Budgeting for Accountability in Social Services

1. Budgeting for Accountability in Social Services Akhila Chawla

2. Purpose • To contribute to the understanding of budgeting practice and systems of accountability in the field of social services at the micro and meso level. • Address the gap of national level social service programs that connect the public sector- welfare services and international NGOs

3. Contribution to the literature – budgeting and accountability! • Innovative public sector accounting practice different from existing frameworks of devolved budgeting and participatory budgeting. • Empirical understanding of a practice based notion of accountability at the micro level and its connection with accounting practices. • Understanding of workfare and social services programs in less developed countries.

4. Theoretical Framework • Social theory of practice by Bourdieu (1977) • Field, objective/subjective structures, habitus, capitals, positions/dispositions • Practice theory calls for detailed, empirical accounts and analysis of the everyday activities/practices that would otherwise be hidden or taken-for-granted (Rekwitz, 2002, p. 249). • Practice theory represents the interconnectedness rather than dichotomy of social structure/social order and individual agency/human action.

5. Research Methods • Case study interviews (70) at the federal state, district, block, local government levels, NGOs and program beneficiaries. • Secondary data including government guidelines, legislature, government and research reports.

6. Case Study Context! • National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme (NREGS) in India – a work for welfare program, gives the right to work for rural citizens, in 2009 Indian government spent CAD 7 billion to a single program. • It guarantees 100 days of employment in one financial year to any rural family willing to do unskilled work. • Three major local tiers at village level: villagers, block of 20-100 villages, district level. Above are the state and central government. At the village level, stakeholders include villagers, Gram Panchayat and Gram Sabha, a village level public assembly. A block consists of Intermediate-Block level Janpad Panchayat and the Block Officer. The District level consisting of the District or Zilla Panchayat and the District Program Coordinator. • Budgetary Programs are decided at the local level and district and central level are bound to accept those programs.

7. Field and Capitals • In the MGNREG scheme, the federal and provincial governments are major players in the field of delivery of this social services program but the Gram Panchayat at the Village level is the most important in terms of project decisions and implementation. • The federal government sets out the base guidelines (Guidelines, 2008, 2013), the provincial government’s meso vision has a strong impact on resources, implementation and in-practice accountability (Interview 35). • Other actors include district, block and village governance as well as beneficiaries, rural citizens, community based organizations and non-governmental organizations.

8. Field and Capitals • Interviews with a Village President (Number #8) outlines how his business connections and comparative wealth as a businessman made him a prime candidate where the village insisted that he represent their financial interests as thePresident. • The government employees hold administrative power that comes from due process of the budget construction (political capital) • The President as the micro level citizen representative holds social or cultural capital. He/She is already someone of importance in the village, based on public support, caste, financial and physical resources; or personal connections.

9. Accounting? • The Labour budget is the major accounting artifact in this process, an expression of the anticipated amount of work demanded as well as the timing for demand of such work (Guidelines, 2012, p. 49). • Each village goes through a similar process and makes a shelf-of-works which is converted into a written budget document with the help of the relevant appointed government official like the deputy Block development officer. • Aside from actual monthly performance that are a part of the MIS and Management Control System (MCS), a multitude of account registers are constructed at the village level and maintained at the block level office.

10. Habitus of Accountability • The paper explains objective structures and processes for accountability set up by the federal and provincial government as well as the manner in which such accountability is expressed through actors, positions and capitals at the local village level – consisting of rural citizens, scheme beneficiaries, elected and government representatives. • The accumulated habitus of accountability at the micro level in the first years of the scheme seems to be distinctly influenced by the underlying habitus of rural social life, structure, stratification and position holders, e.g. the power and status held by local landlords and village President, who colluding with the secretary could have significant power to use program funds effectively or subvert program finances with relative ease.

11. My comments! • Interesting paper! • Potential for future publication! • But need improvements in four interrelated areas: • Empirical story • Methodology • Theory and data connection • Improved focus in the literature review sections

12. Empirical story? • Mainly written from the perspective of program guidelines published by the Indian state (a relatively positive story of managing social services - the objective structures) • Need to know more about the actual practice from the perspective of other key players, e.g. more quotes need from villagers/beneficiaries, NGOs (70 interviews?? – (subjective structures and dispositions) • Should explain the data collection and data analysis process (a separate section), e.g. analytical schemes etc.

13. Theory and data connection • Theory is matched with the story! • But need thorough engagement with the theory in the data analysis. • More comprehensive use of Bourdieu, how about symbolic violence? e.g. This is witnessed in the micro level changes in village level attitudes that have become normalized, basic knowledge about beneficiary rights… p.30) • How about the competition between different forms of capitals? - require more reflections!

14. Improved focus in literature review? • Connection with the accounting literature (must be more specific). • Currently too many in focus, e.g. budgeting systems, MCS, participatory budgeting, budgeting and accountability, accountable management, theory of accountability, too many issues…. • I believe the paper is about budgeting and its connection to accountability?? • Previous Bourdieusian accounting and accountability research ?