Despite the efforts of all public institutions, bureaucracy has emerged as a major concern for the ineffective response to the COVID-19 crisis.
This inadequacy is the reflection of the outdated nature of public bureaucracy, and its high time that bureaucracy is overhauled.
How does traditional bureaucracy work?
In the 21st century, democratic countries are still relying on traditional bureaucracies.
They perform primarily the public policy formulation and implementation roles.
This traditional bureaucracy/Weberian bureaucracy still prefers a generalist over a specialist.
A generalist officer (IAS and State civil service officials) is deemed an expert and as a result, a superior.
Traditional bureaucracy is still stuck with the leadership of positionover leadership of function.
Under this, bureaucracy has become an end in itself rather than a means to an end.
Further, the rigid adherence to rules has resulted in the rejection of innovation.
How has it performed during the COVID-19 crisis?
Under the above structure, specialists in every government department have to remain subordinate to the generalist officers.
The COVID-19 pandemic has exposed this weakness.
Healthcare professionals who are specialists have been made to work under generalist officers.
The policy options have been left to the generalists when they should be in the hands of the specialists.
The justification was that the generalist provides a broader perspective compared to the specialist.
Also, under rigid adherence to rules, COVID-19 aid got stuck in cumbersome clearance processes even during the pandemic.
What is the alternative ?
Leadership of function is when a person has expert knowledge of a particular responsibility in a particular situation.
The role of the leader is to explain the situation instead of issuing orders.
Every official involved in a particular role responds to the situation.
They do not rely on some dictation from someone occupying a particular position.
Is New Public Management the right choice?
The reform often suggested in India is new public management (NPM).
NPM as a reform movement promotes privatisation and managerial techniques of the private sector.
This is seen as an effective tool to seek improvements in public service delivery and governance.
But this is not a viable solution, not the least in India where there is social inequality and regional variations in development.
It renders the state a bystander among the multiple market players with accountability being constantly shifted, especially during a crisis.
COVID-19 too has shown that the private sector has also failed in public service delivery.
What is appropriate for India?
The most appropriate administrative reform is the model of new public governance.
This model is based on collaborative governance.
Here, the public sector, private players and civil society, especially public service organisations (NGOs), work together for effective public service delivery.
There is no domination of public bureaucracy as the sole agency in policy formulation and implementation.
As part of new public governance, a network of social actors and private players would take responsibility in various aspects of governance.
What is the way forward?
During the pandemic, the civil society is playing a major role in saving lives.
As part of new public governance, this role has to be institutionalised.
It needs a change in the behaviour of bureaucracy, through -
flexibility in hierarchy
a relook at the generalist versus specialist debate
an openness to reforms such as lateral entry and collaboration with a network of social actors
All major revolutions with huge implications on public service delivery have come through the collaboration of public bureaucracy with so-called outsiders.
These include the Green Revolution (M.S. Swaminathan), the White Revolution (Verghese Kurien), Aadhaar-enabled services (Nandan Nilekani) and the IT revolution (Sam Pitroda).
It is high time that India understands New public governance as the future of governance, especially public service delivery.
