The Hindu Business Line : Why implementation fails — Seven sins of public administration

A NEW Budget is an occasion for commentators and policy-makers to hope that this time round at least some things will improve. As the Finance Minister, Mr P. Chidambaram, put it, outcomes, and not outlays, are what we all want. This implies that we can expect change in the traditional inability of the state-owned sector, which is known not to implement anything on time, successfully or abide by targeted costs.

Two years ago, the former Prime Minister made an astonishing statement launching a `year of implementation'. One wondered whether it produced anything even marginally different from other years. It is doubtful whether anyone even seriously evaluated the question at the end of the year! It is a commentary on our times that this statement, as with the one crore jobs to be created in one year, came to be not just casually discredited but also ignored by most.

In almost every field, where policy goals are set by the government, be it installing the CAS system, bringing order to the pricing of telecom and energy sectors, reducing the incidence of subsidies in the food sector, getting the public utilities to levy small amounts of user charges, or fiscal responsibility targets, or even passing the Bill on representation of women in Parliament, there is complete lack of connection between what is promised and the actual performance. Why does this happen? Why do we see the sorry spectacle of ministries at loggerheads?

At least seven reasons can be identified for poor implementation, in all sectors whether private or public.

Confusing wishful thinking with planning

One often sees politicians promising, say, drinking water within a certain time frame and then forgetting all about it, as if, merely wishing for it will make it happen. This applies to promises of universal primary education, healthcare for all, creating job opportunities and so on.

The reason why such pronouncements stall is because the state administration is simply incapable of management, as is it practiced in firms.. As the former Disinvestment Minister, Mr Arun Shourie, said some months ago, the government seems most comfortable with reforms that stop with mere announcement. Or even Mr Chidambaram himself, who poked fun that in the age of free market and liberalisation, we still have independent departments or ministries for steel, coal, textiles and so on, in addition to a ministry for industries!

Now that Mr Chidambaram is back, one wonders whether he will strive to rid his own government of such anomalies.

Clueless on logistics of implementation

Perhaps the single most important lesson the civil servant needs to learn is that managing is not entirely a science. Managing is not, to use the typical Indian English expression, "to somehow manage". A plan has to be tested for its feasibility and the availability of people willing and able to implement it. The government machinery, however, seems least concerned with testing plans for competence or training its staff, except for select technical categories and senior civil service positions.

As every manager knows, implementation requires participation of each person who makes up the chain of the command, it calls for prioritisation, communication, persuasion, earning the team's commitment and motivating them.

Managing long - term projects from a distance is common to public administration, demands an even greater level of managerial acumen, and yet government departments are known for whimsical, and sometimes irrational, decisions by officers at the highest level in matters of selection, posting and transfers of chief executives.

Despite discontinuity in the top management, and recommendations by review committees on public sector performance, there has been little improvement.

Implementation does not mean enforcement

Despite talk of leaving business to businessmen, the government continues to play a significant role in the economy. Promise of downsizing the bureaucracy has been made ad nauseum by successive Finance Ministers. Yet no one has been able to actually deliver.

Part of the reason is lack of will to perform unless so expected by law, and often not even then. The public sector, implements only if it is enforced. And even then it takes Supreme Court judgements, as with the relocation of polluting industrial units in New Delhi and the instance of segregation of urban household waste.

First the Bill has to be passed, enacted, and then people have to be threatened with penalties to get them to abide. Management involves applying information to employ efficient methods to tackle routine operational problems. The bureaucratic mindset is simply not equipped to deal with the quantum or the complexity of the information.

No respect for detail

The government machinery prefers to deal with the larger questions. Should there be doubts on any issue, be it on foreign policy or stock market regulations, the query is passed on to expert committees. The committees then, at their own pace, make recommendations, none of which, of course, are binding on the administration or the parliamentarians. This merry-go-round of committees and reports goes on and finally no one is held accountable. In commercial enterprises, on the other hand, variations have to be reported and explained at monthly review meetings and corrective steps taken.

Even though the potency of information technology (IT) to handle data is recognised, it is not introduced because of unfounded fears about its impact on employment. And in cases where the equipment is ordered, they tend to gather dust given the lack of humility and willingness of senior civil servants to learn from juniors. So information, now instead of being buried in files remains dormant inside dust laden PCs.

And as for the ability to link information across disciplines and turn it into intelligence for policymaking, the less said the better.

Inadequate structure

There is a strange structural malaise in the administration that is caused by the deliberate breaking up of inter-linked managerial functions. A study cell, a planning cell, a policy formulation cell, an implementation body, a monitoring cell and a review committee - each operating independently and reporting to a far away superior is the surest way of killing initiative.

Why should monitoring be a separate function at all? Isn't keeping abreast of what is happening not the very essence of management? How can planning be delinked from assessment and feedback?

It is impossible for an expert committee to formulate plans without having a detailed understanding of the industry and of what is expected by implementers. And yet, this is how many government-led organisations function. To top it all, there are audit and vigilance departments, whose only responsibility is to point fingers and apportion blame.

Indifference to customers

The biggest hurdle in bringing the mindset of members of the public sector and the civil services in tune with private enterprises is their indifference to the needs of their customers and their lack of familiarity with competition. In combination the two factors produced a situation that was prevalent, especially before 1990, in the public sector airlines, hotels and banks. A comparison of the functioning of BSNL and Doordarshan today and five years ago says it all.

Sustained training and communication with staff alone can overcome this problem. A simple solution would be for the state to own them if it must, but run them like a commercial enterprise, and not meddle with it at every annual general meeting.

Lack of participatory decision-making

Running a competitive business is a team effort. A Leftist approach, that sees managers and workers as antagonistic to each other spells doom for certain. The work culture should not distort the meaning of negotiation and bargaining.

What is non-negotiable should need no reiteration. And yet, there has to be a willingness to accept demanding targets which is the paradox and challenge of being a CEO. These realities have to be accepted and worked through, if plans have to be implemented. Without that, productive use of resources is unlikely to happen.

In the absence of such deliberate and managed growth, it is difficult to see how mere tinkering with legislation or appointing more committees and regulatory bodies can help this government or any other.

(The author is a student and observer of markets, people and organisations.)

Article E-Mail :: Comment :: Syndication :: Printer Friendly Page

Stories in this Section
Cheaper bandwidth

Tackling medium-term challenges — Key to fiscal stability

Why implementation fails — Seven sins of public administration

Natural gas: The way forward

Scylla, Charybdis and Somnathda

Perks and quirks

Cash transaction tax

Kudos to FM