Corporatisation of the bureaucracy

The Government's move towards lateral entry by inducting domain experts into joint secretary ranks from outside the IAS cadre is anything but politicisation of the bureaucracy

In advanced capitalist democracies, a major public reform wave in the functioning of Governments has evolved in recent decades  which supplants  the old. And these reforms pertaining to systemic transitions from the ‘Old Public Administrations’ (OPA), which was the traditional way of running Governments characterised by slow processes and red tapism, to the ‘New Public Management’ (NPM) paradigm.

This shift has given way to ‘hybrid administrative systems’ that have brought about a stronger integration between the state, the private sector and civil society to deliver with greater efficiency, thereby lessening the time on project-overlaps on Government’s flagship initiatives.

Clearly, ‘big Governments’ which were oversized and unwieldy, failed when confronted with the unanticipated consequences of dynamic market forces, growing globalisation, and the pace of changing technology. The solution to these challenges in robust and liberal economies was to make Governments more ‘businesslike’ through the introduction of the NPM prototype that treats the citizen as a customer, and the Government as a supplier of services to the taxpayer-citizen on whose contribution the Government is run.

The Union Government’s move towards ‘lateral entry’ by inducting domain experts into joint secretary ranks from outside the IAS cadre is anything but the politicisation of bureaucracy. Perhaps, it might just be the first of many steps in heralding a shift to the new NPM model of governance.

And there exist compelling reasons for this bold reform, provided it is the first amongst a sequel of steps needed towards a holistic overhaul in the HR policy in civil services.

But implemented in isolation, recruiting just ten entrants at mid-level Administration is a trickle, and shouldn’t ruffle feathers even amongst the most obstructionist bureaucrats determined to protect their turf.

Opposition and detractors to this mini-reform need to view this measure as Government of India’s move to align bureaucracy with the Government’s vision of a New India 2022, instead of critiquing every Modi Government initiative through the limited prism of politics, reservations, RSS-infusion in governance, nepotism etc.

Allow me to expand the above proposition further. Widening the talent pool through lateral recruitment is a common practice in the US and Canada, as advanced capitalist democracies react speedily and proactively to the demanding dynamics of what’s termed as ‘New Age Government projects’ and disruptions in technology to match up to the pace of globalisation.

The Modi Government’s initiatives on Start up India, smart cities, DBT transfers, rapid delivery of village electrification or Modicare for example, need an expert set of skills.And the IAS just does not have the personnel in place who comprehend or even possess the know-how to implement, in mission mode such transformative reforms, as Government HR is simply not designed to recruit and hire a modern workforce.

It, therefore, necessitates that the Government of India needs to work in a collaborative mode with a multitude of domain experts on a new and evolving Government business-model termed as ‘New Public Management’. NPM is a paradigm shift in corporatising the working of both the public sector and the bureaucracy, and is a complete divergence from the ‘Old Public Administrations’. With the emergence of globalisation, criticism on OPA’s inefficiency and ineffectiveness has become more pronounced, as it is a more archaic way of governance.

Let me explain this better. We have over time practised successfully two business models of industry collaborating with Government and the Public Sector Enterprises on the module of build-operate-transfer (BOT), and the public-private- partnership (PPP) model. What the NPM model imparts is an entrepreneurial spirit to governance and is a more “businesslike” construct to improve efficiencies by replicating some of the advanced private sector management models.

Like the private sector focuses primarily on profitability for its stakeholders and on customer service, NPM reforms for a new working style for Governments are focused on the centrality of citizens who should be the rightful recipients of efficient Government services.

NPM is practised in the most industrialized Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) nations such as the United Kingdom, Australia and America, and entails prioritisation of efficiency and cost-effectiveness in spending taxpayer money and treating every citizen as a customer. Though it was viewed with scepticism, even President Trump attempted the NPM model, by running his Government like a private-sector company.

While bureaucrats come with in-depth grassroots Administrative experience, they are groomed as ‘generalists’, or all-rounders who lack commercial skills. The other problem is that sometimes bureaucrats often tend to become risk-averse and status-quoist due to ‘political masters’, and subsequently get plagued with inefficiencies and policy-paralysis. Besides, India faces a 23 per cent shortage of IAS officers and has only a fifth as many public servants as the United States, relative to population.

Thereafter, enter ‘think tanks’, which try to fill these vacuums in the public policy space. Think tanks possess communication and influencing abilities to engage with both policymakers in the Government as well as interface with the broader public and industry bodies.

The Niti Aayog is probably the ideal fit, which is the Government, yet is more corporatised in outlook. Now, when technology companies such as Facebook, Uber and Google constantly disrupt markets and create new business models which are beyond the comprehension of Government policy makers and civil servants, they need that interface with the Governments think tanks, who in turn facilitate these industries and also suggest policies to the Government that will ensure smooth functioning on both sides.

This then brings about what I term as a ‘public-private osmosis’ which assimilates and feeds-off the best practices of both sectors. I would go a step further to suggest bureaucrats be exposed to advanced training programmes conducted by corporate experts on lessons in excellence, on concepts of profitability, on performance-linked pay-scales, and raising the benchmark on setting higher goals in the delivery of service to citizens.

Because the corporate world has little tolerance for inefficiency or redundancy, which the IAS must adjust to, instead of being assured about job — security and seniority based on hierarchy instead of meritocracy.

Perhaps a better way to affect a systemic change instead of just stopping at inducting 10 joint secretaries, is to formally outsource hundreds of more crucial Government departments to qualified talent-pools as a package for specific ‘job-works’ on a contractual basis.

Though such assignments are being imparted sporadically as was done for implementation of the Aadhaar cards project with Nandan Nilekani’s expertise, it should be formalised into more such out-bound projects. Of course inbuilt safeguards like adherence to Official Secrets Act etc would obviously be included in the agreement, as these professionals need access to classified information.

When contractual assignments are given outwards, it will meet with less resistance from well entrenched bureaucrats. Lateral entrants are resented even in corporate behemoths, as employees rightly feel that the organic route to promotions is only fair.

However, different situations require different solutions, when intellectual acumen has to be imported due to necessity and not with the idea of superseding existing employees.

In fact, a certain percentage of lateral inductions should ideally even be considered at ministerial and secretary levels.

We would then be following global trends in governance instead of being stuck in the time-warp of the British legacy of administration.

(The writer is an author and columnist)