Opinion The disempowered decision-maker

However,much of it will not work unless there is sector-specific “process-reform” to remove the impediments preventing decision-makers from taking decisions within a clear,transparent,non-arbitrary and evidence-based framework,in an environment of reasonable accountability.

Process reform involves mainly those with the domain knowledge (serving and retired senior practitioners and decision-makers) and those at the receiving end of the process (such as industry associations). They must,with the facilitation of those with expertise in process management,identify and address the issues in the legislative and rules framework which need to be attended,including arbitrariness and undue discretion. They must oversee the putting into place or restructuring of regulatory institutions,techno-economic bodies,etc,to provide better inputs into policymaking and conceptualise the modern MIS architecture needed for better evidence-based decision-making,keeping in view best practices. There must be a review of the technical HR (in-house as well as outsourced) for role-determination,latest qualifications and expertise,and creation of multidisciplinary expertise and organisational deployment. Sector-wide processes of developing and updating technical and procedural manuals and standards in line with international practices must be started.

The broad picture in many sectors is currently one where old established and reputed institutions created in the 1950s and 1960s,if not earlier,as repositories of knowledge and centres of excellence are falling into decay; premier institutions are no longer throwing up enough scientists and technocrats of high repute and international standing,who can make their voice heard in policy formulation; senior policymakers often do not have the depth of experience because of inadequate attention to specialisation and career-planning,given the uncertainties in managing such a diverse HR pool in an all-India context.

An equally bleak picture presents itself in the area of information management for evidence-based decisions. There is no comprehensive sectoral information architecture. Data and information is “supply-” rather than demand-,or rather,need-driven. There is very little vertical online collaboration between the Central government and state government systems. Horizontal online collaboration between Central databases is also too inadequate and sporadic to add value to evidence-based decision-making.

It is not possible to suggest specific initiatives or go into greater detail without a sectoral context but it is possible to identify a few cross-sectoral initiatives. One,a Central initiative for institutional renewal of old established and reputed premier institutions engaged in pioneering work at sectoral level. Two,the recent thrust given by the National Statistical Commission to the concept of “core statistics” based on demand (in fact,it should be need) be taken up as a national mission,with more emphasis on building up capacity in states to collect,share and better utilise the data. Three,a Central initiative,in collaboration with states,and educational and research institutions to jointly create large databases,including spatial databases,for multiple purposes. The ongoing mechanism of National Natural Resource Management System (NNRMS) located in the Planning Commission could be professionalised and greatly expanded for the purpose.

Four,a detailed review of the concept of “organised services” in order to develop a comprehensive framework for HR management at a sectoral level particularly for technical services that need to grow and provide inputs for policymaking. Five,encouraging and facilitating and finally mandating sectoral ministries to create a mechanism to develop domain-specific legal expertise on outsourced basis (with the aim of systematically enhancing the pool of freely accessible domain-specific legal expertise in the long run). Six,wherever applicable,develop a sector-specific environmental and social management framework within which policies and programmes can be developed and managed in a more secure space,with an internal regulator to enforce it,if necessary. And finally,by ensuring that each ministry has a risk management framework that constantly reviews and assesses policies,programmes and procedures for key risks through a confidential annual risk management report prepared under the guidance of the ministry’s financial adviser so as to devise and implement internal controls to manage residual risks.

The writer is secretary,ministry of rural development