Dec 4, 2015 - Public Policy and Moral Worthiness of Citizens. Sony Pellissery. Faculty Member, Master of Public Policy,. National Law School of India ...
Public Policy and Moral Worthiness of Citizens
Sony Pellissery Faculty Member, Master of Public Policy, National Law School of India University, Bangalore
Prof. G. Ram Reddy Memorial Lecture, 4 December 2015 Hyderabad 1
Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2700513
Public Policy and Moral Worthiness of Citizens Abstract: John Rawls in his A Theory of Justice argues self-respect as the most important primary good. This paper examines how far public policy designs, processes and outcomes enhance the moral worthiness of citizens (in order to advance the self-respect and honor of citizens). As the paper is delivered as Prof. G. Ram Reddy Memorial lecture at Hyderabad, the first section of the paper delves to contextualize the discipline of public policy in India, an academic area where Prof. G. Ram Reddy has contributed immensely. In this first section, it is argued that policy needs to be redefined as political responsibility to bring back citizens to the heart of the policy processes. In the second section, the key question of this paper is examined with empirical evidence as to how Public Policies heighten or lower moral worthiness of citizens.
Introduction Single-most concern of public policy is ‘what is the right thing to do’? Among policy scholars, there is no consensus as to who should ask (and answer) this question. One camp emphasizes that the State is the prime doer (‘whatever government chooses to do or not do’ [Dye 1984]) compared to the other camp which places the onus on society (‘public policy as processes that society undertake to deal with public problems’ [Scharpf 1988]). Both the camps agree, compared to the market approach (which emphasizes the selfinterest), public policy approach distinctly emanate from public interest. Though there is no agreement on this question of agency, there is considerable agreement on what constitutes public policy. Public policy is agreed as courses of action through system of laws, regulatory processes, allocation of resources including funding, and courses of programme action. At the core of decision making for each of these courses of action is a value clarification and compromise (through trade-off) between competing values of equality, efficiency, liberty, security and welfare (Stone 2001). These value clarifications are achieved through ‘debating reasons’ (Bromley 2006: 6) and persuasion. What happens to citizens, who are both the subjects (of policy making) as well as recipients of the outcomes of what they design? This is the central question that is addressed in this paper. While answering this question, this paper is organized in two sections. First section argues that redefining public policy as political responsibility of a collective is essential to bring citizens to the heart of policy process. Second section of the paper examines how far
2
Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2700513
the policy processes in India is conducive to generate honour and self-respect for its citizens.
Section I Public Policy Redefined as Political Responsibility Policy advisors existed before ‘public’ emerged in the sense of deliberative spaces in modern nation-states1. Kings sought the advice as to what the right course of action is while dealing with the problems of their subjects2. However, public policy developed as a discipline in 20th century (in response to the demands in democratic-capitalist states) became a victim of technocratic tools3. There is a need to bring politics back into the centrality of policy process. This section of the paper argues that redefining public policy as political responsibility is crucial. Readers, as they proceed to section II of the paper, will note that this redefinition is a pre-requisite if public policies have to advance the goal of moral worthiness of citizens.
A profession of ‘speaking truth to power’ In many languages there is no separate word for ‘policy’ (see Appendix 1). A single word stands for both ‘politics’ and ‘policy’. Particularly, Anglo-Saxon usage of policy is an attempt to separate and depoliticize political questions behind public problems. Kaufmann (2013) terms it as an administrative world view4. The experiences from negotiations also show that it is far more easier to achieve consensus on solutions than ideologies.
1
See Pellissery (2015) for a historical overview of the function of policy advisors prior to middle-age. Note that the use of ‘subjects’ is deliberate. ‘Public’ sphere as a meaningful concept does not emerge until the State as a category gives space for citizens to deliberate on their problems keeping aside their ‘private’ interests (Turner 1990; Kaufman 2012). 3 Key development responsible for this turn is the development of public policy in the context of Great Depression in 1930s when econometric tools, primarily cost-benefit analysis was used to make predictions while advising government for monetary policies. Bromley (2006) terms this as undue emphasis placed on mechanistic causation, while public policy should be emphasizing final cause (or goal towards which society should be moving). 4 In Indian context, Kaviraj (2010) has shown how ideological rift between Gandhi and Nehru were compromised through appointment of technical experts (unit that developed as Planning Commission postindependence). In development literature, Ferguson (1994) has termed it as ‘anti-politics machine’. 2
3
In the process of developing solutions, knowledge and reason5 plays a critical role. However, because of the ill-conceived understanding of the knowledge, value-question (that is central to the politics) is circumvented. This needs some elaboration. Typical policy analysis to develop solutions relies on two Platonian types of knowledge: Episteme (analytical rationality or know why or theoretical knowledge) and Techne (instrumental rationality or know how or application). Aristotle disagreed with this classification of knowledge and added a third category called Phronesis (or practical wisdom)6. Aristotle’s
Nichomachean Ethics (1142a) makes the distinction amply clear: “The young people can be accomplished in Geometry and Mathematics, and wise within these limits; but they do not appear to become people of practical wisdom. The reason is that practical wisdom is concerned with particulars, which becomes graspable through experience, but a young person lacks experience, since some length of time is needed to produce it”. Phronesis as rationality accommodates value question that a public policy advisor cannot neglect7. Distinct from techne (know-how) phronesis is value judgment. In other words, moral judgment and science is held together in phronesis. The advice to the ruler is in not merely solutions to problems posed, but what those solutions do to the society. The moral fiber of society to which we are heading through a policy step: equality, efficiency, security, liberty, welfare. This necessitates that policy advice moves beyond reaching conclusions. This is the real difficulty of policy advice. A major leap is required since “power has a rationality that rationality does not know, whereas rationality does not have a power that power does not know” (Flyvberg, 1998: 2).
