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.

editpage@expressindia.com

For all the latest India News, download Indian Express App now

  1. A
    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....
    Reply
    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.
      Reply
      1. B
        bajrang
        Apr 15, 2015 at 12:04 pm
        if implemented it is good move in a people call rotten system to improve.
        Reply
        1. D
          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.
          Reply
          1. D
            deb
            Apr 13, 2015 at 12:50 pm
            writer is part of existing bureaucratic rot....how will he choose to loose position and power.....
            Reply
            1. H
              Harish Kumar
              Apr 13, 2015 at 12:46 pm
              I disagree. If really professionals of exceptional qualities and considerable knowledge are taken in lateral entry. There is no harm and better results can be expected. Of course, at the same time dead wood in IAS at JS level need be weeded too.
              Reply
              1. K
                Kannan raising
                Apr 14, 2015 at 8:37 am
                Good article. In the comments section, there are certain arguments for bringing american system of appointing secretaries. In the indian system , instead of calling them as secretary we named them as ministers. Not one, there are two ministers ( political appointees) in each ministry. Further in the comments, I could see somebody arguing for appointing Deepak parek as commerce secretary. Even in the present system best of the people can be appointed as minister of state. The author who is from IIT, then a graduate of Harvard is working probably 65000 Rs per month in government job. we need to appreciate the system which brought this person here
                Reply
                1. A
                  ashok
                  Apr 13, 2015 at 1:33 pm
                  Lateral entry, in the Indian context, could be deeply problematic. Better avoided. The combination of elected politicians and a permanent bureaucracy, recruited through the service commissions suits India just fine.
                  Reply
                  1. M
                    mike
                    Apr 13, 2015 at 5:57 am
                    I totally second Dan Mishra! The writer is merely lip sync(ing) words of the IAS lobby. They do not want real expertise to come in, neither do they want to share the trappings of power. THIS is the real bureaucracy plaguing the Indian System.
                    Reply
                    1. N
                      NGG
                      Apr 13, 2015 at 9:22 pm
                      Writer's verbose article does not make any logical argument against lateral entry. It just makes circular arguments and unsubstantiated doomsday predictions with master argument being India is different. He himself has admitted and any knowledge person will know that lateral entrants have done very well in roles 'reserved' for IAS. But for him and strong IAS lobby any change and compeion is bad. They don't want to compete for the top post like anyone else. Rather than writing this useless article, he might just have written that lateral entry is bad because I and all powerful IAS lobby say so.
                      Reply
                      1. K
                        KD
                        Apr 13, 2015 at 12:06 pm
                        What the writer captures as possible cons of a lateral talent acquisition, are often the problems of the UPSC screening and selection process too. I would be surprised to find if 50% of these UPSC selections can survive in private sector, thriving is altogether a different ballgame. It's time the bureaucratic machinery and its practices introduced in British raj are overhauled to reflect modern day reality.
                        Reply
                        1. S
                          SCC
                          Apr 13, 2015 at 3:30 pm
                          Modi is providing material for the roaches and rodents to come out and run amock so that they can be easily identified and tackled. This is something which Vajpayee failed to do and paid for in 2004. He is letting the MOM feel important. Check and Mate will follow soon.
                          Reply
                          1. U
                            Uttrakhandi
                            Apr 14, 2015 at 2:34 am
                            Weak arguments, that fail to convince the author's case. Personal fiefdoms created by by insulated bureaucracy could be at stake, if lateral entry is allowed. Imagine, if it were there, Sreedharan could have been Secretary Railways, instead of some non-descript babu, Deepak Parekh (if he accepted) could have been Commerce or Finance Secretary, and so on. They had potential to change the way these ministries function.
                            Reply
                            1. V
                              vaishnavi g
                              Apr 13, 2015 at 7:40 am
                              lateral entry is a must.advantages are much greater than demerits.
                              Reply
                              1. V
                                vasanjs
                                Apr 13, 2015 at 10:31 am
                                With all due respect, I don't see any "headlong rush" for lateral entry happening. This issue has been debated for at least the last 30 years and more. Excluding Sam Pitroda, Nandan Nilekani and Montek Singh, I doubt if anyone has really entered the governmental service outside of the IAS. The author wants perpetuation of the IAS monopoly. Today, the IAS has even captured the CAG's position, even though the logic the author himself advances would make one argue that the CAG should be an audit and accounts service officer. But then, the IAS has always believed it can do everything under the sun, and that anyone who is not of the IAS is incompetent. That umption runs through this entire article, and I beg to differ. I have seen competent IAS officers, but they are contrasted by a large number of incompetent ones - running animal husbandry department today, the archives tomorrow, and in the finance department day after tomorrow. India needs more technical and sector expertise, and not so many general good-for-not-much generalists that IAS officers become. They have no concept of specialization.
                                Reply
                                1. K
                                  Kautilya
                                  Apr 13, 2015 at 11:17 pm
                                  Reading this article reminded me of the dialogue from the film Sholay; "Kaisa phadphada raha hain !" And going by the experiences from the private sector; there is no better performance booster than a healthy dose of personal uncertainty and anxiety!
                                  Reply
                                  1. V
                                    Vicky Verma
                                    Apr 13, 2015 at 8:42 pm
                                    Reservation based Bureaucracy or official babu culture literally destro India for last six decades, we seriously need out of box solution to weed out inept officials. Lateral entry is the best solution, so far important posts are filled on the basis of outdated selection process favoring low caliber individuals from reserved quota based cl over other more bright individuals . Bright individuals are left out by reservation politics. How many highly efficient bright students got destro by reservation is no secret. Lateral entry can break old legacy. Bring the right people for the right position, India will rise.
                                    Reply
                                    1. Y
                                      yousef
                                      Apr 13, 2015 at 9:33 pm
                                      We should follow American system. All Administrative services employees must resign with outgoing government and be appointed by new entering government. This will ever refresh the talent and life long inefficient employees will be weeded out. Plus all reservations will not be needed anymore as newly elected government will employ its clan.
                                      Reply
                                      1. Load More Comments