Close it down
Published by Yazad Jal September 22nd, 2004 in GovernanceWhile a debate rages on privatisation of Public Sector Units (PSUs) in India, it’s interesting to note that there is very little being talked about the usefulness of certain ministries. Today’s lead edit in the Times of India suggests abolishing the ministry of heavy industry as it interferes too much into PSU functioning.
A quick glance at the list of ministries on the Government of India website shows 44 ministries. How many of them are really needed?
One more question for the wannabe cartel member (and of course open to all readers). Which ministries would you close down if you were PM? Brief reasons will be appreciated. Feel free to rant on in the comments section or trackback here if you post on your blog.
Most of the ministries here should either be made regulatory bodies, which the Telecom ministry has effectively become, or else, they should be corporatised. For example, why have Ministry of Civil Aviation if you already have state owned airlines? Wont the bosses of IA and AI be enough?
here are the only ministries i think should exist
Ministry of Commerce and Industry - Only to fight for Indian interests in WTO.
Ministry of Defence - Should be severely restructured to reduce bureaucratic hurdles. Implement a leaner model like in other countries.
Ministry of External Affairs - for foreign relations
Ministry of Finance - Again, severely restructure.
Ministry of Home Affairs - For internal security
Ministry of Law and Justice - For law related work
Ministry of Tourism - But again, severely restructured
Ministry of Water Resources - Severely restructured
Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports - Severely restructured
About what I mean when I say “severely restructured”, I will write a post on my blog shortly.
I’d cut down even further from Gaurav’s list. We don’t need a ministry for tourism. Turn over what the sports ministry into an autonomous body which cannot be touched by politicians or bureaucrats. Of course, the youth can manage their own affairs. So we don’t need a ministry for that.
I see a need for only the following 6 Ministries:
1. Ministry of Defence
2. Ministry of External Affairs
3. Ministry of Finance
4. Ministry of Public Infrastructure
5. Ministry of Law
6. Ministry of Internal Security
The rest can be taken care of by autonomous bodies.
DO we really need a Prime Ministry?
Ok Ok! My list of must have ministries
The Budget Council
Law, Order and Defence Authority (club both law and order and defence)
PR Department (home and external affairs)
The Guiding Light (the prime minister and some selected mandarins who will give expert guidance on other stuff - like commerce, tourism and all)
My suggestion for a government is to run it like a corporate governing board.
I’d keep Defence, External Affairs, Finance, Commerce, Highways, Railways and Law.
I’d move the following ministries to the states: Environment and Forests, Water Resources, Health and Family Welfare, Human Resource Development (why doesn’t this include Health?), and Roads.
And I’d get rid of everything else. Especially I&B, Culture, Youth Affairs and Sports, Urban Development and Tribal Affairs. People make their own culture, you don’t need a ministry for it!
BTW, the reason Law is in there is to throw out outdated and unnecessary laws.
Was it Santayana or Tocqueville who said, “The govt should deliver the mail, guard the frontiers and get the hell out of people’s lives” [IMHO, It should not even deliver mail]
Tourism? Sports? Railways? Human Resources? Health?- even if they were autonomous bodies? In the US, such views would be classified as “socialist”. Cartel sahibs, please de-indoctrinate yourselves. :-)
Btw, have the lean versions of the following:
1. Minstry of Finance
2. Ministry of Defense
3. Ministry of External Affairs, part of which would be trade/commerce [WTO etc]
4. RAW - cabinet level
5. National Security Agency - cabinet level.
Scrap the rest. Have autonomous checks and balances like CBI, Rashtriya Rifles to assist the federal govt in maintaining law and order, when states fail in those roles. Have a Federal Disaster Relief agency like the US FEMA to coordinate aid disbursement during state/national emergencies like natural disasters. Make it the PMs responsibility - i.e. all he does is to issue directives at appropriate times that say, “Go, act”.
My econ professor even dislikes the involvement of governments in bilateral agreements. He says, “As an economist, I feel that billateral trade agreements are inefficient. Instead, have open trade policies for all countries.”
Btw, regarding sports, here is an interesting paper by my Competitive Strategy prof regarding the economy and Olympic medals. Her prediction proved correct in Sydney 2000 and Athens 2004.
I think, government has a role to play wherever the general environment is not conducive for markets to work, or where people dont have the ability to participate in the market.
So its not really a question of number of ministries, but whether there is a movement from government control, to regulation, to a state where the market does all the work.
Market might be capable of more than what we think it is capable of. Take environment for example. Even economists (a lot of them) agree that there is a need for strong government control if we want less pollution. Its true that regulations have forced companies develop more environmentally friendly products and processes. (Porter has written an article in HBR on this, in case you are interested) But again, there are people who talk about free market environmentalism (where you use market to determine the value of, say, a clean river; instead of government assuming that everyone wants clean river and imposing regulations that everyone breaks; it lets the market determine the price). It has even worked in some places.
In India, I think, government still has an important role to play in a lot of areas. Primary education for example. (But the answer might not be in setting up free schools, but as many have suggested before, giving students coupons, which they can exchange for education. Which is what I meant by the movement towards market). Rural health. A lot of things…
One more clarification:
I would also wind up Highways, Railways, and everything I’ve moved to the states, but only after setting up effective regulatory bodies in these areas.
Ramnath wrote;”Primary education for example”.
Imho, the government has been an unmitigated disaster in the area of primary education. NGOs like Asha, Room To Read and others have done a stellar job in filling that gap. Having said that, i do agree that the government needs to do it since no one else will, on a dramatic scale - for the short term at least.
I say eliminate the entire government and start from scratch!
Quizman,
You must be kidding when you claim that the efforts of groups like Asha, Room to Read etc are comparable to the investment and the infrastructure that Govt puts into Education. Asha, for example, has extremely limited abilities to do much in the Education sector, and it is not clear that any of its projects are really sustainable and useful over the long term. Commendable, though the objectives of these groups may be, they are pretty inefficient and tiny, and are in no position to replace government’s role. Besides, unlike the Govts in India, these organizations are not accountable to anyone in India, and answer to a small group of people, most of whom are abroad.
Governing a country like India is a extraordinarily complicated task. I agree that there is a great deal of bureaucracy which is not needed, and there are possibly ministries that need to be reduced or eliminated. However, doing things like cutting down the Ministry of Home Affairs, is a bad idea in my opinion. There may be portfolios that can be eliminated or merged, like the Ministry for Youth, Sports etc, but the essentials of government which deal with security, commerce, economics, foreign affairs, defence, law, hrd are essential ministries which cannot be eliminated.
V,
I have a simple test. Did you study in a government (a.k.a municipal) school? Would you send your kid to a municipal school?