Reddy (1997 in Mathur & Bjorkman, 2009) provides practical advice to achieve this by making a distinction between economic ideas and economists’ ideas. “One role of a trained economist in public policy is to clarify and dispel notions that intuitively appear to be right but actually cause adverse consequences (i.e., counterintuitive but rational); they also evaluate the consequences of lobbies for various causes (neutral analysis or counting the cost). To describe the role of economists in policy-making, Reddy uses the term ‘technopols.” A successful technopol needs to combine two very different types of skill. One is that of a successful applied economist, able to judge what institutions and 5
Bromley (2006) has convincingly argued why reason and cause are not identical in the context of public policy. 6 See Nussbaum (1986), Gadamer (1980) among others for the commentaries on the differences between Plato and Aristotle. 7 Phronesis as rationality is in sync with the Indian notion of rationality which is “non-hedonistic, nonindividualistic, non-positivistic, and aims at surrendering the personal ego to an impersonal tradition or to some universal consciousness‟ (Chakrabarti, 1997).
4
policies are needed in specific circumstances in order to further economic objectives. The other is that of a successful politician, able to persuade others to adopt the policies that he or she has judged to be appropriate” (p. 128). To exercise phronesis is holding ‘mirror towards the society’ (Rorty 1979) to advance societal goal by aiding the ruler. This is the political responsibility of a policy professional.
Can we discipline ourselves while addressing ‘wicked’ problems? Rittel and Webber (1973) classify the subject matter of public policy as wicked problems. That is, the problems thrown to policy advisers are not definitive problems. Social science has to take the role of a handmaiden in the context of solving such problems, rather than imposing its macho disciplinary orientation to cut the problems to the size it desires8. This risk is what Friedman (1998: 141) cautions when he states:
“In the so-called
disciplines, discourse is of course mostly about theory, and sociologists, anthropologists, geographers, psychologists, and all those other ‘-ists’ risk being ostracized from their respective clans should they be bold enough to seriously venture into policy applications. Social scientists live for theory!”9 Institutionalized learning and knowledge creation dismissed public problems as trivial10. Institutionalized spaces for knowledge creation was delinked from where problems were experienced11. Universities and disciplines systematically developed “a view of knowledge that fosters selective inattention to practical competence and professional artistry” (Schon, 1982: vii)12. In recent times, Public Policy in its aspiration to emerge as a discipline is experiencing a huge divide. Scholars and practitioners don’t understand each other. On the one hand, 8
“The social science researchers have gone into the forest of knowledge, felled a good and sturdy tree, and displayed the fruits of their good work to one another. A few enterprising, application-minded guys dragged some logs to the river and shoved them off downstream (‘diffusion’ they call it). Somewhere down the river the practitioners are manning the construction companies. They manage somehow to piece together a few makeshift buildings with what they can find that has drifted down the stream, but on the whole they are sorely lacking timber in the various sizes and forms they need to do their work properly. The problem is that someone has forgotten to build the mill to turn the logs in its usable forms. The logs continue to pile up at one end of the system while the construction companies continue to make due at other end…. (Rothman 1980: 16)” 9 Each discipline could change its course. For instance, Anthropology of Policy is an attempt to redefine the discipline of anthropology to reorient itself towards policy direction (see Pellissery, 2014). 10 “Technical Rationality is the Positivist epistemology of practice. It became institutionalized in the modern university, founded in the late nineteenth century when Positivism was at its height, and in the professional schools which secured their place in the university in the early decades of the twentieth century” (Schon, 1982: 31). 11 I have expanded this issue of disconnect between academia and practical problem solving in Pellissery (2011). 12 See also Dreze (2002).
