides this, for localisation and achievement of SDGs at grassroots levels, Union Ministry of Panchayati Raj (MoPR) has amalgamated seventeen SDGs into nine local target-based themes, namely, (a) poverty-free and enhanced livelihoods village, (b) healthy village, (c) child-friendly village, (d) water-sufficient village, (e) clean and green village, (f) self-sufficient infrastructure in village, (g) socially-secured village, (h) village with good governance, and (i) women-friendly village.
In the following sections, a brief discussion is presented on the state’s incremental performance on SDGs during the year 2020 in comparison to the year 2019. For convergent planning and implementation of a large number of activities with the involvement of communities at the panchayat level, it is critical that panchayats are empowered with adequate powers and responsibilities as well as resources as per constitutional provisions. In this context, the significance of panchayats in localising the implementation of SDGs at the grassroots levels has been discussed.
Subsequently, saturation level of states/UTs on various parameters of MA 2020 Survey and its improvement over the year 2019 has been discussed, which helps in projecting the likelihood of achieving saturation level by the year 2030. Further, using the mapping of Localisation of SDGs (LSDGs) themes and MA 2020 sectors, an estimation of average percentage of facilities available in a representative village under nine LSDG themes has also been made
Through a mapping of nine LSDG themes with relevant sectors under MA 2020 Survey, implication of better facilities in villages on lower incidences of poverty and how devolution of powers to the panchayats can help in poverty reduction through resource mobilisation and delivering better services to the people has been examined. From the analysis, it emerges that the states which have done better on Devolution Index are generally having lower poverty levels. States have also been categorised through a matrix on MPI and Devolution Index depicting that the states which have done better on devolution are having lower poverty levels.
Finally, a way forward for realising SDGs in rural areas by 2030 has been suggested in the concluding section. Key suggestions made are for effective functioning and service-delivery capacity of panchayats, it is necessary that panchayats are sufficiently empowered with functions and responsibilities as per aspirations of the provisions of the 73rd Constitutional Amendment. It is also critically important that the panchayats are strengthened with basic infrastructure and technical manpower along with delivery-oriented capacity-building of its elected representatives so that the full potential of digitisation can be harnessed. So also, for augmenting resources of the panchayats, they need to be encouraged and incentivised appropriately to use their tax and non-tax revenue collection mandates.
Status of States on Achieving SDGs
The seventeen SDGs are measured by 232 specific indicators, connected to 169 numbers of targets. SDG India Index Dashboard of NITI Aayog measures India’s performance on sixteen SDGs except for SDG 17 (partnership for the goals) as indicators for this has not been identified in the National Indicators Framework. As per this dashboard, the composite score of India on the identified indicators for each of the sixteen SDGs for the year 2020 is 66 with all states/UTs falling under the category of either frontrunner (score 65–99) or performer (score 50–64). Fourteen states/UTs are below the national average (66), both in composite score for Year 2020 and also percentage improvement in composite score over the Year 2019 (national average of improvement is 10%). This has been presented in Table 1.
Localisation of SDGs
The 73rd Constitutional Amendment Act, 1992, mandates states to endow panchayats with such powers and authority to enable them function as institutions of self-government to plan and implement the schemes for social justice and eco- nomic development on twenty-nine subjects listed in the Eleventh Schedule of the Constitution.
For achieving the seventeen SDGs at the national level, it is imperative to ‘localise’ the implementation of SDGs at the village or gram panchayat level by setting targets as per prescribed framework. In the year 2021, MoPR constituted
Table 1. States/UTs Lagging Behind in Progress of Achieving SDGs
an Experts’ Group which recommended a thematic approach for localising and achieving SDGs through panchayats by aggregating seventeen SDGs into nine LSDG themes and local targets aligning with National Targets. The twenty-nine subjects and SDGs, which are further mapped to LSDG themes, are quite compatible with each other.5
As of now, 389 local indicators have been worked out on LSDG themes. These indicators will facilitate mapping and convergence of the activities of various governmental flagship programmes. This approach would facilitate the states/UTs in achieving SDGs in a time-bound manner, mainly the states lagging behind the national average. The comprehensive reports on LSDGs outlining these details are available on ministry’s portal https://panchayat.gov.in/hi/web/ministry-of- panchayati-raj-2/akam-iconic-week-11-17-april-2022 (Ministry of Panchayati Raj, 2021).
