Performance of Grama Sabha in Implementation of Rural Development Programmes in Panchayat Raj System
Loading...
Date
2018-04
Authors
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Publisher
University of Agriculture Sciences, Dharwad
Abstract
The study was undertaken in University of Agricultural Sciences, Dharwad during 2015-2016 in three districts Dharwad, Gadag and Uttara Kannada. ‘Ex-post facto’ research design was used. The size of the sample for the study was 180. A scale was developed to measure the ‘performance of grama sabha’ by considering powers, meetings, duties and functions of Grama Sabha. A schedule was developed to measure the participation of people in grama sabha considering planning and budgeting of rural development programmes, social audit and finalization of programmes and beneficiary selection.
The performance of grama sabha was ‘very good’ in ‘conducting the meetings’ (63.89%) and in ‘creating awareness among rural people’ (53.89%). While, the performance was ‘good’ in maintaining the quorum not less than one-tenth of the total members of Grama Sabha (56.11 %) and for ‘identification and selection of eligible beneficiaries for developmental programmes’ (54.44%). The performance of grama sabha was ‘average’ in ‘prohibiting liquor and gambling in the area of the village’ (46.67 %). Participation of people in grama sabha was highest in ‘finalization of rural development programmes and beneficiaries selection’ (76.25%). The performance and participation of the people in Grama Sabha was more in Uttara Kannada district with mean values of 2.25 and 2.18 followed by Dharwad with mean values of 2.08 and 1.97 respectively. ‘Low level’ of performance in executing ‘powers of Grama Sabha’ and people’s participation in ‘planning and budgeting of rural development programmes’. Medium level of participation (70.81 %) observed in social audit. The suggestions given by people were to ‘avoid dominance in beneficiary selection’ (84.12%), ‘transparency in budget utilization’ (82.00%) and ‘fixing of dates in advance by the local governments’ (81.60 %).