5
top public policy journals (see appendix 2) publish very little subject matter addressing the problems to be solved for the governments. Most of the publications are pertaining to theories of public policy (advocacy coalitions, comparative frameworks, punctuated equilibrium etc). Policy solutions which governments in global south are looking for are found in the journals of Development Studies or even Social Policy. On the other hand, think tanks and advocacy organisations actively advise government through policy briefs, evaluation reports and the like which are not written by policy scholars. Policy scholars need to remind themselves about the original message of the founding father of Public Policy as a discipline - Harold Lasswell. In his seminal paper “The Policy Orientations” (1951) he suggested that problem-oriented approach to inquiry and prescriptions must guide policy scholarship13. This was in contrast to typical political science approach of the day. Dealing with wicked problems requires different approach than traditionally used in academic contexts. Bromley (2006) has systematically shown, using the work of economists, how axiomatic modelling using available secondary data has been carrying out the role of ‘fixing belief’ (or discovering solutions for the doubts raised in the mind) rather than discovering explanations. He also contrasts Paul Romer’s work as using creative epistemology without falling into the trap of validationism. To a great extent the question is one of whether thinking is disciplined or not. “A natural man is impatient with doubt and suspense: he impatiently hurries to be shut of it. A disciplined mind takes delight in the problematic, and cherishes it until a way out is found that approves itself upon examination” (John Dewey). When impatient inquiry takes place, one falls into the trap of validationism and such work does not give any light to policy makers.
How mature is the policy context in India? There are three constitutive elements in the policy context—ideas, institutions, and actors (Howlett and Ramesh 1995). First, ideologies and ideas shape public sentiment as set agenda as well as to define what are acceptable solutions. For instance, the question of whether universal health coverage is desirable compared to targeted approach is dependent not merely on the government’s fiscal position, but also on which ideas are 13
In addition, Lasswell suggests four more key features of Public Policy discipline: a multidisciplinary approach to the development of solutions, value orientation, methodological sophistication and theoretical sophistication. Laswell and many political scientists such as Charles Merriam were deeply influenced by pragmatic philosophy of Charles Peirce (1839–1914) and John Dewey (1859–1952), whose ideas inspired the pursuit of contextspecific problem solving.
6
acceptable in a particular geographic space and time period. Second is the interplay of economic and political institutions. In the realm of economic institutions, capitalist regimes argue for growth-led poverty reduction compared to socialist regimes, which argue for support-led poverty reduction. The form of political institutions (authoritarian or democratic) and the quality of these institutions (their participative nature through checks and balances) play a key role in policy processes. Third, a range of actors (bureaucrats, elected politicians, the judiciary, the media, lobbying groups, international organizations, think tanks, consultants) influence policies at both the design stage and the implementation stage of antipoverty policies14. Brief interrogation of each of these constitutive elements is essential to understand how mature the policy context of India is. At the ideational level, healthy debates are grossly missing in India. Though a culture of debate and argumentation is prevalent, informed discussion and evidence-based debates are wanting. Ramchandra Guha (2008) points out that a vicious cycle exists. Where a society is deeply divided between ideologies, there is hardly any space for neutral inquiry (the most essential aspect of science) for the academics of that society. Thus, incentive is provided to do irrelevant research by the very structure of the academic-society interaction. The irrelevance obviously allows the status-quo to continue. Thus, often ‘academic’ is termed as an ‘irrelevant’ or a ‘post-mortem’ exercise, with little potential to change the situation. Myron Weiner in late 1970s reviewed the research capacity of Indian institutions to undertake social science research for public policy and pointed out that while institutions were carrying out mundane tasks with government funding, their potential to bring new approaches and theories were limited. At the institutional level, severe pathologies exist. Rule-based operations of institutions are sorely missing. Often, institutions are overshadowed by personality factors. Thus, ‘public’ sphere is captured by private interests. Similarly, Actors are not independent on each other often facilitating a collusive environment. Thus, space for persuasion between different actors, who are backed with independent interests, are limited. The poor assessment of policy context – ideas, institutions and actors – merely asserts that ‘public sphere’ is still underdeveloped. Unlike Western contexts where enlightenment process led the process of state formation, in India, identities are stronger. Qualitatively
14
The emergence of social policy in Europen context is an example of how the interplay of ideas, institutions and actors to specific problem situation create different types of policies. Otto von Bismarck’s introduction of an insurance program for the workers in Germany in the 1880s, and its eventual acceptability across European countries in the light of enlightenment values, is unique, but has its variations among European countries, as demonstrated by GøstaEsping-Andersen (1990).
