Hindistan Eyaletlerinde Yönetişim: Eyaletler Arası ve Eyalet İçi Analizi

Öz

İyi yönetişim yapıları politika oluşturmayı geliştirebilir, ancak bu tür politikaların sonuçları, ulusal düzeyle karşılaştırıldığında eyalet düzeyinde farklılık gösterir. Yönetişim üzerine uluslararası ve ulusal düzeyde çok sayıda çalışma varken ulus altı düzeyde az sayıda çalışma bulunmaktadır. Literatürde çok sayıda kapsamlı yönetişim endeksi mevcuttur ancak yönetişimin kavramsallaştırılmasını ve operasyonelleştirilmesini uyumlu hale getirme ihtiyacı devam etmektedir. Bu çalışma, iyi yönetişim ilkelerini (Birleşmiş Milletler Kalkınma Programı (UNDP, 1997) tarafından verildiği şekliyle), 2002-2016 dönemini içerecek şekilde üç Hindistan eyaleti için yönetişim endeksi oluşturmak üzere, 75 değişken içeren 8 alt-boyutta ele almaktadır. Üç eyalet, yani Haryana, Andhra Pradesh ve Bihar sırasıyla yüksek, orta ve düşük kişi başına Gayri Safi Eyalet Hasılasını (GSDP) temsil edecek şekilde seçilmiş ve yönetişim performanslarının eyaletler arası ve eyalet içi analizi ANOVA ile yapılmıştır. Sonuçlar, Andhra Pradesh’in yönetişim performansının yüksek GSDP’ye sahip Haryana’nınkini aştığını, en az GSDP eyaleti Bihar’ın yönetişim performansının ise en kötü olduğunu göstermektedir. Bu, iyi yönetişim ve yüksek ekonomik büyümeye kıyasla zayıf yönetişim ile düşük GSDP arasında daha güçlü bir bağlantı olduğunu göstermektedir. Düşük büyüme gösteren eyaletler için yönetişim ve ekonomik büyümeyi iyileştirmeye yönelik politikalar kapsamlı ve bütünleşik bir yaklaşım izlemeli, yüksek büyüme gösteren devletler için ise yönetişimi iyileştirmeye yönelik politikalar ayrı yönetişim parametrelerine yönelik hedefli bir yaklaşım izlemelidir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Yönetişim endeksi
• Ekonomik büyüme
• ANOVA
• Hizmet sunumu
• Alt ulusal

Governance in Indian States: An Inter and Intra State Analysis

Öz

Good governance structures can enhance policy making, but the outcomes of such policies differ at the state level as compared to the national level. While there are abundant international and nation level studies on governance, there are few studies on sub-national analysis. Numerous comprehensive indices of governance exist in the literature, but the need to harmonize conceptualization and operationalisation of governance remains. This paper takes principles of good governance categorized into sub-dimensions comprising 75 variables to construct governance index for three Indian states for the time period from 2002 to 2016. The three states i.e. Haryana, Andhra Pradesh and Bihar are selected to represent high, middle and low per capita Gross State Domestic Product (GSDP) respectively and an inter-state and intra-state analysis of their governance performance is done using one-way Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) and Tukey and Games-Howell post-hoc tests for pair-wise comparisons. Results show that governance performance of Andhra Pradesh exceeds that of high GSDP state Haryana, while that of least GSDP state Bihar is the worst. This suggests a stronger link between poor governance and low GSDP compared to good governance and high economic growth. Policies for improving governance and economic growth for low growth states should follow a comprehensive and unified approach, while for high growth states, policies to improve governance should follow a targeted approach towards separate governance parameters.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Governance Index
• Economic growth
• ANOVA
• Service delivery
• Sub-national

Kaynakça

1. Beaman, L., Duflo, E., Pande, R., & Topalova, P. (2006). Women politicians, gender bias, and policy making in rural India. UNICEF, New York. google scholar
2. Bertucci, G. (1999). Economic Governance Guidelines for Effective Financial Management. United Nations, New York. google scholar
3. Black, G., Ard, D., Smith, J., & Schibik, S. (2010). The impact of the Weibull distribution on the performance of the single-factor ANOVA model. International Journal of Industrial Engineering Computations, 1 (2), 185-198. google scholar
4. Blanca, M. J., Alarcon, R., Arnau, J., Bono, R., & Bendayan, R. (2017). Non-normal Data: Is ANOVA still a valid option?. Psicothema, 29(4), 552-557. Available at http://hdl.handle.net/2445/122126 google scholar
5. Brewer, G. A., Choi, Y., & Walker, R. M. (2007). Accountability, corruption and government effectiveness in Asia: an exploration of World Bank governance indicators. International Public Management Review, 8(2), 204225. google scholar
6. Browne, E. (2019). Evidence on ‘rule of law’aid initiatives. GSDRC Helpdesk Research Report 1008. University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK. google scholar
7. Chattopadhyay, R., & Duflo, E. (2004). Women as policy makers: Evidence from a randomised policy experiment in India. Econometrica, 72(5), 1409-1443. google scholar
8. Cicatiello, L., De Simone, E., Ercolano, S., & Gaeta, G. L. (2021). Assessing the impact of fiscal transparency on FDI inflows. Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, 73, 100892. google scholar

