Overall, while the potential for deliberative democracy is strong in India, there are many steps that can be taken to increase its efficacy. Drawing from results in Kerala (Fung and Wright, 2003), it can be said that increased structure (specifically, guidelines for distribution) in spending is beneficial in narrowing the scope of issues addressed and allowing for factions to skew interests in their favor. Specifying percentages of allocated funds that can be spent on specific development issues, as was done in Kerala, such as women empowerment or slum improvement, ensures that plans are focused and highlight areas of importance (as recognized by the designation of funds). Furthermore, the implementation of grassroots level outreach programs and development seminars fosters local involvement and encourages participation, working towards robust inclusion. Robust inclusion processes include concepts such as targeted outreach programs, general public awareness programs, and educational tools such as workshops on deliberation and moderation of meetings; they have great potential to solve issues of apathy and power asymmetry due to unequal opportunity or circumstance.

Conversely, the studies in West Bengal show just how detrimental political polarization in a body can be to deliberative processes. While the structure and principles of EDD are very similar in Kerala and West Bengal, the latter has seen far less success due to apathy and asymmetry in power engendered by strong affiliations with political parties and their ideals. Potential solutions to issues of power usurpation by political parties and the lack of inclusivity are articulated by the idea of counter-publics and critical mass posed by Hernandez-Medina when examining participatory budgeting in Sao Paolo. Medina delineates the concept of counter-publics, described by Fraser, “‘the existence of multiple publics while focusing on ‘subaltern counter-publics’, i.e. those constituted by groups marginalized from the mainstream political arena [and] function as bases and training grounds for agitational activities directed toward wider publics’” (Hernandez-Medina, 2010). Social movements as described by Castells have the potential to function in engendering and mobilizing counter-publics in deliberative democratic processes, as they seek to redefine identity politics of marginalized groups to be empowered. However, in order for counter-publics to function effectively in empowering marginalized groups in deliberative processes, Medina argues a that critical mass of new actors must be met as, “members of the minority group are less likely to risk being ignored or further marginalized if there are not sufficient allies at the table and because in diverse groups, members of the majority are more prone to check their own and others’ prejudices” (Bowers et al. and Summers, 2006 cited in Hernandez-Medina, 2010). This can be exemplified by the large impact of social movements in increasing the participation of women, and ‘lower caste’ groups that are otherwise sidelined in EDD.

Lastly, in all three regions, the results of the studies show that the links between the deliberative bodies, even at the higher tiers and the government lack accountability. This results in the deliberative bodies being empowered, but not accountable for the effective execution of their plans. The issue might benefit from increased institutional structures put in place to bolster implementation, and guidance on appropriate financing schemes and execution. This is articulated by Heller and Rao on bringing deliberation into the developmental state; they state that while, “deliberative processes are key to legitimating the bureaucratic apparatus of the state, effective bureaucracies play a key role in legitimating deliberative processes. Marrying the two is one of the principal challenges to building a deliberative system into the developmental state” (Heller and Rao, 2015). Conversely, they also argue that, “capability enhancing services are always co-produced by their “recipients. The state needs their active engagement in the delivery of those services in order to ensure that they achieve their goals” (Ostrom, 1996 cited in Heller and Rao, 2015). Therefore, on one end the bureaucracy must be strengthened by more strict regulation for implementation and on the other end, social movements and the creation of effective counter-publics must work to resolve issues of apathy and create robust inclusion of marginalized groups in processes so that productive deliberative outcomes can be ‘co-produced’. While India has a long way to go with respect to the effective implementation of EDD, the current model shows promising results in terms of fostering an environment of change.