A Suitable Public Policy Final

WELFARE ECONOMICS PROJECT

A SUITABLE PUBLIC POLICY FOR EQUITABLE DISTRIBUTION IS ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY FOR USHERING IN JUST SOCIAL ORDER

SUBMITTED TO:

SUBMITTED BY:

ROLL NO.

INDIAN INSTITUTE OF PLANNING & MANAGEMENT NEW DELHI

Introduction Social order is a concept used in sociology, history and other social sciences. It refers to a set of linked social structures, social institutions and social practices which conserve, maintain and enforce "normal" ways of relating and behaving. A "social order" is a relatively stable system of institutions, pattern of interactions and customs, capable of continually reproducing at least those conditions essential for its own existence. The concept refers to all those facets of society which remain relatively constant over time. These conditions could include both property, exchange and power relations, but also cultural forms, communication relations and ideological systems of values. The issues of social order, how and why it is that social orders exists at all, is historically central to sociology. Thomas Hobbes is recognized as the first to clearly formulate the problem, to answer which he conceived the notion of a social contract. Social theorists (such as Karl Marx, Emile Durkheim, Talcott Parsons, and Jürgen Habermas) have proposed different explanations for what a social order consists of, and what its real basis is. For Marx, it is the relations of production or economic structure which is the basis of a social order. For Durkheim, it is a set of shared social norms. For Parsons, it is a set of social

2

institutions determining moral behaviour. For Habermas, it is all of these, as well as communicative action. The principle of dependence is one that has a huge role on social order as a whole. It states that the more dependent a person is on a group, the more likely they are to conform to group "norms". This means that if a group means a lot to a person, they will be more likely to do what it is that the group wants them to. One of the main principles of social order is the principle of visibility. The principle of visibility refers to the extent that the behavior of group members can be observed by other members of the group. The higher the observation rate of a group is, the more likely the members of that group will follow the groups norms. A prime example of a society with a high level of observability is Japan. Most offices are close quartered, open office spaces without any partitions. The employees work in full sight and hearing of their supervisors. This high level of visibility encourages workers to stay constantly on task lest they suffer reproaches from their supervisors. Another key factor concerning social order is the principle of extensiveness. This states the more norms and the more important the norms are to a society, the better these norms tie and hold together the group as a whole.

3

A good example of this is smaller religions based around the U.S., such as the Amish. Many Amish live together in communities and because they share the same religion and values, it is easier for them to succeed in upholding their religion and views because their way of life is the norm for their community. So Called Social Class: In every society people belong to groups, such as businesses, families, churches, athletic groups, or neighborhoods. The structure inside of these groups mirrors that of the whole society. There are networks and ties between groups as well as inside of each of the groups that create social order. "Status groups" can be based on a person's characteristics such as race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, religion, region, occupation, physical attractiveness, gender, education, age, etc. They are defined as "a subculture having a rather specific rank (or status) within the stratification system. That is, societies tend to include a hierarchy of status groups, some enjoying high ranking and some low." One example of this hierarchy is the prestige of a school teacher compared to that of a garbage man. A certain lifestyle usually distinguishes the members of different status groups. For example, around the holidays a Jewish family may celebrate Hanukkah while a Christian family may celebrate Christmas.

4

Other cultural differences such as language and cultural rituals identify members of different status groups. Groups Inside of a status group there are more, smaller groups. For instance, one can belong to a status group based on one's race and a social class based on financial ranking. This may cause strife for the individual in this situation when he or she feels they must choose to side with either their status group or their social class. For example, a wealthy African American man who feels he has to take a side on an issue on which the opinions of poor African Americans and wealthy white Americans are divided, and finds his class and status group opposed. Values Values can be defined as "internal criteria for evaluation". Values are also split into two categories, there are individual values, which pertains to something that we think has worth and then there are social values. Social values are our desires modified according to ethical principles or according to the group we associate with: friends, family, or co-workers. Norms Norms tell us what people ought to do in a given situation. Unlike values, norms are enforced externally - or outside of oneself. A society

5

as a whole determines norms, and they can be passed down from generation to generation.

In societies, those who hold positions of power and authority are among the upper class. Norms differ for each class because the members of each class were raised differently and hold different sets of values. Tension can form, therefore, between the upper class and lower class when laws and rules are put in place that do not conform to the values of both classes. Order does not necessarily need to be controlled by government. Individuals pursuing self-interest can make predictable systems. These systems, being planned by more than one person, may actually be preferable to those planned by a single person. This means that predictability

may

be

possible

to

achieve

without

a

central

governments control. These stable expectations do not necessarily lead to individuals behaving in ways that are considered beneficial to group

welfare.

