Right-based approach to governance became popular in India in the first decade of present century with the passage of legislations conferring Right to Information, Right to Work in rural areas, and Right to Primary Education upon its citizens. This article examines the next step in that direction—passage of Right to Service (RTS) Acts by a number of Indian States thereby providing its citizens the right to time-bound delivery of notified public services. These Acts not only empower citizens to make claims against the government if the rights are violated but also serve as a tool for the politicians and the senior bureaucrats to control lower bureaucracy. This article traces the genealogy of RTS Acts in Citizen’s Charter movement of the1990s in the UK and evaluates their progress and results with the help of various theories and concepts used for improving the public service delivery. How inept implementation has thwarted the promise of accountability inherent in these Acts will be seen in detail while piercing the veil of statistical data.
BarberM. (2007). Instruction to deliver. London: Methuen.
2.
BesleyT. & GhatakM. (2007). Reforming public service delivery.Journal of African Economies, 16(AERC Suppl. 1), 127–156.
3.
BevanG. & FasoloB. (2013). Models of governance of public services: Empirical and behavioural analysis of econs and humans. In OliverA. (Ed.), Behavioural public policy (pp. 38–62). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
4.
BevanG. & HamblinR. (2009). Hitting and missing targets by ambulance services for emergency calls: Impacts of different systems of performance measurements within the UK.Journal of Royal Statistical Society (A), 172(1), 1–30.
5.
BevanG. & HoodC. (2006). What’s measured is what matters: Targets and gaming in the English health care system.Public Administration, 84(3), 517–538.
6.
BevanG. & WilsonD. (2013). Does ‘naming and shaming’ work for schools and hospitals? Lessons from natural experiments following devolution in England and Wales.Public Money and Management, 33(4), 245–252.
7.
BovensM. & ZouridisS. (2002). From street-level to system-level bureaucracies: How information and communication technology is transforming administrative discretion and constitutional control.Public Administrative Review, 62(2), 174–184.
8.
Cabinet Office. 1991. The citizens charter: Raising the standard, Cm 1599. Cited in Drewery (2005).
9.
CastellsM. (1996). The information age: Economy, society and culture (The rise of network society, Vol. 1). Oxford: Blackwell.
10.
CastellsM. (1998). Information technology, globalization and social development. Paper prepared for the conference ‘Information Technologies and Social Development, United Nations Research Institute for Social Development (UNRISD), Geneva.
11.
DrewryG. (2005). Citizens as customers: Charters and the contractualisation of quality in public services. Paper presented at the EGPA Conference, The European Group for Public Administration, Bern, Switzerland.
12.
GeorgeK. K. & RamanR. (2001). Changes in Indian higher education—An insider’s view. Case Study. Retrieved from www.chet.org.za/papers.asp. Cited in MaassenPeter & CloeteNico (2006). Transformation in higher education: Global pressures and local realities (pp. 7–31, Chapter 1). Springer. Retrieved from www.springer.com/in/book/9781402040054
HirschmanA. O. (1970). Exit, voice and loyalty: Responses to decline in firms, organizations and states. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
15.
IIPA. (2012). Evaluation study on the Delhi right of citizens to time bound delivery of services (E-SLA).Indian Institute of Public Administration. Retrieved from www.iipa.org.in
16.
KediaS. (2014). Case studies on e-governance in India. e-Monitoring of service level agreements. Leveraging ICT to build a transparent and accountable public service environment.OneWorld Foundation India. Retrieved from www.nisg.org/documents/UP1418303775.pdf
17.
Le GrandJ. (1997). Knights, knaves and pawns? Human behaviour and social policy.Journal of Social Policy, 26(2), 149–169.
18.
Le GrandJ. (2003). Motivation, agency and public policy: Of knights and knaves, pawns and queens.Oxford: Oxford University Press.
19.
Le GrandJ. (2007). The other invisible hand: Delivering public services through choice and competition.Woodstock: Princeton University Press.
20.
PowerM. (2005). The theory of audit explosion. In FerlieE.LynnL. E. & PollittC. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of public management (pp. 326–344). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
21.
PritchettL. (2009). Is India a flailing state? Detours on the four lane highway to modernization (HKS Faculty Research Working Paper Series RWP09-013). John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University, USA.
22.
Public Administration Select Committee Report. (2008). From citizen’s charter to public service guarantees: Entitlements to public services.London: House of Commons.
23.
RobinsonN. (2012). Right to public service acts in India: The experience from Bihar and Madhya Pradesh. New Delhi: Accountability Initiative, Centre for Policy Research.
24.
SchedlerA. (1999). Conceptualizing accountability (Chapter 2). In SchedlerAndreasDiamondLarry & PlattnerMarc F. (Eds.), The self-restraining state—Power and accountability in new democracies (pp. 13–28). Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner Publishers.
25.
ThalerR. H. & SunsteinC. R. (2008). Nudge: Improving decisions about health, wealth and happiness.London: Penguin Books.
26.
TverskyA. & KahnemanD. (1991). Loss aversion in riskless choice: A reference dependent model. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 106(4), 1039–1061.
27.
van AkenJ.BerendsH. & van der BijH. (2007). Problem solving in organisations: A methodological handbook for business students (Chapters 2 and 3). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
28.
WillemsT. & DoorenW. V. (2012). Coming to terms with accountability—Combining multiple forums and functions.Public Management Review, 14(7), 1011–1036.
29.
WDR (World Development Report). (2004). Making services work for poor people.World Bank. Retrieved from www.worldbank.org