7
different type of public sphere exists. The poor quality of policy context, in the backdrop of anti-poverty policies, is what I call as ‘thick poverty, thicker society and think state’ (Pellissery and Mathew, 2013. In other words, it is the absence of a state (or legitimate state) that lowers the moral worthiness of citizens, by exposing them to the social forces in the ‘state of nature’ (Hobbes). Nature of Political Responsibility in Public Policy Previous section on nascent state of policy context need not make us pessimist. Based on the practices of policy processes in India, I present a mountain conquering (representing the public problem) model of problem solving through policy approaches (see diagram 1). Three types of orientations are essential in each stage of policy processes. First stage is mountain climbing. Within policy science, this is known as problem structuring. I will add the stage of developing different solution alternatives and assessing them in this stage. Economic orientation is hugely helpful at this stage since the tools of valuation and forecasting are essential here. This is rational view of the world, where past experiences inform us. In the second stage (on top of the mountain), key decisions have to be made on the allocation of resources and power. Policy science describes this stage as ‘black box’ since the exchanges here are largely unknown. Here, different interests conflict and decision maker strikes deals with stakeholders either through persuasion or incentives. This stage is the thick of politics, and decision makers are responsible for their actions of allocation of resources and power. The primary importance of persuasion in policy making is what makes politics more important than economics in the policy processes (Miller and Hammond 1998). In the third stage, checks and balances are required to climb down the mountain. Here, responsibilities have to be assigned. System-stability is the concern here. Legal orientation is hugely helpful here. Needless to say, the stages are not watertight compartments. For example, economic orientation is hugely useful even after policy decisions are achieved in order to conduct evaluations and to provide feedback. Similarly, the Constitutional vision of a nation-state may be providing guidelines to structure the problem in the first stage. Political responsibility in public policy is willingness to engage in persuasion with stakeholders who has a different preference than the preference with which one enters into negotiation table. Preference formed after calculations (in the first stage) is deeply influenced by the value orientation and evidences. Value orientations help one to 8
articulate where one wants to move to. As policy is an abduction to the future, political responsibility requires one to engage with the other since ultimate wisdom is not merely with one individual.
Figure 1: Public Policy as Political Responsibility: Three orientations
POLITICAL ORIENTATION
•Forecasting of the outcomes •Estimation of resource requirements and availablity •Valuation of alternatives for acheiveing Paretian optimality •Estimation of extent (size) of the problem.
•Future orientation to fulfill the aspiration of electorate. •Accommodating interest groups and stake holders through persuasion or incentives. •Allocation of resources and power.
•Assigning rights and duties in the process of resource allocation. •Legitimating authority for system stabilization.
LEGAL ORIENTATION
ECONOMIC ORIENTATION
9
Section II Public Policy and Moral Worthiness In the previous section of the paper, we have seen why public policy needs a reorientation and redefinition as political responsibility. In this section of the paper, I will turn to examine how public policies may be heightening or lowering the moral worthiness of citizens15. I will show how reorientation of public policy as political responsibility could be increasing the self-respect of citizens.
Centrality of Moral Worthiness Notwithstanding the differences in philosophical orientations16, there is an agreement on the idea that honor and self-respect is the most important primary good that human being requires. From liberal perspective, Rawls (1971: 440) argues “the most important primary good is that of self-respect”. Expanding, Rawls, from an egalitarian perspective, Sen (1983) states ability to avoid shame as the “irreducible absolutist core in the idea of poverty”17. Rawls, elaborates why self-respect is so central:
We may define self-respect (or self-esteem) as having two aspects. First of all, as we noted earlier, it includes a person’s sense of his own value, his secure conviction that his conception of his good, his plan of life, is worth carrying out. And, second, self-respect implies a confidence in one’s ability, so far as it is within one’s power, to fulfill one’s intentions. When we feel that our plans are of little value, we cannot pursue them with pleasure or take delight in their execution. Nor plagued by failure and self-doubt can we continue in our endeavors. It is clear then why self-respect is a primary good” (Rawls, 1971: 440).
15
This work is primarily drawn from my ongoing research along with colleagues of a global research team consisting of Robert Walker and Elaine Chase of Oxford University, Ming Yan and Yang Lichao of Beijing, Ivar Lodemel and Erika Gubrium of Oslo University College and Grace Bantebya of Makerere University, Uganda. 16 Perspectives of utilitarians on this matter is not represented by any scholars. 17 Note that Sen is relying on Adam Smith’s ideas in The Wealth of Nations (1776: 351) to refute the argument that state of being poor is relative.
10
One of the most beautiful expressions of human yearning for self-respect is pictorially presented by Rabindranath Tagore (1928) in Deonapana (which has been thought provokingly translated as Profit and Loss). In the short story, Nirupama’s parents are unable to provide the dowry they had agreed upon for her marriage. Therefore, Nirupama has to face insults and harsh treatment from her in-laws from the time she steps into the house. She is ashamed and humiliated at every step since her poor father cannot find a way of raising the money. The atrocities make Nirupama adopt a different perspective towards the dowry system and the value of woman. Then she says to her father, “I will be humiliated only if you pay the money. Your girl has a certain dignity. Am I only a bag of money, having value as long as it is full? No, you should not humiliate me by paying this money.”