Considering

this,

Thomas

Schelling

studied

neighborhood racial segregation. (citation needed) His findings suggest that interaction can produce predictability, but it does not always increase social order. In his researching he found that "when all individuals pursue their own preferences, the outcome is segregation rather than integration." stated in "Theories of Social Order" by Hector

6

and Thorne. The unregulated interaction of rational selfishness produces an unwanted outcome. There are currently two different theories that explain and attempt to account for social order. The first theory is "order results from a large number of independent decisions to transfer individual rights and liberties to a coercive state in return for its guarantee of security for persons and their property, as well as its establishment of mechanisms to resolve disputes." as stated in Theories of Social Order by Hechtor and Horne. The next theory is that "the ultimate source of social order as residing not in external controls but in a concordance of specific values and norms that individuals somehow have managed to internalize." also stated in Theories of Social Order by Hechtor and Horne. Both the arguments for how social order is attained are very different. One argues that it is achieved through outside influence and control and the other argues that it can only be attained when the individual will willingly follow norms and values that they have grown accustomed to and internalized. A policy is a deliberate plan of action to guide decisions and achieve rational outcome(s). The term may apply to government, private sector

organizations

and

groups,

and

individuals.

Presidential

executive orders, corporate privacy policies, and parliamentary rules of order are all examples of policy. Policy differs from rules or law. While

7

law can compel or prohibit behaviors (e.g. a law requiring the payment of taxes on income) policy merely guides actions toward those that are most likely to achieve a desired outcome. Policy or policy study may also refer to the process of making important organizational decisions, including the identification of different alternatives such as programs or spending priorities, and choosing among them on the basis of the impact they will have. Policies can be understood as political, management, financial, and administrative mechanisms arranged to reach explicit goals. Definitions of policy and research done into the area of policy is frequently performed from the perspective of policies created by national governments, or public policy. Several definitions and key characteristics of policy have been identified within the framework of government policy. While many of these are broadly applicable to other

organizations

such

as

private

companies

or

non-profit

organizations, the government-focused origin of this work should be kept in mind. Policies are typically promulgated through official written documents. Such documents have standard formats that are particular to the organization issuing the policy. While such formats differ in terms of their

form,

policy

documents

usually

components including:

8

contain

certain

standard

Essentials •

A purpose statement, outlining why the organization is issuing the policy, and what its desired effect is.

•

A applicability and scope statement, describing who the policy affects and which actions are impacted by the policy. The applicability and scope may expressly exclude certain people, organizations, or actions from the policy requirements

•

An effective date which indicates when the policy comes into force. Retroactive policies are rare, but can be found.

•

A responsibilities section, indicating which parties and organizations are responsible for carrying out individual policy statements. These responsibilities may include identification of oversight and/or governance structures.

•

Policy statements indicating the specific regulations, requirements, or modifications to organizational behavior that the policy is creating.

Some policies may contain additional sections, including •

Background indicating any reasons and history that led to the creation of the policy, which may be listed as motivating factors

•

Definitions, providing clear and unambiguous definitions for terms and concepts found in the policy document.

9

Public policy or ordre public is the body of fundamental principles that underpin the operation of legal systems in each state. This addresses the social, moral and economic values that tie a society together: values that vary in different cultures and change over time. Law regulates behaviour either to reinforce existing social expectations or to encourage constructive change, and laws are most likely to be effective when they are consistent with the most generally accepted societal norms and reflect the collective morality of society. In performing this function, Cappalli has suggested that the critical values of any legal system include impartiality, neutrality, certainty, equality, openness, flexibility, and growth. This assumes that the true purpose of dispute resolution systems is to discourage self-help and the violence that often accompanies it, i.e citizens have to be encouraged to use the court system. The more certain and predictable the outcome, the less incentive there is to go to court where a loss is probable. But certainty must be subject to the needs of individual justice, hence the development of equity. A judge should always consider the underlying policies to determine whether a rule should be applied to a specific factual dispute. If laws are applied too strictly and mechanically, the law cannot keep pace with social innovation. Similarly, if there is an entirely new situation, a return to the policies forming the basic assumptions underpinning potentially relevant rules

