| Letters to the Editor | ||
|
---------------------------------------
GOI Welfare Schemes
What ails Government schemes?
The late Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi is credited with one famous statement. He declared, from a thumb-rule assessment, that out of every rupee spent on a government scheme, only fifteen paise reaches the actual beneficiary. A candid revelation indeed coming from a country’s premier!
However, Mr. Gandhi did not elaborate nor did he order an investigation as to why, as much as, 85% goes as unproductive expenditure. Perhaps he thought it was a futile exercise and there was no cure to the problem. Had he acted on the matter, he would have stumbled upon the many factors responsible for faulty implementation of these welfare schemes of the government and timely corrective action would have saved the government exchequer crores of rupees.
Planning and budgeting of schemes
But before I point out why these schemes don’t yield the desired results, let me spell out a little about planning and budgeting. As in any financial activity, there is income to government and there is expenditure by government. It is common sense, that expenditure has to be less than income. The sources of income for government are through various taxes – taxes on land, property, income, import–export, excise, local entry tax, sales, entertainment, etc. The profits earned by public sector undertakings and lease agreements for mines, minerals and forest products are also sources of income. On the other hand, the government has various establishments to run, notably the institutions of Parliament, Military and Police for external and internal security, a bureaucracy to run the administration and judiciary system. Similarly government has to run some institutes as a public welfare measure – especially schools, hospitals, railways, postal service, telecommunication and so on. These are permanent establishments and the expenditure on them is a committed expenditure, which government cannot shy away from.  However, in any financial year, if there is surplus revenue available with government or if government is able to borrow against future earnings, then such available funds are utilised through a process of planning – by designing new schemes which are likely to generate accelerated development, thereby also bringing more revenue to the government.Every year in February budget session, the budget of the country is presented and which has to be approved by the Parliament. This presents the estimates of revenue to be earned in the next financial year, estimated expenditure needed for the already running institutions and programmes, estimated surplus or possible borrowings – and finally how government proposes to use this available money for new schemes. Needless to add that this whole exercise is not a matter of few days, but has to be carried out at least for three to four months before the February budget session. In order to make this exercise more effective, we have used the methodology of Five Year Plans – so that schemes can be taken up continuously for five years – thus culminating in sustainable benefits.
Factors responsible for failure
Theoretically, the above plans look good on paper. But the moot question that comes next is why do these plans don’t yield desired results? Implementation has been a weak area and matter of concern. Periodically, there are reports in media about the benefits of schemes not reaching the targeted population due to faulty implementation and alleged corruption. What are the reasons for these benefits not reaching the desired section of the society? In my opinion, there are several factors, but let me list out the top five. i) No unity of purpose: First of all our schemes do not have a unity of purpose, they are many times designed in isolation. For example, the scheme for uplifting the status of rural women will not take into consideration the ill-effects of rampant alcoholism prevailing amongst the rural men. Such a scheme designed in isolation cannot yield the desired result. This can be said about all the schemes of the government. I often compare this situation with a vast field having several pyramid structures on it. Various departments are like various pyramid towers whose only agenda is vertical expansion. This leads to a segmentation of the government among various Ministries and Departments. Even if we take a simple example like distribution of milch cattle to the farmers with the target of stopping farmer suicides, the programme is not matched with another scheme under the Dairy Development through which they can ensure proper milk collection, thereby giving relief to the farmer who is now a new owner of the milch cattle. ii) Faulty design: Second, is a defect in the scheme design itself. It has three aspects. Firstly, the scheme does not take into account the ground reality. Secondly, there is always an attempt to have a universal scheme, applicable everywhere in the country in the same fashion, thus ignoring the local needs and local culture and local aspirations. No flexibility is given to district level administration, though it is this level which can give the cutting edge. Thirdly, when a scheme is designed there is very little budget provision for any training aspect. It is presumed that an elaborately drafted scheme issued from Delhi, is instantly understood equally well up to the lowest staff, who will implement the scheme. I have often found this presumption to be totally wrong. There is also no scope for any feedback from the field level machinery and quick response to them. Here, I would like to cite one example. Once while working as Settlement Commissioner of Maharashtra, some senior officers and I, decided to implement a particular scheme for quick disposal of pending settlement cases. We issued instructions drafted as best possible by us. A few days later, I was holding a meeting of senior officers. As was my practice, I had also invited junior officers from the lowest rank in a representative manner of one or two from each cadre, who would not participate in the meeting, but would remain present. While we, senior officers, were discussing how quickly our scheme should be implemented and how quickly we should achieve the targets, two junior members intervened to tell us that we will not succeed. This came as a major surprise to us. We prompted them to elaborate and it turned out that for the Vidarbha area where the practices were different, we needed to make some changes in the scheme for successful implementation. This showed us that for successful implementation