<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<mods xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/mods/v3" version="3.1" xsi:schemaLocation="http://www.loc.gov/mods/v3 http://www.loc.gov/standards/mods/v3/mods-3-1.xsd">
  <titleInfo>
    <title>Would decentralisation have made a difference?</title>
  </titleInfo>
  <name type="personal">
    <namePart>Pathak, vidyadhar</namePart>
    <role>
      <roleTerm authority="marcrelator" type="text">creator</roleTerm>
    </role>
  </name>
  <name type="personal">
    <namePart>Patel, Shirish</namePart>
  </name>
  <typeOfResource>text</typeOfResource>
  <originInfo>
    <place>
      <placeTerm type="code" authority="marccountry">xu|</placeTerm>
    </place>
    <dateIssued>2005</dateIssued>
    <issuance>continuing</issuance>
  </originInfo>
  <language>
    <languageTerm authority="iso639-2b" type="code">ng </languageTerm>
  </language>
  <physicalDescription>
    <extent>p.3902-904.</extent>
  </physicalDescription>
  <abstract>Mumbai needs governance of a different kind, decentralised to a local level and run by individuals more clearly answerable for their local performance, rather than being run by ministers who have state-wide responsibilities and constituencies. This article describes current planning procedures, and looks at a Canadian alternative based on public participation, consensus building and a devolution of local planning to local authorities. It also suggests that the mayor-in-council system of governance, successfully pursued in Kolkata, might have produced a more effective response to the disaster. - Reproduced.</abstract>
  <subject>
    <topic>Decentralization - India - Maharashtra</topic>
  </subject>
  <subject>
    <topic>Decentralization</topic>
  </subject>
  <relatedItem type="host">
    <name>
      <namePart>Economic and Political Weekly</namePart>
    </name>
  </relatedItem>
  <recordInfo>
    <recordCreationDate encoding="marc">180718</recordCreationDate>
  </recordInfo>
</mods>