10

of law, identifies the best guidelines for resolving the immediate dispute. Over time, these policies evolve, becoming more clearly defined and more deeply embedded in the legal system. The

discipline

of

institutional

economics

has

gained

increasing

prominence in recent years because standard economic explanations often fail to come to grips with major contemporary policy issues such as economic reform in affluent but dysfunctional economies, the transformation of the failed socialist command economies and the governance problems of the new industrial economies. Institutional economists point out that rule systems matter greatly in explaining these problems and that institutional innovation is central to finding sustained solutions. Institutions must underpin increasingly complex webs of human interaction because interaction and coordination depend on tenuous links of trust. In economic and social affairs, similar concerns have not yet had much impact. But a growing number of economists have turned away from the neoclassical paradigm, which is based on the assumption of ‘perfect knowledge’ and which inspires confident intervention. Instead, they

have

developed

Austrian,

public

choice,

evolutionary

or

institutional paradigms of economics, all of which caution about the side-effects of resolute, but ignorant social engineering.

11

Even today, many people think of "social problems" as involving poor and powerless individuals in society. Research in Social Problems and Public Policy seeks to improve the balance by adding a focus on important and powerful institutions. Such organizations often play key roles in managing, and mismanaging, the ways in which some of today's most important social problems are handled by the public policy system.

Insights As India completes 60 years of Independence, we can look back with a considerable degree of pride at the shaping of a democratic political system in the country. One of the major achievements of independent India is the parliamentary democratic system that was instituted along with a Republican Constitution. The Constitution provided the scope for people’s participation and a voice in politics, which reflects the aspirations of the Indian people in their struggle for national independence. Despite the narrow basis and the class constraints on the democratic system in a developing capitalist society, it is creditable that parliamentary democracy has retained its vitality over the years. Unlike the experience of many other newly independent countries, the prospects for democracy in India have not shrunk but grown since

12

Independence. This is mainly due to the people and the popular struggles and democratic movements. The participation of ordinary people in the elections at all levels is marked by sustained enthusiasm. This is particularly so in the States where the Left has strong influence. However, the political system cannot be said to have transformed the lives of people — by securing their livelihood, by abolition of poverty and the structures of exploitation, and providing equity with economic growth. The Constitution of India, in its Directive Principles, directs the state to promote the welfare of the people by securing “a social order in which justice, social, economic and political, shall inform all the institutions of the national life.” It calls for the state to strive “to minimise the inequalities in income” and to see that the “control of the material resources of the community are so distributed as best to subserve the common good” and to ensure that the “operation of the economic system does not result in the concentration of wealth and means of production to common detriment.” Six decades later, there is no doubt that the working of the state and policy making are clearly contrary to these goals set out in the Constitution. Most of the conflicts and crises in our system can be traced to this fundamental contradiction: political democracy coexisting with concentration of wealth and economic inequalities. Nehru’s vision

13

In the early years after Independence, the vision set out in the Constitution was articulated by Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru whose contribution to the building of a modern, secular country was a pivotal one, even though the Congress party today pays scant heed to his legacy. Nehru set out the test for public policy: “The first thing is the good of the Indian masses and everything will be judged by that standard. How do the millions of India benefit or prosper? —that is the real test of any policy, economic, political or otherwise, that we may put forward.” But the Nehruvian vision, however sincere and relevant, foundered on the class realities of developing capitalism without a democratic social transformation. The failure to implement land reforms and confront head-on the feudal forces was one glaring instance. It crippled the possibilities of creating a socially just economic order. Six decades after Independence, this unfinished task perpetuates the grossly exploitative socio-economic order in the countryside. India has the largest mass of rural poor in the world, who are trapped in the blighted cycle of poverty, malnutrition, disease, and deprivation. The political system today, which has increasingly distorted the original vision of the freedom movement, is more or less indifferent to the spectacle of peasant suicides, growing malnutrition with falling per capita intake of foodgrains, and the looming threat to food security. Policy making by

