National emergency November 18, 2009

National emergency under article 352

National emergency is caused by war, external aggression or armed rebellion in the whole of India or a part of its territory. Such an emergency was declared in India in

1962 (Indo-China war),

1971 (Indo-Pakistan war), and

1975 (declared by Indira Gandhi to maintain law and order in the country).

<!–nextpage–>

The President can declare such an emergency only on the basis of a written request by the Council of Ministers headed by the Prime Minister. Such a proclamation must be approved by the Parliament within one month. Such an emergency can be imposed for six months. It can be extended by six months by repeated parliamentary approval.

 

<!–nextpage–>

In such an emergency, Fundamental Rights of Indian citizens can be suspended. The six freedoms under Right to Freedom are automatically suspended. However, the Right to Life and Personal Liberty cannot be suspended. It modifies the federal system of government to a unitary one.

 

<!–nextpage–>

The Parliament can make laws on the 66 subjects of the State List (which contains subjects on which the state governments can make laws).

Also, all money bills are referred to the Parliament for its approval.

The term of the Lok Sabha can be extended by a period of one year but not more than six months from the date when the emergency has ceased to exist.

First Amendment November 18, 2009

The Constitution (First Amendment) Act, 1951 was the first amendment of the Constitution of India. It made several changes to the Fundamental Rights provisions; it provided against abuse of freedom of speech and expression, validation of zamindari abolition laws, and clarified that the right to equality does not bar the enactment of laws which provide “special consideration” for weaker sections of society. The bill was moved by then Prime Minister of India Jawaharlal Nehru on 10th May, 1951 and enacted by Parliament on 18 June 1951.

Decentralisation November 18, 2009

The Definition of Decentralisation

Because there are so many types and sub-types of decentralisation, it is difficult to give an exact definition of its meaning. The various definitions of types and sub types of decentralisation can be confusing as Diane Conyers points out. She argues that it is more helpful to look at each system of decentralisation in its own context. Her general definition states that decentralisation involves:

“the transfer of power and / or authority to plan, make decisions and /or manage public functions from a higher level of government to a lower one.” (Diane Conyers, 1990)

Decentralisation is generally regarded as being democratic and referred to as democratic decentralisation where the lower-level authorities are a) largely or wholly independent of the central government, and b) democratically elected. (James Manor, 1997)

Broadly any definition of decentralisation would indicate that it involves a transfer of authority to perform some service to the public from central government to some other individual or agency which is closer to the public to be served. The basis for such transfers is often territorial and may be driven by the desire to place authority at a lower level in the territorial hierarchy and thus geographically closer to service providers and clients. Whilst this is more common, transfers may also be made functionally whereby authority is transferred to an authority or an agency that is functionally specialised.

Peoples Campaign for Decentralised Planning in Kerala

Among the various provisions for strengthening local governance (Panchayati Raj institutions) the 73^rd Amendment in India called upon the Pachayti Raj Institutions to conduct local programmes of planning for social and economic justice. Local level planning has been most thoroughly undertaken in the state of Kerala. In 1994 the state enacted the Kerala Panchayti Raj Act and its State Planning Board initiated the Peoples Planning Campaign in an attempt to try and strengthen village level governance and empower local panchayats to draw up plans based on a participatory village-based planning process. Planning was supported through the mobilisation and the involvement of neighbourhood groups; training camps for thousands of resource persons from state, district and local levels, as well as for retired experts. 40% of the state budget was set aside for the support of projects planned and implemented locally.

————————————————————————————————————————————

The Advantages of Decentralisation

Ø redistribute resources in favour of the poor

Ø deliver services more effectively and responsively

Ø enhance accountability,

Ø enhance the participation of local people in the decision making process

Ø deepen democracy

The Pitfalls of Decentralisation

It is also necessary to keep in mind the possible pitfalls of decentralisation. Not all decentralisation schemes seek to give power to the people. In some cases, decentralisation has been seen to reinforce the local power structure and cause local elites to capture more political power. It should thus be remembered that, by its very nature, decentralisation is inevitably a political process. This is because it concerns the redistribution of power and resources, and thus alters the balance of power in society.

