• Associate Sponsor

Lateral entry, blind alley

Far from infusing energy, it could further enfeeble the bureaucracy.

Written by Gulzar Natarajan | Published: April 13, 2015 12:00 am
Government could contemplate hiring outside talent to head certain pre-identified projects. (Source: AP) Government could contemplate hiring outside talent to head certain pre-identified projects. (Source: AP)

As the Seventh Pay Commission prepares its recommendations, the debate on lateral entry into the civil services has restarted. Supporters have long argued in favour of lateral entrants being recruited at the levels of joint secretary, additional secretary and secretary to the government of India.

The conventional wisdom on lateral entry is that it infuses fresh energy and thinking into an insular, complacent and often archaic bureaucracy. It enables the entry of right-minded professionals and the adoption of best practices for improving governance. However, this belief should be weighed against our country’s sociopolitical context, as well as the complex nature of our public policy challenges.

Mainstream arguments in favour of lateral entry underestimate these realities and are informed by the belief that its success in mature presidential democracies like the United States can be readily replicated here. They underestimate the recruitment, functional and operational difficulties associated with lateral entry.

For a start, a generalised system of lateral entry poses formidable recruitment challenges. Given the erosion of state capability and institutional credibility at all levels, it runs the risk of degenerating into an uncontrollable “spoils” system. This, coupled with the inherent problems of revolving-door personnel management, raises concerns about accountability. There is a strong likelihood that, far from infusing fresh energy, lateral entry could further enfeeble the bureaucracy.

Functionally, the cutting edge of implementation of the policies formulated in the vast majority of such postings is at the subnational level, most often at the level of local government. These policies are implemented in a complex and dynamic ecosystem, involving negotiations between multiple interest groups, several bureaucratic and political layers, as well as numerous resource and state-capability constraints. In the absence of adequate field experience, lateral entrants entrusted with policy formulation are likely to have only a limited appreciation of these challenges. A few sanitised visits to primary health centres or cursory interactions with field nurses do not equip you with the skills to formulate healthcare policies for a vast and diverse country like India.

Then there are the operational challenges associated with lateral entry. Any infusion of cherry-picked external talent into only high-profile posts, apart from adversely affecting the morale of incumbents, is also likely to distort the incentives of entrants. How do we mitigate the incentive distortions that are likely with a revolving-door approach, by which market talent moves back and forth between the government and corporate world? Restrictions imposed to address these distortions are only likely to turn away the best and brightest, precisely those sought to be attracted through lateral entry.

Further, will the best market talent be attracted by a lateral entry process that offers a mix of high-profile posts and unglamorous, even drudgery-filled, ones? Would such talent be willing to rough it out in a complex and uncertain, sometimes frustrating, work environment for a 10 to 15-year tenure at a fraction of their market remunerations? If it fails to attract the best and brightest and only crowds-in the also-rans from the market, as is likely, then we end up with the worst of both worlds — a demoralised bureaucracy and lateral entrants of less-than-desired quality. Finally, there is the issue of its impact on the civil service. If the limited high-profile and critical posts get earmarked for lateral entrants, who are more likely to effectively bargain in a “spoils” system, it would adversely affect career-progression opportunities. The consequent deterrent effect on civil service aspirants, leave aside the morale of the incumbents, could be significant. These are just a few of the operational challenges associated with lateral entry.

Given all this, far from rectifying the current failings of the Indian bureaucracy and improving governance, generalised lateral entry could potentially deepen the fissures in the bureaucracy and weaken governance as well as public service delivery.

Under these circumstances, a prudent approach is required. There are already precedents for lateral entry of professionals into the higher echelons of policymaking. The ministry of finance has institutionalised the practice of appointing advisors to the government from the world of academia and the corporate sector. The Reserve Bank of India and the erstwhile Planning Commission, as well as its successor, the Niti Aayog, all have a history of lateral entry. The government has already decided to open up the posts of public-sector bank heads to market competition. A carefully calibrated expansion of its scope would be an appropriate strategy to infuse fresh talent into the country’s bureaucratic system.

