In November 2005, Nitish Kumar became chief minister of one of India’s poorest states. The third-largest state by population, Bihar lagged behind other states in growth and development but scored high in corruption, lawlessness, and dismal service delivery. Mismanagement of financial resources, obsolete methods of data entry and reporting, a low-skilled workforce, insufficient transparency, and scarce accountability hindered service delivery. As head of state government, Kumar launched a series of reforms that applied information and communications technology to streamline operations, boost revenues, and improve the government’s responsiveness to citizens’ needs. By 2012, Bihar had earned national and regional acclaim for its technology-related gains, and the government of India recognized the turnaround through e-governance awards. Kumar’s efforts earned him the nickname Sushasan Babu, or Mr. Good Governance. Still, some reforms did not go far enough, and significant limitations remained: lack of integration among information and communications systems prevented proper coordination across departments; civil servants did not embrace all technology-related initiatives; and lack of electricity and Internet connectivity in many areas prevented citizens from taking full advantage of the services.

Juliette John drafted this case study in May 2014 while at Princeton University’s Woodrow Wilson School on leave from the UK’s Department for International Development.  The case study was updated by Rushda Majeed and Pallavi Nuka following interviews conducted by Rushda Majeed in Patna, Bihar in August, 2014.  Three separate ISS case studies—Coalition Building in a Divided Society, Clearing the Jungle Raj, and Reviving the Administration,—outline Nitish Kumar’s broader efforts to build a coalition for reform, improve law and order, and resuscitate Bihar’s administration, respectively.

Associated Interview(s):  Anup Mukerji

During the 1990s, Serbia suffered a long and turbulent period of civil conflict, international isolation, and political fragmentation. Following the assassination of the country’s reform-driven prime minister in 2003, the government faced the daunting tasks of determining how to improve economic options for citizens and rejoin the global community. A core group of reformers in Serbia’s fragmented government decided that the best path to stability and development lay in the pursuit of membership in the European Union (EU). The accession process potentially offered a way to help develop both a new, shared identity and a set of national priorities. But to meet the EU’s demanding requirement that Serbia harmonize its legislation and administration with EU standards, the group’s leaders would have to overcome political opposition and win the cooperation of the ministries. The tasks were all the more difficult because the EU and its member states were initially unwilling to let Serbia move ahead with the accession process. Reformers in the Serbian government worked closely with the country’s European Integration Office, staffed by an ambitious group of committed civil servants. As a result of their work, from 2007 to 2010 Serbia enacted a series of unilateral measures that kick-started harmonization with EU law and signaled to the European Commission in Brussels that Serbia was serious about its future in the EU. Because the reformers were so focused on pursuing accession, they did Not have much opportunity to think independently about national priorities and formulate a separate national development strategy. But they did achieve a desired goal: Serbia’s 2012 acceptance as a candidate for EU membership, after which long-awaited membership negotiations commenced at the start of 2014.

George Gavrilis drafted this case study based on interviews conducted in Belgrade, Serbia, in May 2014. Michael Scharff conducted additional interviews in London, England and Paris, France in June and July 2014. Valentina Đureta of the Belgrade Fund for Political Excellence provided vital logistical support for the case study. This case study was funded by the Bertelsmann Stiftung ReformCompass. Case published September 2014.

Associated Interview(s):  Sonja Licht