9. Clark, H. (2012). The importance of governance for sustainable development. ISEAS Publishing. DOI: 10.1355/9789814380447 google scholar
10. Clinch, J. J., & Keselman, H. J. (1982). Parametric alternatives to the analysis of variance. Journal ofEducational Statistics, 7(3), 207-214. google scholar
11. Daoud, A. (2015). Quality of governance, corruption and absolute child poverty in India. Journal of South Asian Development, 10(2), 148-167. google scholar
12. Denkova, J. (2015). World Justice Project Rule of Law Index® 2015. Available at https://eprints.ugd.edu.mk/id/ eprint/13736 google scholar
13. Flores, S., Evans, K., Larson, A. M., Pikitle, A., & Marchena, R. (2016). Participation of rural indigenous women in community governance. Center for International Forestry Research. DOI: 10.17528/cifor/006218 google scholar
14. Gisselquist, R. M. (2013). Evaluating governance indexes: Critical and less critical questions (No. 2013/068). google scholar
15. WIDER Working Paper. Available at http://hdl.handle.net/10419/80989 google scholar
16. Glass, L. M., & Newig, J. (2019). Governance for achieving the Sustainable Development Goals: How important are participation, policy coherence, reflexivity, adaptation and democratic institutions?. Earth System Governance, 2, 100031. google scholar
17. Hollyer, J. R., Rosendorff, B. P., & Vreeland, J. R. (2014). Measuring transparency. Political analysis, 22(4), 413434. DOI: 10.1093/pan/mpu001 google scholar
18. Ibrahim, M. (2018). Ibrahim Index of African Governance (IIAG). Mo Ibrahim Foundation. google scholar
19. Islam, R. (2006). Does more transparency go along with better governance?. Economics & Politics, 18(2), 121167. DOI: 10.1111/j.1468-0343.2006.00166.x google scholar
20. Kaufmann, D., Kraay, A., & Mastruzzi, M. (2011). The worldwide governance indicators: Methodology and analytical issues1. Hague journal on the rule of law, 3(2), 220-246. google scholar
21. La Porta, R., Lopez-de-Silanes, F., Shleifer, A., & Vishny, R. (1999). The quality of government. The Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, 15(1), 222-279. DOI: 10.1093/jleo/15.1.222 google scholar
22. Levene, H. (1960). Robust tests for equality of variances. Contributions to probability and statistics, 278-292. google scholar
23. Mathew, C. K., Dutta, U., Narayanan, A., & Jalodia, S. (2017). Public affairs index: Governance in the states of India. Bangalore: Public Affairs Centre. google scholar
24. Matolino, B. (2018). Consensus as democracy in Africa. African Books Collective. Available at: https://muse.jhu. edu/book/63977 google scholar
25. Mitra, S. (2013). Towards a multidimensional measure of governance. Social Indicators Research, 112, 477-496. DOI: 10.1007/s11205-013-0256-4 google scholar
26. Mundle, S., Chowdhury, S., & Sikdar, S. (2016). Governance Performance of Indian States: Changes between 2001-02 and 2011-12. Economic and Political Weekly, 55-64. google scholar
27. Narasappa, H., & Vasavi, A. R. (2010). Reviewing the Performance of the Government of Karnataka. Economic and Political Weekly, 17-21. Available at: https://www.jstor.org/stable/25664215 google scholar
28. Ostrom, E. (1975). The design of institutional arrangements and the responsiveness of the police. People vs. government, 274-299. google scholar
29. Pearson, E. S. (1931). The analysis of variance in cases of non-normal variation. Biometrika, 114-133. DOI: 10.2307/2333631 google scholar
30. Porumbescu, G. A. (2015). Using transparency to enhance responsiveness and trust in local government: can it work?. State and Local Government Review, 47(3), 205-213. google scholar
31. Rahman, N. (2010). Mdgs, Inclusive Growth and Governance, One World Foundation India, New Delhi. December 2010. google scholar
32. Roser, M. (2014). Human development index (HDI). Our World in Data. google scholar
33. Ruxton, G. D., & Beauchamp, G. (2008). Time for some a priori thinking about post hoc testing. Behavioral ecology, 19(3), 690-693. DOI: 10.1093/beheco/arn020 google scholar
34. Sahni, R., & Kalyan Shankar, V. (2012). Girls’ higher education in India on the road to inclusiveness: on track but heading where?. Higher Education, 63, 237-256. DOI: 10.1007/s10734-011-9436-9 google scholar
35. SGI (2021). Sustainable Governance Indicators. Available at https://www.sgi-network.org/2020/ google scholar
36. Shaul, M. S. (1982). The status of women in local governments: An international assessment. Public Administration Review, 491-500. DOI: 10.2307/976118 google scholar
37. Transparency, I. (2020). Corruption Perceptions Index. google scholar
38. Tukey, J. W. (1984). The Collected Works of John W. Tukey (Vol. 1). Taylor & Francis. google scholar
39. Tukey, J. W. (1949). Comparing Individual Means in the Analysis of Variance. Biometrics, 99-114. DOI:10.2307/3001913 google scholar
40. Trivedi, P. (1994). Improving government performance: what gets measured, gets done. Economic and Political Weekly, M109-M114. Available at: https://www.jstor.org/stable/4401682 google scholar
41. UNDP (1997), “Governance for sustainable human development — a UNDP policy document”, United Nations Development Programme, New York. google scholar
42. Welch, B. L. (1947). The generalization of ‘Students’ problem when several different population variances are involved. Biometrika, 34(1-2), 28-35. DOI: 10.2307/2332510 google scholar
43. Welch, B. L. (1951). On the comparison of several mean values: an alternative approach. Biometrika, 38(3/4), 330336. google scholar
44. World Bank (1998), “Assessing aid: what works, what doesn’t and why”, Report No. 15182 BD, The World Bank, Washington, DC. google scholar
45. Yong, G., & Wenhao, C. (2012). Developing a city governance index: based on surveys in five major Chinese cities. Social indicators research, 109, 305-316. DOI: 10.1007/s11205-011-9904-8. google scholar