Nirupama certainly knows the consequences of not paying the dowry. Yet, she is ready to take such consequences, just like a dalit person who chooses to go hungry, refusing to eat the food thrown to him, to keep the honor (in Poisoned Bread of Arjun Dangle). These examples are sufficient to show why honor and self-respect is the most treasured values of a human life. In rest of the paper, we will examine how anti-poverty policies are able to create a conducive ground for self-respect of the targeted population.
I, Along with global team of researchers, have generated and synthesized voluminous literature defining poverty-induced shame and its impacts on individuals (Walker 2014; Chase and Bantebya 2014, Gubrium et al 2013). A range of words are used to differentiate and express secondary emotion18 of shame, namely embarrassment, loss of face, feeling flustered, stigma, humiliation. As a secondary emotion, this is culturally nuanced. This exists on a continuum with honour on two extreme poles. Psychologists have talked of the impacts of shame as a psychic scar that refuses to heal. Imagine what shame must be like if it is experienced every day and is caused by something over which one has little or no control. In this, shame differs profoundly from guilt. Guilt arises from things one has done and can be assuaged by a change of behaviour.
Shame, on the other hand,
appertains to who one is and to what one has become. Moreover, shame, while internally felt, is externally imposed by others: by the people one knows; the officials that one encounters; and by the politicians one hears who help to shape public opinion. It is beyond the aim of this paper to summarise this literature. It suffices to point that at all
18
Primary emotions are fear, sadness, excitement and anger. All the secondary emotions have potential to shape primary emotions.
11
three stages of policy – framing, structuring and delivering – poor people are humiliated across different national contexts.
‘Othering’ in the policy process Michael Young’s (1958) classic satirical essay, The Rise of the Meritocracy 1870-2033, outlines the possibility of a double punishment for people in poverty: In addition to being actually worse off, they are considered worse off because of their own acts. Rousseau (1754) saw such meritocracy as the first step towards inequality, believing that ultimately, inegalitarian societies, as part of their structure engage in constantly shaming and humiliating the poorer sections of society.
Some of the categories which are stereotypically dealt in Indian context while antipoverty policies are designed are unskilled people, slum dwellers, first generation learners, landless people, tribals, rural household. Moral worth of the people in these categories are suspected (as they are ‘failures’ requiring assistance) when they are made target groups of policy, rather than participants.
“The policy maker treats the rural poor in exactly the same way as we individuals treat the beggar. We do not ask the beggar how he was reduced to his present state of what he will do tomorrow. We indulge in a bit of charity in giving alms to the beggar without any intention to help him acquire a better status. This is how the employment programmes and PDS work. The policy maker proudly announces the amounts spent and the poor who benefited, but there are no arrangements at all to ensure food security and employment security to the poor (Rao, 2009).
Redefining public policy as political responsibility will aspire to cease ‘othering’ in the policy process. Labeled categories treated as target groups become citizens participating in deciding their own affairs. As Fraser and Honneth (2003) argues, an adequate understanding of justice must include at least two sets of concerns: distribution and recognition. Integrating distribution and recognition can grasp the imbrications of class inequality and status hierarchy in contemporary society.
12
Separation of Policy Making from Policy Implementation Within public policy literature, there is consensus that division into policy making and policy implementation is artificial. Rather, a continuum exists. However, in hierarchical policy context as that of India, a strong distinction is kept between policy making and policy implementation. Policy is invisible as they are made in elite circles. What is visible in the anti-poverty interventions are programmes, schemes, packages etc. Often such schemes and packages are named after politicians to signal to whom vote should be going back (e.g. Indira Gandhi Awaz Yojana, Atal Bihari Pension Scheme). Schemes and packages invariable create clientalist relationship for access, an aspect on which Prof. Reddy’s work has gained attention (Reddy and Haragopal 1985).
Schemes and packages do not clarify goals towards which society should be moving. As indicated in the first part of the paper, value clarification is the key element of public policy making. It is this value clarification that informs us as to the direction in which society is moving. Schemes and packages offered to vote banks gain compliance from the poorest segments who are living in ‘no-exist’ option (Wood 2004). Yet, the moral worth of the poor people have in fact lowered by participating in such patronage programmes.