Through Gram Panchayat Development Plan (GPDP), MoPR has provided a framework for evidence-based planning process for around 2.62 lakh Panchayati Raj Institutions with around 27.82 lakh elected representatives, more than 14 lakh (46%) being women. This planning process runs parallel to MA Survey conducted by the Ministry of Rural Development in every village. These GPDPs are accessible on https://gpdp.nic.in/andeGramSwaraj portal at https://egramswaraj.gov.in/
A Brief Note on Process of Operationalisation of LSDG
Thematically at Panchayat Level
Out of the nine LSDG themes, a brief description has been given on one theme, namely, ‘Healthy village’. This theme addresses two SDGs, that is SDG 3 (good health and wellbeing) and SDG 2 (Zero Hunger). A ‘Healthy Village’ or GP can be defined as one which ‘ensures healthy lives and wellbeing for all ages’. For this, a GP is expected to:
1. Achieve 100% target of pregnant women’s registration in first trimester, institutional delivery, growth monitoring of children below five years, weight tracking of all pregnant women, four Antenatal care ANC check- ups of pregnant women, full immunisation of children and coverage of all children (six months to six years of age group), pregnant and lactating women under ICDS.
2. Ensure no gender-biased abortions, no domestic violence or child marriage, nutritious mid-day meals in schools, clean and safe drinking water, telemedicine facility and so on.
3. Monitor sanitation and nutritional status of malnourished children.
4. Reduce maternal deaths, infant and child mortality, severe underweight in children and so on.
5. Promote early and exhaustive breastfeeding; home-based nutritious, low-cost and locally available food for children up to six months of age, kitchen-gardening, menstrual health management, use of toilets, family planning services, mental health awareness and so on.
For the remaining themes, the report on LSDGs as stated above may be referred to.
Stakeholders’ Role
The key stakeholders in achieving LSDGs are ministries/departments of Central and state governments, panchayats, United Nations agencies, academic institutions, civil society organisations and so on. Their key roles are mentioned as follows:
• Central and state governments may focus on convergence in planning, implementation and monitoring of developmental programmes, training of panchayats’ elected representatives and functionaries, awarding panchayats for good work, data-sharing, record-keeping, effective information, education and communication and documentation of best practices.
• United Nations/Academic institutions can act as a knowledge partner and provide technical support to ministries and panchayats.
• As institutions of self-government to plan and implement schemes, gram panchayats need to prepare quality GPDP, map resource envelope and local indicator framework with MA Survey data, liaison with line departments for implementation of activities and monitoring the progress of the schemes.
MA 2020 Survey and Status of GPs
Inputs on preparation of evidence-based GPDPs mostly flow through MA Survey carried out concurrently with People’s Plan Campaign. The basic unit of MA Survey is village. Data on twenty-nine transferred subjects at GP level are collected through this survey and are used for generating GP-wise ranking and Gap Reports. The details of MA Survey can be accessed on portal https://missionan- tyodaya.nic.in/
There are around 137 scoring parameters under MA 2020 Survey against which GPs are assessed and ranked.6 Out of these parameters, thirty-four parameters have been analysed relating to availability of facilities. As per this analysis, 31% of the facilities are available in a representative village on an average. Among states and UTs, Kerala is the top performer with an average score of 49, followed by Gujarat and Tamil Nadu, with average scores of 43 and 39, respectively. State-wise performance is shown in Figure 1.