Those involved in decentralisation initiatives world-wide are increasingly pointing out that for decentralisation to be meaningful, the political will and commitment of central government to the process is absolutely critical. Contrary to popular assumptions, decentralisation actually implies more from central government, its ministries and institutions, rather than less. The creation of a conducive environment in which development can take place through the decentralisation process is a task which faces any government involved in decentralising its power

In his recent work, James Manor has shown that decentralisation has often come as a result of either pressure from donors or as a ‘top-down’ initiative of governments rather than pressure ‘from below’. It is important to look at the motives that may lie behind the decision to decentralise. Such motives may include attempts by governments to:

· Further political power at local level

· Capture local support

· Channel money or patronage to particular sections of society

· Build political alliances

· Smooth out regional differences

· Dump responsibilities and costs for the provision of services

Matrix Structure November 17, 2009

Matrix Structure

A structure that creates dual lines of authority and combines functional and product departmentalization

Key Elements:

+++++Gains the advantages of functional and product departmentalization while avoiding their weaknesses.

+++++Facilitates coordination of complex and interdependent activities.

–——-Breaks down unity-of-command concept.

What Is Organizational Structure? November 17, 2009

Key Design Questions and Answers for Designing the Proper Organization Structure

The Key Question The Answer Is Provided By

1. To what degree are articles —Work specialization
subdivided into separate jobs?

2. On what basis will jobs be grouped —Departmentalization
together?

3. To whom do individuals and groups —Chain of command
report?

4. How many individuals can a manager —Span of control
efficiently and effectively direct?

5. Where does decision-making —Centralization
authority lie? and decentralization

6. To what degree will there be rules —Formalization
and regulations to direct employees
and managers?

****************************

Click here to download the entire powerpoint ppt on organisational structure based on Stephen P. Robbins book

http://images.handepp.multiply.multiplycontent.com/attachment/0/Rd5i4AoKCpYAACAfAGw1/Chapter%2015%20-%20Foundation%20of%20Organization%20Structure.ppt?nmid=20590788.

Scientific management November 17, 2009

Scientific management (also called Taylorism or the Taylor system) is a theory of management that analyzes and synthesizes workflows, with the objective of improving labor productivity. The core ideas of the theory were developed by Frederick Winslow Taylor in the 1880s and 1890s, and were first published in his monographs, Shop silly Management (1905)^[1] and The Principles of Scientific Management (1911). Taylor believed that decisions based upon tradition and rules of thumb should be replaced by precise procedures developed after careful study of an individual at work. Its application is contingent on a high level of managerial control over employee work practices.

Article 311 November 17, 2009

Article 311 of the Constitution of India

Dismissal, removal or reduction in rank of persons employed in civil capacities under the Union or a State

1. No person who is a member of a civil service of the Union or an all-India service or a civil service of a State or holds a civil post under the Union or a State shall be dismissed or removed by an authority subordinate to that by which he was appointed.(It was in the news in around oct 2006 for the reason that the PM made a strong plea for corruption-free government.The Administrative Reforms Committee headed by Veerappa Moily is examining the issue of removal of this key provision in the constitution which gives immunity cover to dishonest civil servants.The Santhanam committee on prevention of corruption and the National Commission to review the working of the constitution headed by justice M. Venkatachaliah also suggested the revisiting of article 311.)

2. No such person as aforesaid shall be dismissed or removed or reduced in rank except after an inquiry in which he has been informed of the charges against him and given a reasonable opportunity of being heard in respect of those charges:

   Provided that where it is proposed after such inquiry, to impose upon him any such penalty, such penalty may be imposed on the basis of the evidence adduced during such inquiry and it shall not be necessary to give such person any opportunity of making representation on the penalty proposed: Provided further that this clause shall not apply-

   1. where a person is dismissed or removed or reduced in rank on the ground of conduct which has led to his conviction on a criminal charge; or
   2. where the authority empowered to dismiss or remove a person or to reduce him in rank is satisfied that for some reason, to be recorded by that authority in writing, it is not reasonably practicable to hold such inquiry; or
   3. where the President or the Governor, as the case may be, is satisfied that in the interest of the security of the State it is not expedient to hold such inquiry.
3. If, in respect of any such person as aforesaid, a question arises whether it is reasonably practicable to hold such inquiry as is referred to in clause (2), the decision thereon of the authority empowered to dismiss or remove such person or to reduce him in rank shall be final.