of any new scheme, it is necessary to brainstorm with the staff at all levels. Such a feedback mechanism for the purpose of quick corrections and changes in scheme design and plugging loopholes in the beginning itself, is typically absent. We spend much time and money on evaluation which comes as a post mortem but very little on monitoring, feedback and timely corrective actions. Various reports which are generated with fixed frequencies also fail to give much insight to the HQ officers for corrective action. A connected issue is that there is complete absence of mechanism for quick, short term surveys over a small localised area that can be used as another form of feedback while a scheme is still under implementation. We have expertise in the country with organisations such as N.S.S.O., TCS, Ernst and Young etc., which conduct huge survey covering large geographical areas, sometimes nationwide, over periods ranging from two years to five years. However, there is no institutional expertise for collecting data to assess the impact over a small area such as a Taluka within a span of a month or two. Such service, in my opinion, is a prerequisite for effective scheme implementation. We can train and involve colleges to develop such expertise for quick localised surveys. iii) Rampant corruption: Corruption is undoubtedly the topmost reason for ineffective scheme implementation. Take the example of infrastructure development schemes. Corruption invariably leads to sub-standard material and sub-standard workmanship, hence an infrastructure which is guaranteed to give sustained benefits over a long life-span starts developing defects much earlier, thus, eroding the possibility of benefits and development. Apart from corruption in the political circles, the corruption within the bureaucracy is an equally great menace that can lead to a collapse of the total infrastructure. The latest examples are of the CBI inquiry against the Chief of Air Staff and the Railway Officer in the rank of Member, Railway Board involved in taking or giving bribe. iv) Guarding the turf: I would put lack of vision and passion amongst the top bureaucracy as the fourth reason. I have come across several bureaucrats whose integrity is beyond doubt and the speed of work is also very high. But their job perception alarms me. Most of them are wary of thinking beyond their desk and treading with great caution so as not to step on the turf of other desks or departments. For example, if a file is to be initiated for promotion of Hindi on computers, then the Department of Information and Technology which deals with policies regarding computers and the Department of Rajbhasha which deals with policy on Hindi, will spend several years engaging in internal correspondence to decide as to who should NOT take the initiative. If at all a bureaucrat comes along who is willing to take the initiative, this internal correspondence still goes on for informing him or her as to why it is not their turf. Further, a bureaucracy who is taking initiative is often accumulating future risks at each initiative in the form of audit paras. This is because our audit system has not been re-vamped for several decades and therefore fails to make a distinction between a bonafide initiative versus a dishonest initiative. The audit system is such which will stop 99 honest initiatives through rules (read chains) to stop one possible dishonest initiative. As a result of the atmosphere of not taking initiatives, the bureaucracy often lacks passion and vision. A typical attitude develops where I judge my action only by asking whether I have fulfilled my part of the job, but not by asking whether I have contributed to generate a collective team spirit so as to ensure completion of task. v) Financial laxity in the name of financial discipline: Government schemes are also subject to an outdated concept of financial discipline. A particular sum is sanctioned for the scheme on the basis of a broad outline which is prepared during the previous financial year itself, and approved in the annual budget session. The individual sanction however, has to be communicated separately which can easily get delayed upto September. The details are then worked upon, drawing authority is decided and communication sent to district level officers, again as late as in December. Then there is a scramble for reaching out to the beneficiaries, getting necessary paper work done along with physical work, all of which involves some expenditure. But whatever remains unspent at the end of 31st March of the next financial year gets "lapsed" which means it has to now await the whole process of budgetary sanction, individual scheme sanction, and drawing authority declared -- thus again nothing may happen till December of that financial year. The corridors of Mantralaya are a scene to be watched in the last week of March, when almost everyone is working overtime, scheme approvals are flowing, and huge amounts are sanctioned and drawn, many of them for ulterior purposes - these sums are shown as "spent for right cause" within a few hours. When it can't be spent as soon as it is sanctioned, it has to await many months for approval. Unless a timely and smooth flow of funds is ensured, the schemes not only fail but also take away all the enthusiasm of good officers. I have often stated that the answer to corruption in government is not honesty alone, but honesty coupled with five other essential attributes. These are inculcating team spirit and collective action, continuous, adequate and effective training of the staff responsible for implementation, proper motivation of staff, proper monitoring and feedback and finally our attitude towards sustainable scheme completion.  Leena Mehendale, presently Member CAT Mumbai in the rank of High Court Judge, is an accomplished administrator, teacher, thinker and writer. She has travelled over 400 out of 650 districts in India and is proficient in many Indian languages. As an administrator she has worked in various departments which include education, women, children, industries, petroleum, agriculture, and health.Some of her service highlights are economic rehabilitation of Devdasis, making TV and radio serials for energy conservation, designing, training and framing policies for Yashada (Yashwantrao Chavan Academy of Development Administration) and promoting Indian languages on computers. Presently, she is actively pursuing revival of Sanskrit language. She has given over 1000 lectures, authored 25 books on diverse subjects and over 600 articles, in Marathi, Hindi and English. |
Jun 14
|
2013
|
