1 July 2019 OUTLOOK 25
TO DO WHAT THATCHER DID
TO OUR SYSTEM’S SOURCE
It’s time for an administrative overhaul as thoroughgoing as the 1990s economic reforms
corporate managers, from IITs, IIMs and top
colleges. There are others who come into the
civil service from rural areas, with diverse
social backgrounds, and their greater under-
standing of ground realities adds much value
to the administrative process.
Corporate managers have a clearly defined
objective—the company’s bottomline,
profitability and shareholder value. In public
administration, we have to chase multiple
objectives, many of which are not sharply
defined and also varying as governments
change and priorities change, sometimes
suddenly and without warning. We deal with
people, after all, not customers or
figures. I am tempted to quote Arun
Maira, who distinguished himself at
different periods in his life as corporate
manager, as consultant and also as
public administrator in the capacity of
Planning Commission member. In his
book An Upstart in Government, he
says, “I must admit that it is much
harder to get tangible results in the
government... I have to also explain
that the scope of the government’s
responsibilities is much larger than
that of any private sector company. To
produce outcomes that are equitable,
and not only efficient, in providing
health services to all citizens, for
example, is more difficult than selling
medicines to only those who can pay
the price that covers their cost of
discovery and production. The govern-
ment’s job is not to make a profit; it is
to improve the world for everyone.”
Today, there are at least three former
civil servants in the Union council of
ministers. The PMO too is manned largely by
civil servants. This is acknowledgment that
the present dispensation values their contri-
butions. After 13 years as CM and five years
as PM, Narendra Modi is the best judge of
what works for him and what doesn’t.
Public administration is a specialist area in
which skills acquired through years of
experience cannot be randomly replaced. The
need for specialist personnel is largely met
by specialist services within the administra-
tive system. It is only in certain positions of
a technical nature that induction of persons
with the required background from outside
the system would help. But the problem of
administration is not really one that can be
dealt with by wholesale change of personnel.
It is the system that needs fixing.
Referring to the battle royale in the CBIlast year, Lord Meghnad Desai wrote in the
Financial Express: “Even before this
happened, I have argued that the administra-
tive system needs drastic reform. The British
have reformed their system at least twice in
the last 50 years.” The way forward is to
make the system more performance-
oriented. Reform of the British system
started with Margaret Thatcher. Her
determination to bring about change in the
system we are familiar with in the BBC
serials Yes Minister and Yes, Prime Minister
even led to a civil services strike in 1981. Her
attempt was to turn the system on its head,giving primacy to results and making
officials accountable.
The goal of administrators in the
traditional system inherited from the British
is to avoid mistakes and focus on processes
alone without regard for results. Since the
Thatcher days, the British adopted what is
popularly known as SMART goal setting,
where the objectives are Specific,
Measurable, Attainable, Realistic and Timely.
Australia and New Zealand followed suit,
and, closer home, Malaysia developed its
system led by the Performance Management
and Delivery Unit (PEMANDU). PM Modi
appreciated the Malaysian system when he
visited Malaysia in 2015 and a cooperation
agreement was signed in this field for
implementation through the NITI Aayog.
The basic principles of New PublicManagement and its later avatar, New Public
Governance, are clearly worded performance
agreements, thus making administration
accountable for results, revamping of finan-
cial systems to support the achievement of
results, emphasis on cost centres and effi-
ciency in utilisation of budgetary resources,
strong management information systems
and regular monitoring on the basis of
agreed milestones. There is autonomy and
flexibility too, and related changes in person-
nel management. There is consultation with
civil society and people’s representatives on
a large scale, particularly in Australia and
Malaysia. These system changes fruc-
tified only because they were led from
the top by the PM and the cabinet.
The Indian system is highly process-
oriented. There are penalties for mis-
takes made, not consequences for
failure to achieve results. We have app-
ointed commissions, prepared reports,
made recommendations on administra-
tive reform. But piecemeal change will
lead us nowhere. We have the ingredi-
ents of a system in New Public
Manage ment as practised in different
countries that can give us insights on
the way forward, but we have to des ign
a system that best suits our large,
populous, federal country. A beginning
was made a few years ago to introduce
a goal-oriented system through Results
Framework Agreements, but it ground
to a halt in a few years for lack of
political ownership.
Our systems can change, but reform
has to be integrated into the fabric of
administration and led from the top. In
the field of administration, we can bring
about a wholesale change as was done in
the economic arena in the 1990s. This alone
will strengthen our administration, give it
the confidence it needs, change beliefs and
attitudes. Our system needs to facilitate
decision-making and monitoring at multiple
levels. Centralisation of decision-making
comes with the risk of many things not
being done at lower levels as everyone is
focused on what the central figure wants.
An Authority on Good Governance, headed
by the PM at the central level and the CMs
in the states, can make reform a continuing
and productive process that meets the rising
aspirations of our people. O
(The writer, a former cabinet
secretary, is vice-chairman of the
Kerala State Planning Board.)In the Indian system, there
are penalties for mistakes
made, not consequences for
failure to achieve results.SANJAY RAWAT