We need to make renewed efforts at promoting a higher degree of specialisation within government.
The state of governance in India is bemoaned in private living rooms and public forums in the country. An average citizen's dismay at the lack of access to primary education and basic health facilities for significant pockets of our population is accompanied by a sense of helplessness. At the same time, there has been unprecedented consistently high economic growth for the last five years.
Our stock markets are soaring and Indian companies (including public sector firms) have demonstrated their ability to compete internationally and achieve sustained high growth. Inevitably, in such an environment, there is criticism about government performance and praise for the corporate sector. Some attribute the achievements over the last 15 years to the private sector's dynamism and their conclusion is that the smaller the government the better. And, only a minority defends the performance of officials against sweeping generalisations about corruption and lack of productivity.
To state the obvious, core government functions such as defence, finance, trade policy, home (internal security) and external affairs cannot be outsourced. Within these and several other areas we need officials who are productive and enhance their professional skills during their careers. Clearly, a number of complementary reforms are required to address shortcomings in efficiency. This article focuses on the need for greater specialisation in government as a means to increasing productivity.
According to a list prepared by the Department of Administrative Reforms and Public Grievances (DARPG), there have been 73 reports on administrative reforms since 1812. A quick check indicates that recommendations for specialisation in government have been made repeatedly in past reports. For instance, the Administrative Reforms Commission (ARC) headed by Morarji Desai (later K Hanumanthaiya) (1966-1970) suggested specialisation in the following eight areas: (a) economic; (b) industrial; (c) agricultural and rural development; (d) social and educational; (e) personnel; (f) financial; (g) defence and internal security; and (h) planning. This ARC also suggested mid-career examinations for appointment to senior posts but these recommendations were not accepted. In the early 1980s, the Economic Administration Reforms Commission (EARC), headed by L K Jha, recommended changes in personnel policies to promote specialisation.
Later, in 1997, the Fifth Pay Commission recommended that government officials should be allowed to go on deputation to the private sector presumably to promote a result-oriented approach.
Many officers join government with strong academic credentials. Subsequently, frequent transfers and allocation of responsibilities that do not match their background and aptitude lead to an erosion of skills. Consequently, as the years pass by, many officials become increasingly less marketable. This leads to a sense of insecurity and an unquestioning attitude. It follows that productivity would be at a discount as far as these officers are concerned.
The top managers in the private sector too are usually from a generalist, e.g. marketing stream and for several years before they become CEOs they perform general management tasks. However, irrespective of the nature of a private firm's business, profits are the driving force. In contrast, government's accountabilities are very varied