Much of this
blog reflects on my time overseas, particularly my work on water distribution
and governance. Rivers naturally move water efficiently, but they also carry
contaminants. While working on clean water initiatives in India, I saw
firsthand how access to water challenged both farmers and
industry. At the time, many areas relied on subsistence farming. Some Gram Panchayats (similar to county governments) tried to strengthen local farms by
providing shared equipment or organizing cooperative programs.
One major
challenge for the government—though sometimes a political advantage—was information asymmetry. Information about policies, resource availability, and
community needs did not flow efficiently. As a result, programs were often
implemented from the top down, with limited input from those affected. This gap
created space for patronage networks and political favoritism, which weakened
overall government effectiveness despite program team efforts. In my own
experience, I was encouraged to work with politically connected businesses and officials rather than subject-matter experts suited to my research needs. I don't know if this was the proximate cause for not meeting my research goals, but I believe it contributed.
Government
support for local farming involves many actors working toward the broad goal of
increasing regional output and revenue. However, performance is often measured
primarily by political voter support. This is a weak metric. It rarely aligns
with stated development goals and can undermine good governance by shifting
focus away from long-term outcomes and toward short-term political gain. Consequently, team members work with competing priorities, dividing effort and reducing commitment to the development goal, my case clear explanation of government problems for water distribution to farmers.
Community
feedback is essential for improving these programs. Since I left India in 2007,
rural use of cellular service has expanded dramatically. This increased
connectivity has improved awareness and created new channels for feedback.
Panchayats can now track more meaningful, forward-looking metrics instead of
relying on post-program political approval. This shift enables a more
iterative, agile approach to planning and delivery, rather than a rigid,
top-down “waterfall” model that depends heavily on political patronage.
Ideally, stronger engagement with public stakeholders will lead to a clearer
shared vision and more decentralized, locally responsive implementation.
While some writers advocate for subsuming contributor individual desires to improve team delivery, most recognize the balance and strive for alignment. Similarly, a program team cannot ignore the needs of the sponsor panchayat or state, delivering to goals to their detriment. Consequently, in areas of existing patronage networks panchayats interested in wider polities need to message transition improve voters expectations for nondiscriminatory delivery. This would align with continuing calls from civil society to both highlight the misuse of power and detail the expected path to resolution. Ultimately, such panchayat programs would benefit from aligning charters and collaboration agreements that provide clear expectations.
In the past, I
have advocated for clearly defined roles and guidelines to help teams establish
new programs. However, such structures only work when sponsors and
stakeholders actively provide feedback and hold teams accountable. Patronage
politics weakened that accountability and undermined the government’s ability
to execute its stated vision effectively. Consultation networks from power sharing better support teaming and should be sought. However, the reality of economic fortunes tend to link the party in power more than their efficient delivery of planned programs. After all, why hold anyone accountable if one is winning? Because one won't always be winning, and I want to be winning.