Also, percentage of facilities on thirty-four MA 2020 Survey parameters on an average basis in a representative village has been shown in Table 2
The national average of 31% of the year 2020 of MA Survey shows an improvement of about 10% over the year 2019, which was 28%. Trending on similar lines, average percentage of the year 2022 may be around 40% (Ministry of Law and Justice, 2022). However, on many of the parameters indicated at sl. nos. 1–10 in Table 2, average saturation level is already more than 50%. Further, with the implementation of LSDGs, this trend may show accelerated improvement and saturation level beyond 80% on most of the parameters can be achieved by the year 2030.
Table 2. Performance Gradation of Thirty-four Parameters Under MA 2020 Survey
MA 2020 Survey Analysis (Saturation Level) with Respect to LSDG Themes
A mapping of LSDG themes and relevant sectors under MA 2020 Survey has been attempted and shown in Table 3 based on LIF for relevant LSDG themes which correspond with relevant activity of concerned MA sector. This will help in approximately estimating the present level of saturation of these nine themes in states/UTs.
Using the mapping of LSDG themes and MA 2020 sectors, as shown in Table 3, an estimation of average percentage of facilities available in a representative village (saturation level) under all 9 LSDG themes has been presented in Table 4.
Data represented in Table 4 indicate that at national level, on an average, 35% of the facilities/infrastructure are available in a representative village under all nine LSDG themes. As per MA 2020 Survey analysis made in the section, 31% of the facilities are available in a representative village on an average. Thus, our thematic mapping with parameters of MA 2020 Survey seems to be quite reasonable.
Further, percentage of villages arranged in decile categories of average number of facilities available is depicted in Figure 2. This reveals that more than 60% of villages on an average are having more than 30% of facilities as in the year 2020.
Multidimensional Poverty
Several of the LSDGs are closely related to indicators of the National Multidimensional Poverty Index (MPI) Report 2021 published by NITI Aayog which seeks to measure poverty across three equally weighted dimensions, that is health, education, and standard of living represented by twelve indicators.7 The ‘health’ dimension includes parameters of nutrition, child mortality and maternal health, ‘education’ dimension includes parameters pertaining of school attendance and years of schooling and ‘standard of living’ dimension includes parameters of access of household to basic services such as electricity, clean cooking fuel, improved and safe drinking water, improved sanitation, pucca housing (proper flooring, roof and walls), bank account and household assets.
Correlating Three Dimensions of Multidimensional Poverty Index (MPI 2021) Vis-à-vis MA 2020 Performance
Further, to establish a correlation between MPI and MA, a comparative analysis of the MPI 2021 percentage score of states vis-à-vis ten key parameters of MA 2020 Survey, which have considerable implications for various aspects of poverty, has been attempted and presented in Table 5.
Trend lines of these two indicators have been shown in Figure 3. Clearly, the MPI 2021 and MA 2020 indicators are negatively correlated with a correlation coefficient of −0.68. The implication is that better facilities in the villages reflect lower incidences of poverty and vice versa.
MPI 2021 Dimensions (Health, Education, and Standard of Living) Versus MA 2020 Parameters
Further to the broad analysis of ten key parameters of MA 2020 Survey having considerable implications on various aspects of poverty with MPI 2021 made in the section, MPI 2021 dimension-wise correlation with these MA 2020 parameters has been attempted and presented in Table 6. This analysis corroborates the negative correlation between these two metrics as discussed in the earlier section.
Saturation Level of GPs, That Is Average Percentage of Facilities Available (LSDG Theme-wise) Versus MPI 2021 score
Going forward, as it is proposed for LSDG-focussed planning at panchayat level, it is important to see how each of the nine LSDG themes has a correlation with the deprivation levels of MPI 2021. Accordingly, using the mapping of LSDG themes and MA 2020 sectors as shown in Table 3, a comparative analysis of the MPI 2021 with LSDG theme-wise saturation level has been attempted and the same has been presented in Table 7. All the themes show negative correlation coefficient (not produced here) and the average correlation coefficient of all themes is −0.56. Thus, the states having less percentage of multi-dimensionally poor people have achieved higher levels of saturation on all nine themes and vice versa.