The government could contemplate hiring outside talent to head certain pre-identified mission-mode projects and public-sector entities where private-sector expertise could be invaluable — like in the case of Nandan Nilekani and Aadhaar. Similarly, leadership positions in large infrastructure projects could be filled through open competition between civil servants and market talent.

The recruitment and service rules for such posts have to be clearly defined and made incentive-compatible, and the processes managed transparently. A credible statutory agency like the Union Public Service Commission or an autonomous agency like the Bank Board Bureau, established to hire heads of public-sector banks, should be entrusted with the responsibility of recruitment. All this, coupled with competition among both serving bureaucrats and market participants, would help avoid many of the aforementioned pitfalls associated with general lateral entry. Further, this would be in line with the lateral entry strategy adopted by more developed parliamentary democracies like the UK.

Such an approach would have to be complemented with liberalised norms that allow civil servants to work outside government — with multilateral agencies, nonprofits and corporations — for short periods. By enabling exposure to market practices and fresh ideas, this, as much as infusing outside talent into government, is likely to help achieve the objectives of lateral entry itself.

In conclusion, rather than a headlong plunge into an uncertainty-filled process of generalised lateral entry, a more nuanced strategy stands a greater likelihood of success. Else, lateral entry risks becoming just a bandaid on gangrene.

The writer is director in the prime minister’s office. Views are personal.


For all the latest Opinion News, download Indian Express App

More From Gulzar Natarajan
  • Changing chalta hai 

    Indian Administrative Services can lead the charge. If it reinvents itself, its effects will ripple through the system, galvanise change...

  • Generalist vs specialist

    A nuanced process of active but careful cadre management should inform lateral entry into IAS..

  • The case for lateral entry

    There should be a system of annual recruitment into the IAS of mid-career professionals from diverse sectors..

  1. Aditya Gaiha
    Apr 13, 2015 at 11:59 am
    One really cant expect objectivity from a serving bureaucrat can we? the fact remains that the civil services were created by the colonial rulers to serve colonial purposes such as maintain status quo, maintain an outward semblence of law and order and collect as much of revenue as possible while working towards the overall economic benefit of the colonial masters and small oligarchy of landlords, feudal lords etc.. Today 90% of the Government schemes do not get implemented due to this 'iron frame'. In the 1980-1990s Mr Rajiv hi said that only 17% paise reaches out of every Govt Rupee spent and the rest is cornered by rent seekers. Can we allow this to continue? We need a system with accountability and transparency at every level and this cannot be achieved through a permanent bureaucracy of generalist civil servants. We need a mix of permanent career bureaucrats and lateral entry specialists to get the best out of the system for the benefit of the mes....
    1. A
      A S
      Apr 13, 2015 at 2:26 pm
      IAS officers oppose lateral entry into their service but they bulldoze themselves into ALL fields. It is important to weedout those who are unfit from all ALL INDIA services. An officer recruited to say IAS based on his knowledge about English or history can't go for unlimited progression as Secretary. From Senior Administrative Grade onwards at least 25% should be weeded out based on evaluation. Simply transferring them to another post is not a solution.
      1. B
        Apr 15, 2015 at 12:04 pm
        if implemented it is good move in a people call rotten system to improve.
        1. Dan Mishra
          Apr 13, 2015 at 4:32 am
          The writer must be an ex-IAS or possibly a bookish MBA. All over the world, expertise matters a lot in good decision making. Experts understand the pros and cons of certain decisions. They know how to take ownership and not be afraid to be accountable. Whereas, trained administrators know only how to delegate, follow process, and not ume accountability or responsibility.
          1. D
            Apr 13, 2015 at 12:50 pm
            writer is part of existing bureaucratic rot....how will he choose to loose position and power.....
            1. Load More Comments