Here is a quote. There is need for carrying out organisational changes in the existing set-up of the machinery of government. This is so because there is insufficient coordination in the framing of policies and plans and inadequate speed and efficiency in their execution… It is necessary to bring about such changes in machinery and procedure as would render the process of expenditure sanction more intelligent,well-informed and speedy,and thereby remove the sense of frustration which afflicts,at any rate,several ministries and departments at present; and,at the same time,to tighten up the process of budget control of expenditure,and to promote economy-consciousness and sense of financial responsibility throughout all administrative departments. These are the effective safeguards against extravagance.
There are fiscal pressures and simultaneous pressures on increasing public expenditure. Therefore,there should be pressures on making public expenditure more efficient. That,in turn,is linked to administrative reforms and a broader agenda of improving governance. In different sections,the Congress manifesto emphasises governance and also refers to reports of assorted commissions,including the Administrative Reforms Commission (ARC),meaning the ARC established during UPA-I.
One can hardly state the prioritisation of public expenditure better. A.D. Gorwala wrote this. The quote is from Report on Public Administration and the year was 1951.
One can go round in circles trying to define administrative reforms or governance. Beyond a point,taxonomy is counter-productive. The department of administrative reforms and public grievances (DARPG) has a definition of public administration and administrative reforms and as per this definition,there have been 73 reports by commissions/ committees,all on improving public administration. The earliest is 1812 and the latest is 2004. Thus,strictly speaking,the number is more than 73. Post-2004 reports havent been included. Of particular interest are recent reports like National Development Council on Austerity (1992),Expenditure Reforms Commission (2001),Surendra Nath Committee (2003) and Committee on Civil Service Reforms (2004). The 1992 NDC report was confidential initially,but is now in the public domain. It was also authored when the present dispensation formed the government. It said: A broad strategy in this regard should include (a) closer scrutiny and application of cost-effectiveness analysis to expenditure proposals,(b) administrative reforms to eliminate unnecessary work,(c) systematic attention to maintenance and fuller utilisation of assets created,(d) avoidance of open-endedness in subsidies by rigid targeting of beneficiary groups and plugging of leakages,and (e) application of zero-based budgeting to expenditure proposals for existing schemes.
If one wishes to do something,one goes ahead and does it. If one wishes to convey the impression of movement,without any action,one sets up a committee/ commission,so that minutes are kept and hours wasted. The short point is there is no dearth of recommendations telling us what should be done to introduce administrative reforms and deliver better governance. The institutions of governance fashioned by our founding fathers of our Republic have served us well over the last five decades. However,it is fair to state that many of the institutions have been of late showing signs of stress and today,the efficiency and effectiveness of many of these institutions are being questioned. There is growing dissatisfaction regarding the functioning of the executive and the legislature and their ability to deliver effective governance to meet the needs and challenges of our times. That is from a speech delivered by Dr Manmohan Singh at a
Conference of Chief Ministers and Chief Justices and the date was September 18,2004.
I dont possess a complete database of speeches delivered by the PM during UPA-I. But as far as I can make out,Dr Singh mentioned the word governance 255 times in speeches delivered during UPA-I and the expression administrative reforms 48 times. If this is any indication of importance,these are high-priority reform items.
Both governance and administrative reforms are huge canvases,the second less so than the first. Therefore,there are different strands to reforms too and there are also Centre/ state issues. Having said that,is public governance (corporate governance is different) in 2009 better than in 2004? Will the answer change if the impact of RTI is excluded? Notwithstanding the euphoria about e-governance and the 12 reports submitted by the ARC during UPA-I,how much has changed? How about administrative reforms and civil service reforms as a subset of those? Contrast recommendations (not implementation) of the Sixth Pay Commission with those of the fifth and re-read the recommendations of the afore-mentioned 2001,2003 and 2004 commissions/ committees.
The Left can legitimately be blamed for several things,but not on this count. At least,the Left didnt hold things up at the Centre,regardless of what it did in West Bengal. Is talking about something (even at PM-level) any guarantee of implementation? George Santayanas The Life of Reason has often been quoted and paraphrased for those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it,though its unclear whether this should apply to the government or Indias citizens. However,the same volume also said,Fanaticism consists in redoubling your efforts when you have forgotten your aim. And thats worth mulling over.
The writer is a Delhi-based economist express@expressindia.com