Devolution of Powers to Panchayati Raj Institutions
As discussed earlier, the 73rd Constitutional Amendment mandates panchayats to be enabled to function as units of local self-governance. ‘Panchayat’, being a state subject, is incumbent on the states to devolve the commensurate powers related to funds, functions and functionaries of the twenty-nine subjects. Studies have shown that in some states, the extent of devolution is robust and in others, it is still a work in progress. Devolution Study conducted by the Tata Institute of Social Sciences in 2015–2016 (Ministry of Panchayati Raj, 2015–2016)8 prepared an index of devolution which analyses actual devolution happening in the field. The indicators reflect the status of devolution on matters related to functions, functionaries and financial autonomy to the panchayats. The weightage of these parameters is shown in Table 8.
The ranking of states in Devolution Index is shown in Figure 4.
Devolution Index Versus MPI 2021 Versus MA 2020 Survey: Correlation
It will be useful to analyse whether devolution affects the performance of panchayats and influences the living standard of people in Panchayats. A correlative analysis of the Devolution Index (DI 2015–2016), MPI 2021 and MA 2020 has been attempted and presented in Table 9. The correlation coefficients of DI 2015–2016 versus MPI 2021 and DI 2015–2016 versus MA 2020 Survey is −0.17 and 0.64, respectively. Thus, the states having higher level of devolution are having less percentage of multi-dimensionally poor people and also having higher MA 2020 score.
The correlation coefficients computed above clearly indicate that greater devolution of powers to panchayats with functional responsibilities as mandated by the Constitution in all likelihood help in poverty reduction and promote holistic development as measured by parameters of MA 2020 survey.
Devolution Index and per Capita Own Source of Revenue (OSR) of Gram Panchayat
A higher amount of own source of revenue (OSR) can help panchayats deliver better services to the people and advance the causes of good governance.
Also, for effective functioning of panchayats, it is essential that they have enough decision-making autonomy and also resource-mobilisation capacity. A study con- ducted in the year 2021 by the National Council of Applied Economic Research on various issues related to the challenges faced by panchayats on augmenting their own sources of revenue (OSR 2021), among several observations, highlights that the local bodies can function effectively if they have enough decision-making and planning autonomy.
From the above-mentioned study, the data on state-wise per-capita OSR mobilised has been shown in Table 10 and so also, the respective normal index of devolution as discussed in the earlier section. The correlation coefficients of these two metrics (DI 2015–2016 and OSR 2021) come out to be 0.42, demonstrating that enhanced devolution and OSR mobilisation influence each other positively.
Categorisation of States Based on Their Performance on MPI 2021 and DI 2015–2016
As explained earlier, lower MPI 2021 scores and higher DI 2015–2016 scores of states are associated with higher developmental performance and better standards of living. Further, for better understanding, the states have been categorised under four categories as per their performance under the above two metrics and represented in Table 11. This categorisation will enable focussed attention on low-performing states.
The states in the above matrix have been divided into following four performance categories:
1. Category 1: These are the states which have achieved devolution higher than the national average of 47 and also have MPI lower than the national average of 20.64 (as per analysis for twenty-four states). Hence, these states can be called as well-performing states on these metrics.
2. Category 2: These are the states which have MPI lower than the national average but need to do well in terms of devolution as the DI is lower than the national average.
1. Category 3: These are the states which have DI greater than national average but MPI is higher than the national average. Hence, these states may require effective implementation of developmental programmes.
2. Category 4: These are the states which have DI lower than national average and also their MPI is higher than the national average. Therefore, these states need to work more effectively on both devolution of powers to panchayats and implementation of developmental programmes.
