Civil society‐mediated governance: Making social security programs work through public hearings in India

• Published date: 01 May 2022
• Author: Shyam Singh,Yogesh Kumar
• Date: 01 May 2022
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1002/pa.2477

ACADEMIC PAPER

Civil society-mediated governance: Making social security

programs work through public hearings in India

Shyam Singh

1

| Yogesh Kumar

2

1

Department of Social Sciences, Institute of

Rural Management Anand (IRMA), Anand,

India

2

Samarthan Centre for Development Support,

Bhopal, India

Correspondence

Shyam Singh, Department of Social Sciences,

Institute of Rural Management Anand (IRMA),

Anand, Gujarat 388001, India.

Email: shyamready@gmail.com

Civil society in India plays the role of an intermediary that encourages citizens to par-

ticipate in governance processes, facilitates their access to basic entitlements, and

helps them connect with local government to address grievances. One of the mecha-

nisms used is public hearings (PHs). PHs connects citizens directly with the govern-

ment by shortening long and complex administrative processes. PHs also

compensate for weakening distributional capacities and grievance redressal mecha-

nisms of public systems. This article attempts to understand the efficacy of civil

society-organized PHs in helping citizens access social security benefits. The article

concludes that PHs help in educating citizens about the governance processes and

provide relevant information. PHs also reduce the gap between citizens and the gov-

ernment by facilitating a public space that citizens use in communicating their

grievances.

1|INTRODUCTION

The primary objective of this article is to analyze the effectiveness of

public hearing (PH; translated as Jan Sunwai in Hindi) in ensuring pub-

lic service delivery. The role of PH has been recognized globally for

promoting citizens' participation and building consensus in multiple

areas, such as lawmaking (Mikuli & Kuca, 2016), environmental assess-

ments and disputes (Almer & Koontz, 2004), judicial activism (Lama-

Rewal, 2018), and social accountability (Islam, Nasrullah, & Haq,

2018). Though state and national governments also organized PHs,

we focus our analysis on civil society-organized PH to address citi-

zens' issues related to the delivery of social security pensions in

Madhya Pradesh (MP) state in India.

PH is a participatory and publically accessible platform where all

the concerned stakeholders (government officials, civil society orga-

nizations, citizens, political leaders) and local people engage in a

public debate, discuss the current problems and try to find appropri-

ate solutions (Jenkins, 2007). PHs provide a platform to citizens for

“public communication”to express matters related to “public inter-

ests”(Thomas, 2014). PHs, in general, are of two types: the ones

which are mandated and organized by the governments, and the

ones that are organized by civil society organizations (CSOs). CSOs

include nongovernment organizations, community groups and collec-

tives, and academic groups. The Government of India made

conducting PHs mandatory for development projects that may have

adverse impact on environment, community resources and people.

This was done through various environmental impact assessment

(EIA) legislations and notifications brought in 1994, 1997, 2004, and

2006 (Poddar, 2017). The second type of PHs are organized by the

CSOs as part of their civic and public engagement agenda. In CSOs-

organized PH, citizens get the opportunity to connect with local

government officials as well as elected representatives without

going through complex administrative processes and barriers. CSOs

are nonprofit, voluntary, and citizen-based organizations that work

for the welfare of citizens and communities (Duarte, Dibo, Siqueira-

Gay, & Sanchej, 2017).

Citizens' dissatisfaction with the quality and coverage of public

service governance in India has been documented extensively

(Paul, 2002; Ravindra, 2004; World Bank, 2006). This discontent is

attributed to multiple factors, including red-tapism (Gupta, 2012),

endemic corruption (Bussell, 2012; Davis, 2003; Jeffrey, 2002), slug-

gish mechanisms of grievance redressal (Ranganathan, 2008), and

restricted accountability of the local administration (Blair, 2000). The

decentralized governance system has done too little, barring a few

states, to improve this situation (Robinson, 2007). In this context,

CSOs are poised to play a defining role in facilitating the delivery of

public services, which would bridge the gap between citizens and local

administration (Blair, 2018).

Received: 26 March 2020 Revised: 6 September 2020 Accepted: 8 September 2020

DOI: 10.1002/pa.2477

J Public Affairs. 2022;22:e2477. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/pa © 2020 John Wiley & Sons Ltd 1of8

https://doi.org/10.1002/pa.2477