When research was carried out among NREGA workers about the moral worthiness of their work, very interesting findings came out. Programme participation is stigmatised in the eyes of their higher income peers. The higher income people we spoke with interpreted engagement in the programme itself as a shameful act. As one said: “Those who are lazy and do not want to do any work go and stand at the NREGA work site all day and collect wages. On private farms they are closely monitored and they can’t be so lazy.” This interpretation has some bearing on a superficial level as many of the NREGA workers we spoke with did, in fact, report heading to NREGA worksites to earn wages rather than to participate in the productive engagement of labour. Gossips such as ‘Lazy Work Scheme’ and ‘Joker Card’ (for job card) were plenty to indicate lower morale of workers in the routinised manual activity of ‘digging earth and shifting earth’ engaging in ‘soulless labour’ (Marx, 1844).
Public Policy as political responsibility would end both clientalist as well as patrimonial policy delivery. 13
Shifting the responsibility to societal institutions In the context of a strong society and state’s inability to penetrate social forces, very often, society is invoked to achieve the goals that government wants to achieve. Politicians frequently invoke social institutions rather than policy instruments to achieve desired social goals (since implementation capacity is limited). For example, in 2012, Jairam Ramesh, India’s Rural Development Minister, made a public plea to the parents of young brides not to marry their daughters off to homes where there was no toilet. The Minister expressed the hope that the public stigmatisation attached to this remark would prompt households to construct toilets (a sanitation mission that the government has attempted many times and failed). More recently, the hoardings placed by Modi government invoking citizens to ‘give up’ subsidies on cooking gas is another example. Moral worth of those who are not giving up the subsidies is suspected. These exhortations lead to societal values (where shaming is used as social control mechanism) reinforced than values of solidarity and social contract.
Another important area where societal institutions are actively sought is to deal with information asymmetry. It has become an unquestioned practice now, that list of names of recipients of welfare schemes are displayed in public places for scrutiny. Cruelest forms of this took place in Madhya Pradesh when Khandwa district went on to inscribe with paints on Below Poverty Line houses as ‘I am poor’ in order to discourage ineligible people from availing benefits meant for people living below the poverty line. One of the victims said: “Yes, we are poor but should the government try to address our poverty or mock us by branding us poor in this humiliating manner?” (Singh 2012).
While these approaches of public policy is indicative of the minimal state, redefining public policy as political responsibility requires juridification of political power (Hegel 1745) to keep the societal forces at bay when the rights of citizens are respected. This assurance from the state is the moral worth that a citizen enjoys as equally participating member of society.
14
Conclusion This paper has shown the need to redefine public policy as a political responsibility, than technocratic tools. This approach enables public policy to clarify the value-orientations of oneself (the direction to which society should be collectively moving). At the same time, political responsibility is to enter into dialogue and persuasion with others who will have different value orientation and preference. The second part of the paper show cased how existing public policy processes in India are far short from helping to realize moral worth of citizens. Anti-poverty policies, though may be providing material goods to the people, they are not raising the self-respect of the citizens. Orientation to public policy as political responsibility shows a way out to enhance the quality of life of the citizens.
