The Political Economy of Agricultural Policy Reform in India

ELECTRICITY SUPPLY: EVOLUTION AND REFORM 113

Different arguments have been advanced to account for this paradigm shift: Naidu’s personality, which represented a different generation of policymakers, and the efforts of TDP to actively disassociate itself from Rama Rao’s policy agenda, style, and symbols after his replacement (Srinivasulu 1999, 211). Lal’s (2006) argument that politicians speak to two different audiences (see “The Political Economy of Power-Sector Reforms” in Chapter 2) may also partly explain this change in TDP politics. Moreover, fiscal constraints and other external factors may have promoted the reforms, as was the case at the national level. In pursuing his reform agenda, Naidu’s government (led by the TDP in coalition with the BJP) benefited from a favorable non–Congress Party gov- ernment at the national level. Unlike other reform politicians, Naidu did not pursue his reforms in a “stealthy” manner (see Jenkins 1999, quoted in Chapter 2). Moreover, unlike other states (see Mahalingam 2005, discussed in “The Political Economy of Power-Sector Reforms” in Chapter 2), Andhra Pradesh did engage in the unpopular second phase of power-sector reforms under his rule. The reform process in Andhra Pradesh started with a high- level committee report in 1996. In support of the recommended reforms, the Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board (APSEB) made efforts to reach out to the public, for example, by distributing various bulletins in English and Telugu and by distributing a film to reach illiterate audiences (World Bank 2003a). APSEB also managed to negotiate with all but one labor union. As a consequence, 90 percent of the more than 70,000 electricity sector employees supported the reform process. In 1998, the Andhra Pradesh Elec- tricity Reform Act was passed. In February 1999, an election year, APSEB was restructured into two independent corporations (AP Transco for trans- mission and distribution, and AP Genco for generation); and in March 1999, the independent Andhra Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission (APERC) was formed. In the process of reforming the power sector, the Naidu govern- ment also took unpopular measures, such as increasing electricity prices to all sectors. Resistance from the farming community took violent forms. In 1997, the response to a spontaneous farmers’ uprising in the Coastal Belt was police gunfire, in which three farmers lost their lives (Srinivasulu 1999, 222). In addition to pursuing liberalization reforms, the Naidu government took measures that have been classified as “new populism in the age of neo- liberalism” (Krishna Reddy 2002). In 1997, the TDP government launched the Janmabhoomi (“motherland”) program, which promoted a wide range of devel- opment activities focusing on citizen participation and accountability in public administration. It has been criticized as a “government sponsored ‘grassroots movement’” (Srinivasulu 1999, 222) and an effort to circumvent elected local government (panchayati raj) institutions. Similar criticisms were launched against the government’s irrigation policy. In 1997, the Andhra Pradesh Farmers

Page 1 | Page 2 | Page 3 | Page 4 | Page 5 | Page 6 | Page 7 | Page 8 | Page 9 | Page 10 | Page 11 | Page 12 | Page 13 | Page 14 | Page 15 | Page 16 | Page 17 | Page 18 | Page 19 | Page 20 | Page 21 | Page 22 | Page 23 | Page 24 | Page 25 | Page 26 | Page 27 | Page 28 | Page 29 | Page 30 | Page 31 | Page 32 | Page 33 | Page 34 | Page 35 | Page 36 | Page 37 | Page 38 | Page 39 | Page 40 | Page 41 | Page 42 | Page 43 | Page 44 | Page 45 | Page 46 | Page 47 | Page 48 | Page 49 | Page 50 | Page 51 | Page 52 | Page 53 | Page 54 | Page 55 | Page 56 | Page 57 | Page 58 | Page 59 | Page 60 | Page 61 | Page 62 | Page 63 | Page 64 | Page 65 | Page 66 | Page 67 | Page 68 | Page 69 | Page 70 | Page 71 | Page 72 | Page 73 | Page 74 | Page 75 | Page 76 | Page 77 | Page 78 | Page 79 | Page 80 | Page 81 | Page 82 | Page 83 | Page 84 | Page 85 | Page 86 | Page 87 | Page 88 | Page 89 | Page 90 | Page 91 | Page 92 | Page 93 | Page 94 | Page 95 | Page 96 | Page 97 | Page 98 | Page 99 | Page 100 | Page 101 | Page 102 | Page 103 | Page 104 | Page 105 | Page 106 | Page 107 | Page 108 | Page 109 | Page 110 | Page 111 | Page 112 | Page 113 | Page 114 | Page 115 | Page 116 | Page 117 | Page 118 | Page 119 | Page 120 | Page 121 | Page 122 | Page 123 | Page 124 | Page 125 | Page 126 | Page 127 | Page 128 | Page 129 | Page 130 | Page 131 | Page 132 | Page 133 | Page 134 | Page 135 | Page 136 | Page 137 | Page 138 | Page 139 | Page 140 | Page 141 | Page 142 | Page 143 | Page 144 | Page 145 | Page 146 | Page 147 | Page 148 | Page 149 | Page 150 | Page 151 | Page 152 | Page 153 | Page 154 | Page 155 | Page 156 | Page 157 | Page 158 | Page 159 | Page 160 | Page 161 | Page 162 | Page 163 | Page 164 | Page 165 | Page 166 | Page 167 | Page 168 | Page 169 | Page 170 | Page 171 | Page 172 | Page 173 | Page 174 | Page 175 | Page 176 | Page 177 | Page 178 | Page 179 | Page 180 | Page 181 | Page 182 | Page 183 | Page 184 | Page 185 | Page 186 | Page 187 | Page 188 | Page 189 | Page 190 | Page 191 | Page 192 | Page 193 | Page 194 | Page 195 | Page 196 | Page 197 | Page 198 | Page 199 | Page 200 | Page 201 | Page 202 | Page 203 | Page 204 | Page 205 | Page 206 | Page 207 | Page 208 | Page 209 | Page 210 | Page 211 | Page 212 | Page 213 | Page 214 | Page 215 | Page 216 | Page 217 | Page 218 | Page 219 | Page 220 | Page 221 | Page 222 | Page 223 | Page 224 | Page 225 | Page 226 | Page 227 | Page 228 | Page 229 | Page 230 | Page 231 | Page 232 | Page 233 | Page 234 | Page 235 | Page 236 | Page 237 | Page 238 | Page 239 | Page 240 | Page 241 | Page 242 | Page 243 | Page 244 | Page 245 | Page 246 | Page 247 | Page 248 | Page 249 | Page 250 | Page 251 | Page 252 | Page 253 | Page 254 | Page 255 | Page 256 | Page 257 | Page 258 | Page 259 | Page 260 | Page 261