A STUDY ON CITIZENS' EVALUATION OF GOVERNMENT PERFORMANCE AND POLITICAL REPRESENTATIVES IN HASSAN DISTRICT

Author

Dr. Sunitha G


Abstract

 The present study, entitled “A Study on Citizens' Evaluation of Government Performance and Political Representatives in Hassan District,” examines the perceptions of citizens towards two important dimensions of governance, namely district-level development and social welfare measures. In a democratic system, citizens' evaluation of government performance and political representatives is significantly influenced by the quality of public services, developmental activities, and welfare programmes implemented for the benefit of society. The study therefore focuses on understanding how citizens perceive infrastructure and development-related initiatives, including road connectivity, public transportation, drinking water, electricity, healthcare, educational facilities, digital infrastructure, sanitation, drainage, and the contribution of infrastructure development to economic growth. The study also examines citizens' perceptions towards social welfare measures relating to economically weaker sections, women and children, education, healthcare, senior citizens, employment, livelihood opportunities, poverty reduction, social inequality, and effective delivery of welfare benefits. The study adopts a descriptive and analytical research design. Primary data were collected from 402 general citizens of Hassan District through a structured questionnaire, while secondary information was obtained from books, journals, research articles, government reports, and official publications. A multistage sampling technique was adopted to ensure representation from different geographical and socio-economic groups. The collected data were analysed using descriptive statistics and multiple regression analysis with the help of SPSS. The findings revealed a significant relationship between citizens' perceptions towards district-level development and their evaluation of government performance and political representatives. The district-level development model explained 73.8% of the variation, while the social welfare model demonstrated stronger explanatory power by accounting for 88.6% of the variation. The study concludes that development outcomes and welfare measures play an important role in shaping citizens' evaluations of governance and political representatives. The findings provide useful insights for policymakers, administrators, and political representatives to strengthen citizen-oriented development and welfare initiatives in Hassan District.



Keywords

Citizens' Perception; Government Performance; Political Representatives; District-Level Development; Social Welfare Measures; Hassan District.



Full Text:

Download Paper PDF


References


  1. Aakella, K. V. (2015). Technology in governance: Case of MGNREGS in Andhra Pradesh. Economic and Political Weekly, 50(13), 24–26.
  2. Aiyar, Y., & Mehta, S. K. (2015). Spectators or participants? Effects of social audits in Andhra Pradesh. Economic and Political Weekly, 50(7), 66–71.
  3. Ashworth, S. (2012). Electoral accountability: Recent theoretical and empirical work. Annual
  4. Bovens, M. (2007). Analysing and assessing accountability: A conceptual framework. European Law Journal, 13(4), 447–468.
  5. Fearon, J. D. (1999). Electoral accountability and the control of politicians: Selecting good types versus sanctioning poor performance. In A. Przeworski, S. C. Stokes, & B. Manin (Eds.), Democracy, accountability, and representation. Cambridge University Press.
  6. Fox, J. A. (2015). Social accountability: What does the evidence really say? World Development, 72, 346–361.
  7. Gaventa, J., & McGee, R. (2013). The impact of transparency and accountability initiatives. Development Policy Review, 31(S1), S3–S28.
  8. Goetz, A. M., & Jenkins, R. (2007). Citizen activism and public accountability: Lessons from case studies in India. In A. Ebrahim & E. Weisband (Eds.), Global accountabilities: Participation, pluralism, and public ethics(pp. 65–85). Cambridge University Press.
  9. Harriss, J. (2005). Political participation, representation and the urban poor: Findings from research in Delhi. Economic and Political Weekly, 40(11), 1041–1054.
  10. Heller, P. (2012). Democracy, participatory politics and development: Some comparative lessons from Brazil, India, and South Africa. Polity, 44(4), 643–665.
  11. Heller, P., Harilal, K. N., & Chaudhuri, S. (2007). Building local democracy: Evaluating the impact of decentralization in Kerala, India. World Development, 35(4), 626–648.
  12. Hood, C. (1991). A public management for all seasons? Public Administration, 69(1), 3–19.
  13. Jenkins, R., & Goetz, A. M. (1999). Accounts and accountability: Theoretical implications of the right-to-information movement in India. Third World Quarterly, 20(3), 603–622.
  14. Jha, P., & Samuel, J. (2011). Governance assessment for social accountability: The India experience. In G. Hydén & J. Samuel (Eds.), Making the state responsive: Experience with democratic governance assessments(pp. 198–214). United Nations Development Programme.
  15. Joshi, A. (2007). Producing social accountability? The impact of service delivery reforms. IDS Bulletin, 38(6), 10–17.
  16. Kosack, S., & Fung, A. (2014). Does transparency improve governance? Annual Review of Political Science, 17, 65–87.
  17. Manin, B., Przeworski, A., & Stokes, S. C. (1999). Elections and representation. In A. Przeworski, S. C. Stokes, & B. Manin (Eds.), Democracy, accountability, and representation(pp. 29–54). Cambridge University Press.
  18. Mansbridge, J. (2003). Rethinking representation. American Political Science Review, 97(4), 515–528.
  19. Paul, S. (2006). Public spending, outcomes and accountability: Citizen report cards as a catalyst for public action. Economic and Political Weekly, 41(4), 333–340.
  20. Powell, G. B. (2004). Political representation in comparative politics. Annual Review of Political Science, 7, 273–296.
  21. Ravindra, A. (2004). An assessment of the impact of Bangalore citizen report cards on the performance of public agencies. World Bank Operations Evaluation Department Working Paper Series No. 12.
  22. Ravishankar, N. (2009). The cost of ruling: Anti-incumbency in elections. Economic and Political Weekly, 44(10), 92–98.
  23. Shah, A. (2008). Demanding to be served: Holding governments to account for improved access. World Bank Policy Research Working Paper No. 4643.
  24. Speer, J. (2012). Participatory governance reform: A good strategy for increasing government responsiveness and improving public services? World Development, 40(12), 2379–2388.
  25. Uppal, Y. (2009). The disadvantaged incumbents: Estimating incumbency effects in Indian state legislatures. Public Choice, 138(1–2), 9–27.
  26. Warren, M. E. (2017). A problem-based approach to democratic theory. American Political Science Review, 111(1), 39–53.

 

 

 

Share your valuable work from Social Media Buttons