References Bromley, D. W. (2006) Sufficient Reason. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Chakrabarti, A. (1997) “Rationality in Indian Philosophy” in Companion to World Philosophy (eds. Deutsch and Bontekoe). Oxford: Blackwell Publishers. Chase, E. and Bantebya, G.(eds) (2014) Poverty and Shame, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Dreze, J. (2002) “On research and action”, Economic and Political Weekly (2, March) pp. 817-9. Esping-Andersen, G (1990)The Three Worlds of Welfare Capitalism. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press. Ferguson, J. (1994) The Anti-Politics Machine. Minnesota: Minnesota University Press. Flyvbjerg, B. (2001) Making social science matter. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Fraser, N. and Honneth, A. (2003) Redistribution or Recognition?: A PoliticalPhilosophical Exchange. London; New York: Verso. Friedman, J. (1998) “Planning theory revisted”, European Planning Studies 6(3) 245-53. Gadamer, H. G. (1980) “Practical philosophy as a model of the human sciences” Research in Phenomenology 9 (1) Pp.74-85. Guha, R. (2008) “Autonomy and ideology”, Economic and Political Weekly, February 2. Hegel, G. W. F. (1745) Outlines of the Philosophy of Right, ed. S. Houlgate, Trans, T. M. Knox, Oxford, 2008). Howlett, M. P., Ramesh, M. and Perl, A. (1995) Studying Public Policy, New York: Oxford University Press. Kaviraj, S. (2010) The Imaginary Institutions of India: Politics and Ideas. New York: Columbia University Press. Kaufmann, F. (2012) European Foundations of the Welfare State. New York: Berghahn Books. 15
Kaufmann, F. (2013) “The idea of social policy in western societies: Origins and Diversity”, International Journal of Social Quality 3 (2) pp. 16-40. Mathur, K. & Bjorkman, J. W. (2009) Policy-making in India. New Delhi: Har-Anand Publications. Nussbaum, M. C. (1986) The fragility of goodness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Pellissery, S. (2011) “Social science research and public action: A preface”, International Journal of Social and Economic Research 1 (2) pp. 373-388. Pellissery, S. (2014) “Anthropology’s Contributions to Public Policy: Introduction to Special Issue”, Indian Anthropologist 44 (1) pp. 1-20. Pellissery, S. and Mathew, L. (2013) “Thick poverty, thicker society and thin state: policy spaces for human dignity in India”, in The Shame of It: Global Perspectives on AntiPoverty Policies (eds. Erika Gubrium, Sony Pellissery and Ivar Lodemel), Bristol: Policy Press, pp. 37-60. Pellissery, S., Lodemel,I., Gubrium, E. (2013) “Shame and Shaming in Policy Processes”, in The Shame of It: Global Perspectives on Anti-Poverty Policies (eds. Erika Gubrium, Sony Pellissery and Ivar Lodemel), Bristol: Policy Press, pp. 179-198. Pellissery, S. (2015) “Public Policy”, Encyclopaedia of World Poverty (2 nd edition), New York: Sage Publications pp. 2553-2556. Rao, V. M. (2009) “Policy making in India for rural development”, Paper presented during the fourth Annual international conference on Public Policy and management, Indian Institute of Management, Bangalore. Rawls, J. (1971) A Theory of Justice. Harvard: The Belknap Press. Reddy, G. R. and G. Haragopal, (1985) “The Pyraveekar: ‘The Fixer’ in Rural India”, Asian Survey (November) pp. 1148-62. Rittel, H. W. J. and Webber, M. M. (1973) “Dilemmas in a general theory of planning”, Policy Sciences 4, pp.155-169. Rothman. J. (1980) Social R&D: Research and Development in the Human Services. NJ: Prentice Hall. Schon, D. A. (1982) The Reflective Practitioner. New York: Basic Books. Sen, A. (1983) “Poor, relatively speaking”, Oxford Economic Papers 35 (2), pp.153-169. Singh, M.P. (2012) ‘The problem of identifying BPL households? Brand them poor’, The Hindu, 15 July, Bhopal Edition. Stone, D. (2001) The Policy Paradox. New York: Norton. Turner, B. S. (1990) “Outline of a theory of citizenship”, Sociology 24 (2) pp. 189-217. Walker, R. (2014) The Shame of Poverty, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Weiner, M. (1979) “Social Science Research and Public Policy in India”, Economic and Political Weekly 14 (37) pp. pp. 1579+1581-1587. Wood, G. (2004) “Informal security regimes: The strength of relationships”, in I. Gough, G. Wood and A. Barrientos (eds) Insecurity and welfare regimes in Asia, Africa and Latin America: Social policy in development contexts, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp 49-87.
16
Appendix 1 The terms used to express ‘policy’ and ‘politics’ in different languages English Telungu Kannada Tamil
Policy నం
Politics ాజ య ల
ೕ
ಾಜ ೕಯ
ெகா ைக നയം
அரசிய രാ ീയം
धोरण
राजकारण
નીિત
રાજકારણ
Hindi
नी त
राजनी त
Punjabi
ਨੀਤੀਨੂੰ
ਿਸਆਸਤ'
ນະໂຍບາຍ េ លនេ យ
ການເມ ືອງ នេ យ
Kawijakan Dasar chính sách ポリシー 정책 政策
Pulitik politik chính trị 政治 정치 政治
Malayalam Marathi Gujarati Bengali Oriya
