Reimagining Architecture of bureaucracy for India’s quantum growth and drawing inspiration from the Chinese bureaucracy
The Imperial Civil Services, now the Indian Civil Services, were once considered to be the best bureaucracy in the world. Apart from performing regulatory functions, they were and are expected to perform certain welfare and developmental functions too. The civil services in India were envisioned to be the ‘steel frame’ of independent India by the then deputy Prime Minister of India, Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel, and it has been so for decades. It was supposed to be a service with minimum political interference, independent of the parties. The role of civil servants has been more than keeping the prestige associated with the Imperial services away from interactions with the Indian population. Their role has been to be able to understand and serve the common people of the nation. While the Indian bureaucracy of thousands of civil servants has earned some praise for the achievements of independent India, it has also disappointed many at times.
From being a steel frame, with no major reforms over the years and continuing with an age-old bureaucratic approach, the civil services have now turned into a weak structure of the government laden with generalisation, red tape, corruption and incompetence. Unfortunately, it has failed to live up to the expectations of both the people and the political executive in terms of their performance – from Jawahar Lal Nehru to Narendra Modi (The Hindu, 2021). Some experts have even termed it as a ‘creaking structure’ of the government (Qazi, 2020). However, the Government of India has initiated certain reforms in civil services over the years – methods of recruitment, changes to the entrance examination, new systems of performance appraisal of servants as well as of departments among other things – but have not executed it to a great extent. There have been only two Administrative Reform Commissions – one in 1966 and the other in 2005 – deliberating over a period of 75 years with the changes either not being accepted or not being implemented to this date.
When one looks at other nations with a stronghold of bureaucracy like China, one may wonder what was different about their structure that led to a remarkable state growth. China has been the giant of a vertiginous economic growth which has left the world astounded, followed to some extent by India. Both the countries were once regarded as those with ancient cultures and as closed, humongous, inward-looking and poverty ridden. Both are now regarded as superpowers and future superpowers with their extensive economic growth, owing to the decades of pragmatic planning and their implementation by the public policy professionals and bureaucrats (Das, 2007). Critics have hinted that China linking economy with performance evaluation has resulted in a competitive spirit among their bureaucrats to outperform their potential.
There have been several studies comparing the administrative systems in India and China (which we talk about in the first chapter), but none have made an elaborate attempt to compare the bureaucratic model and make recommendations. With a focus on bureaucracy and how policy implementation is carried out, this paper attempted to embark on a journey to explore the similarities and the deviation between the two civil services of India and China. Since this is an exploratory study, we acknowledge the fact that political systems and decision making differs significantly in the two countries, and we attempted to look at factors other than political will that motivate a civil servant. The study was mainly a secondary research study by accessing publicly available academic journals, newspaper articles, white papers, books and government publications.
The first chapter of the paper introduces the reader to the context of bureaucracy in terms of it being an administrative state capacity to attain economic growth and development. We give examples of various states across the globe while trying to establish a correlation between economic growth and bureaucracy. In terms of understanding the distinct contexts of the two countries under discussion, we take a look back at the historical and cultural origin of bureaucracy in both the countries and see how it has developed.
The second chapter of the paper takes the reader through a journey of the exact bureaucratic models and their functioning in both the countries. We compare both of them on three parameters – i) Selection, recruitment and training, ii) Role, power and tenure, and iii) Performance management and career development and then attempt to summarise these differences in a comprehensive table.
The third chapter of the paper looks at how these various structures perform in reality, and we analyse certain policies implemented by the bureaucrats in China and India. We highlight the points that we think made the programs a success or a failure in terms of the bureaucratic execution and mechanism, especially in terms of appraisals and incentives. After analysing these structures
structures and policies, we discuss the hindrances maligning the Indian bureaucracy before coming to the last bit of the paper which talks of the road ahead.
Our recommendations are categorised into three parameters, similar to those we discuss in chapter two –
i) Selection, recruitment and training: Country-wide specialist cadre, periodic trainings, compulsory crash courses on reassignment.
ii) Role, power and tenure: Financial incentives and promotions, performance bonus and standard evaluation criteria, minimum period of tenure, need assessment for growth.
iii) Performance management and career development: Wider 360° appraisals, scientific evaluation parameters tailored to organisations, departments and roles, providing coaching, goal setting and counselling.
The bureaucracy needs to be adaptable and flexible, following a signal-response dynamic as per the need of all the stakeholders involved, while also monitoring performance regularly and giving enough autonomy and incentives for work motivation for the bureaucrats at even the lowest levels. To escape from what the American author, Brooks Atkinson, had once said, “the perfect bureaucrat everywhere is the man who manages to make no decisions and escape all responsibility”, the Indian government has to do more to make the system more accountable, flexible and adaptable. This paper is a humble attempt in strengthening the weakening institution and transforming it into an efficient, disciplined, diligent, honest and contented service.