The economists Jensen, Meckling and Fama have done extensive research on the behaviour of company promoters. While no less a person than the distinguished Nobel-laureate George Stigler has developed insights into the behaviour of public officials, more needs to be done. We also need detailed prescriptions on the precise mechanisms to be introduced into the state sector.

The Bangalore-based NGO, Janaagraha, has argued that we should focus on public participation and transparency at local government levels — not just at state governments and municipalities, which are remote and citizen-unfriendly, but at ward and precinct levels. This is a worthwhile endeavour. Our Constitution gives a lot of power to state governments. Unfortunately, our state leaders do not see any direct benefit to the leaders themselves from good quality public works. Good roads or efficient sewage systems are not seen either as vote-winners or as financially attractive to the leaders themselves. (The rhetoric in Gujarat is too loud for us to conclude that things have changed.) While corruption among public officials is common worldwide, nowhere is this impacting citizens with such pathetic public services as in India. Cairo and Manila (which are not exactly corruption-free) have better roads and sanitation than Indian cities.

Much as we may be opposed to centralisation, corruption is least in our Central government. It is ironic, but Delhi at least has good intentions and some honest attempts are made. Most state capitals have an atmosphere where organised loot (and given the short-term horizons of our leaders, loot with great speed) is the only mantra that prevails. Should we then leverage the residual integrity left in Delhi to influence behaviour in states, cities and towns? If so, how do we go about doing it?

... contd.