Nepali Sinhala Thai Lao Khmer Sundanese Malay Vietnamese Japanese Korean Chinese Arabic Urdu Hebrew Yiddish Persian Catalan Spanish Portugese Basque Albanian French German Italian Maltese Dutch Danish Norwegian
নীিত ନୀତି
রাজনীিত ରାଜନୀତି
नी त ර ප นโยบาย
राजनी त ෙ ශපාලනය การเมือง
ﺳﯿﺎﺳﺎت ﭘﺎﻟﯿﺴﯽ מְ דִ ינִיוּת פּאָליטיק ﺳﯿﺎﺳﺖ Política Política Política Politika Politikë Politique Politik Politica Politika Politiek Politik Politick
ﺳﯿﺎﺳﺔ ﺳﯿﺎﺳﺖ פּוֹלִיטִיקָ ה פּאָליטיק ﺳﯿﺎﺳﺖ política política política politikan politikë Politique Politik politica politika politiek Politik politikk
17
Finnish Swedish Icelandic Irish Welsh Croatian Bosnian Czech Romanian polish Estonian Latvian Slovak Slovenian Lithuanian Galician Ukrainian Turkish Uzbek Georgian Macedonian Bulgarian Armenian Tajik Azerbaijani Hungarian Belarusian Greek Kazakh Mongolian Russian Serbian Igbo Hausa Yoruba Afrikaans Zulu Swahili Somali Malagasy
Politiikka Politik Stefna Beartas Polisi Politika Politika Politika Politică Polityka Poliitika Politika Politika Politika Politika Política Політика Politika Siyosat პოლიტიკა Политика Политика Քաղաքականություն Сиёсати siyasət Irányelv Палітыка Πολιτική Саясат Бодлого Политика Политика Iwu Manufofin Imulo Beleid Inqubomgomo Sera Siyaasadda Politika
politiikka politik Stjórnmál Pholaitíocht gwleidyddiaeth politika politika politika politică polityka Poliitika Politika Politika Politika Politika Política політика siyaset siyosat პოლიტიკა политиката Политика քաղաքականություն сиёсат siyasət Politika Палітыка Πολιτική саясат улс төр политика политика ndọrọndọrọọchịchị Siyasa Iselu Politiek Kwezombusazwe Siasa Siyaasadda Politika
18
Appendix 2: Distribution of themes in five leading journals in the disciplines of ‘Public Policy’, ‘Social Policy’ and ‘Development Studies’ (Word/phrase search on titles of papers appeared in the journals during 2005-2015)
Labour market/ labor market
World Development Development & Change Journal of Development Economics Population and Development Review Economic Development & Cultural Change All Development Journals (sum)
Health care/ healthcare
Tax/ taxation
Child labour/ child labor
Education
Urban
Environment
Energy
Total articles in the journal
Count % 13 0.75
Count % 6 0.35
Count % 8 0.46
Count % Count % 13 0.75 31 1.78
Count % 49 2.82
Count % 7 0.4
Count % 7 0.4
1738
2
0.4
3
0.61
0
0
2
0.4
0.81
8
1.62
3
0.61
2
0.4
494
12
1.41
2
0.24
9
1.06
17
2.02 22
2.59
11
1.3
0
0
0
0
849
0
0
1
0.34
0
0
0
0
4.6
4
1.37
1
0.34
0
0
292
8
3.28
2
0.81
1
0.41
3
1.23 9
1.69
11
4.51
1
0.41
0
0
244
35
0.97
14
0.39
18
0.5
35
0.97 73
2.02
83
2.29
12
0.33
9
0.25
3617
4
7
19
Labour market/ labor market
Health care/ healthcare
Tax/ taxation
Child labour/ child labor
Education
Urban
Environment
Energy
Total articles in the journal
Count %
Count %
Count %
Count %
Count %
Count %
Count %
Count %
Journal of Policy Analysis and Management Policy Studies Journal Policy Sciences
5
1.39
1
0.27
12
3.33
0
0
11
3.05
5
1.38
1
0.28
0
0
360
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
1.56
6
1.87
1
0.31
6
1.87
321
0
0
1
0.56
0
0
0
0
3
1.67
3
1.67
0
0
8
4.47
179
Social Issues and Policy Review Policy and Politics All Public Policy Journals (sum)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
3.92
0
0
0
0
0
0
51
2
0.56
2
0.66
1
0.33
0
0
1
0.33
8
2.67
1
0.33
2
0.67
300
7
0.58
4
0.33
13
1.07
0
0
22
1.82
22
1.82
3
0.25
16
1.32
1211
20
Labour market/ labor market
Critical Social Policy Journal of Social Policy Social Policy and Administration Global Social Policy International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy All Social Policy Journals (sum)
Health care/ healthcare
Tax/ taxation
Child labour/ child labor
Education
Urban
Environment
Energy
Total articles in the journal
Count %
Count %
Count %
Count %
Count %
Count %
Count %
Count %
4
2.84
8
5.67
2
1.42
0
0
8
5.67
5
3.55
0
0
0
0
141
10
6.58
5
3.29
4
2.63
0
0
5
3.29
4
2.63
0
0
0
0
152
9
4.27
12
5.69
2
0.95
0
0
7
3.32
6
2.84
0
0
0
0
211
1
0.93
3
2.78
4
3.7
0
0
1
0.93
0
0
1
0.93
0
0
108
5
2.56
1
0.51
0
0
0
0
2
1.03
7
3.59
0
0
0
0
195
29
3.59
29
3.59
12
1.49
0
0
23
2.85
22
2.73
1
0.12
0
0
807
Source: Generated by Sony Pellissery, Amrutha Jose Pampackal, Mounk Shankar Lahiri and Simi Sunny in three stage model. In the first stage, using Impact Factor, 10 top journals in each of the disciplines were identified. In the second stage, an elimination was done by reading the objective of the journal as to if their focus was contributing to these disciplines. In the third stage, the titles of papers published in these journals during 2005-2015 were examined.
21