Clause (1) of Article 311 clearly limits the application of the provisions of the Article to members of Civil Services of the Union or of All India Services or Civil Services of the States or holders of civil posts under the Union or a State. It does not cover members of the Defense Services or those holding posts connected with the defense including civilian personnel working on posts connected with defence and paid from Defence Estimates. [It may, however, be noted that civil Government servants in defence services have been brought under the purview of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965]. Employees of public undertaking or of independent corporate bodies are not holders of civil posts and are not covered by Article 311 except Government servants who are on deputation to such undertakings or corporate bodies.

Lord Fulton’s committee report November 17, 2009

Lord Fulton’s committee report(UK)

Following the Second World War, however, demands for change again grew. There was a concern (illustrated in C. P. Snow’s Strangers and Brothers series of novels) that technical and scientific expertise was mushrooming, to a point at which the “good all-rounder” culture of the administrative civil servant with a classics or other arts degree could no longer properly engage with it: as late as 1963, for example, the Treasury had just 19 trained economists. The times were, moreover, ones of keen respect for technocracy, with the mass mobilisation of war having worked effectively, and the French National Plan apparently delivering economic success. And there was also a feeling which would not go away, following the war and the radical social reforms of the 1945 Labour government, that the so-called “mandarins” of the higher civil service were too remote from the people. Indeed, between 1948 and 1963 only 3% of the recruits to the administrative class came from the working classes, and in 1966 more than half of the administrators at under-secretary level and above had been privately educated.

Lord Fultons committee reported in 1968. He found that administrators were not professional enough, and in particular lacked management skills; that the position of technical and scientific experts needed to be rationalised and enhanced; and that the service was indeed too remote. His 158 recommendations included the introduction of a unified grading system for all categories of staff, a Civil Service College and a central policy planning unit. He also said that control of the service should be taken from the Treasury, and given to a new Department, and that the “fast stream” recruitment process for accessing the upper echelons should be made more flexible, to encourage candidates from less privileged backgrounds.

Into Heath‘s Downing Street came the Central Policy Review Staff (CPRS), and they were in particular given charge of a series of Programme Analysis and Review (PAR) studies of policy efficiency and effectiveness.

But, whether through lack of political will, or through passive resistance by a mandarinate which the report had suggested were “amateurs”, Fulton failed. The Civil Service College equipped generalists with additional skills, but did not turn them into qualified professionals as ENA did in France. Recruits to the fast stream self-selected, with the universities of Oxford and Cambridge still producing a large majority of successful candidates, since the system continued to favour the tutorial system at Oxbridge. The younger mandarins found excuses to avoid managerial jobs in favour of the more prestigious policy postings. The generalists remained on top, and the specialists on tap.

Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions November 17, 2009

The Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions is the coordinating agency of the Central Government in personnel matters specially issues concerning recruitment, training, career development, staff welfare as well as the post retirement dispensation. The Ministry is also concerned with the process of responsive people-oriented modern administration. Allocation of Business Rulesdefines the work alloted for the Ministry. The Ministry comprises three Departments

I.Department of Personnel and Training

II.Department of Pension and Pensioners’ Welfare

III.Department of Administrative Reforms & Public Grievances.

Brownlow Committee November 17, 2009

The President’s Committee on Administrative Management, commonly known as the Brownlow Committee or Brownlow Commission, was a committee that in 1937 recommended sweeping changes to theexecutive branch of the United States government. The recommendations made by the committee resulted in the creation of the Executive Office of the President. It had three members; they were Louis Brownlow,Charles Merriam, and Luther Gulick. The staff work was managed by James P. Harris, Director of Research for the committee.