Way Forward
The states with better DI (2015–2016) and MA 2020 score, as listed in category 1, may most likely achieve SDGs by the year 2030. This projection follows from the discussions made in the sections above. However, some of the states, particularly in categories 3 and 4, may need to work out a graduated structured plan detailing the short-term (two to three years), mid-term (four to six years) and long-term (six to nine years) milestones for achieving these goals in the given timeframe. Based on these analyses, a brief action plan of key interventions is mentioned as follows:
Strengthening the panchayats through effective devolution of funds, functions and functionaries in a time-bound manner as per the provisions of the 73rd Constitutional Amendment, particularly in the field of health, education, nutrition, drinking water and sanitation, livelihood and so on.
1. Panchayats need to be strengthened with basic infrastructure and technical manpower along with delivery-oriented capacity-building of its elected representatives to harness the full potential of digital technology for a transparent, convergent and participative planning, and accordingly, implementation of a large number of governmental programmes.
2. Panchayats need to be empowered, encouraged and incentivised to use their tax and non-tax revenue collection powers as mandated in the 73rd Constitutional Amendment for augmenting their resources.
These interventions may also enable large numbers of panchayats to function as hubs of economic activities.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, author- ship and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship and/or publication of this article
Notes
1. SDGs website: https://sdgs.un.org/
2. SDG Index India Dashboard—NITI Aayog.
https://sdgindiaindex.niti.gov.in/#/ ranking
3. ‘National Multidimensional Poverty Index Baseline Report’ (2021)—NITI Aayog.
4. MA 2020 survey. https://missionantyodaya.nic.in/
5. Details on MoPR’s website at
https://cdnbbsr.s3waas.gov.in/s316026d60ff9b54410b- 3435b403afd226/uploads/2023/02/2023021879-1.pdf
6. MA survey scoring methodology: Under MA 2020 survey, score is given out of
7. 100 marks for the parameters relating to 29 subjects listed under the Eleventh Schedule of the Constitution.
8. Details on MoPR’s website at
https://cdnbbsr.s3waas.gov.in/s316026d60ff9b54410b- 3435b403afd226/uploads/2023/02/2023021879-1.pdf
9. Devolution Report 2015–2016, Ministry of Panchayati Raj.
References
1. Ministry of Law and Justice. (2022). The Constitution of India. https://legislative.gov.in/ sites/default/files/COI_English.pdf
2. Ministry of Panchayati Raj. (2015–2016). Devolution report 2015–2016. https://www.panchayat.gov.in/documents/448457/0/Devolution+Report+2015-16.pdf/338f86ed-a6da-13ca-719b-2d41b467da93?t=1633331634500
3. Ministry of Panchayati Raj. (2021). Localization of sustainable development goals in PRIs report of the expert group. https://panchayat.gov.in/web/ministry-of-panchayati- raj-2/akam-iconic-week-11-17-april-2022
4. Mission Antyodaya (MA). (2020). Survey dashboard. https://missionantyodaya.nic.in/ ma2020/
5. National Council of Applied Economic Research. (2022). Study to assess the availability of resources for creating the assets and initiatives taken for generating various own sources of revenue.
https://www.ncaer.org/publication/study-to-assess-the-availability- of-resources-for-creating-the-assets-and-initiatives-taken-for-generating-various-own- sources-of-revenue
6. NITI Aayog. (2021). National multidimensional poverty index baseline report. https:// www.niti.gov.in/sites/default/files/2021-11/National_MPI_India-11242021.pdf
7. Research and Information Division. (2021). Research note: COVID-19 and its impact on rural economy. Parliament Library and Reference & Research, Documentation and Information Service, Parliament of India. http://164.100.47.193/Refinput/New_ Reference_Notes/English/28012021_175458_102120474.pdf
8. Sustainable Development Report. (2020). The sustainable development goals and COVID-19. University of Cambridge Press. https://s3.amazonaws.com/sustainablede- velopment.report/2020/2020_sustainable_development_report.pdf