14

the ruling classes enamoured of neo-liberal prescriptions is immune to human misery so long as GDP growth rates remain high. As we mark 60 years of Independence, the ruling classes and the political parties that represent them are openly celebrating a path of development that makes the rich super rich, and boasts of creating billionaires at a rate higher than most countries. Policy making is increasingly suborned to favour this thin stratum of the super rich and their patrons — international finance capital. The entire gamut of policies is meant to subsidise the rich and powerful. For the poor, there can always be some ‘poverty alleviation’ programmes, an unavoidable necessity and a concession to electoral compulsions. People’s role: The prospects for democracy in India have not shrunk but grown since Independence. This is mainly due to the people and the popular struggles. This, then, is the paradox: a thriving ‘democracy’ in which the people are powerless to change the exploitative and unequal economic order. This is the paradox that is going to imperil many of the democratic gains made since Independence. We are approaching a position where the new definition of democracy will be change of governments without any change in economic and social policies. Such a situation will lead to the erosion of the democratic system itself. It will affect all spheres of national life. If the quest to become a

15

‘great power’ with American help persists, nothing much will be left of an independent foreign policy. National sovereignty itself will be seen as an outdated concept by the dominant classes and their political partners. The entire gamut of economic and fiscal policies is geared to benefit the speculators in finance capital and those who have the power to corner resources. Privatisation will only worsen the non-availability of basic services for the people. It is shameful that the Indian state cannot provide for public health expenditure even to the extent of the poorer sub-Saharan countries. The secular principle of the Indian state, which is also embedded in the democratic political system, has been under serious assault since the fifth decade of Independence. This challenge mounted by the Hindutva forces still exists given the penetration of these forces in the institutions of the state during their stint in power. As a consequence of this erosion of secularism, large sections of the minorities have never felt fully secure and have been subjected to periodic violence. The political system has survived such anti-secular assaults but creeping communalism continues to weaken its secular basis. The political-bureaucratic-business-contractor nexus, which siphons off public funds and loots the public exchequer, has to be dealt with sternly. Its enveloping tentacles affect all levels, including local bodies.

16

This is at present beyond the will of any of the ruling parties. Only the Left has some capacity to be immune to this phenomenon and to tackle it. The struggle to make the political system more meaningful in the lives of the Indian people requires that the struggle to restructure CentreState relations to move towards a more federal system is carried forward. Decentralisation of power and decision making needs to be pushed forward at all levels. With liberalised rampant capitalism becoming the order of the day, the political system is being suborned to serve its interests. This is a danger to democracy and the goal of social justice. Increasingly, the political system is becoming the mainstay of the privileged and the dominant classes. It is necessary to stem this corrosive influence and wage the struggle within the political system to end the pernicious embrace between money and politics. As we proceed to the seventh decade of Independence, the battle should be joined to make democracy aligned to the quest for social and economic justice. The names and descriptions of the classes and orders persist till today from the ancient Vedas. These groupings were more descriptive than prescriptive. However, once one identified within a group one was expected to live by its tenets and expectations. One could change

17

position through qualification, though, since position was not birthdependent. The social system was and is called varnasrama. It has two parts, varna (occupational divisions) and asrama (social divisions). The

four

varnas

are

brahmana,

ksatria,

vaishya,

and

sudra.

Membership in these occupational categories depends on education and

training,

qualities,

and

propensity.

This

is

similar

to

the

requirement, for example, that an elementary school teacher must be degreed, trained in education and the area of instruction, a holder of a teaching certificate, of good character, and of a nature compatible with the role. Roughly, brahmanas are priests and teachers, ksatriyas are military and management, vaishyas are in business, and sudras are the workers/employees. The four asramas are brahmachari, grhastha, vanaprastha, and sannyasa. Brahmacaris are single students, grhasthas are those in family life, vanaprasthas are in retired, semirenounced life, and those who

elect

sannyasa

remain

henceforward

renounced.

Under

varnasrama, just as in modern society, one's social position is by choice. And similarly, each person is expected to live by the standards of his or her position, for the peace of society. For example, the

18

proscription against adultery is not just a rule of religions but a societal principle for the benefit of both individuals and communities. Public policy-making in India has frequently been characterized by a failure to anticipate needs, impacts, or reactions which could have reasonably been foreseen, thus impeding economic development. Policies have been reversed or changed more frequently than warranted by exogenous changes or new information. The Directive Principles of State Policy are guidelines to the central and state governments of India, to be kept in mind while framing laws and policies. These provisions, contained in Part IV of the Constitution of India, are not enforceable by any court, but the principles laid down therein are considered fundamental in the governance of the country, making it the duty of the State to apply these principles in making laws to establish a just society in the country. The principles have been inspired by the Directive Principles given in the Constitution of Ireland and also by the principles of Gandhism; and relate to social justice, economic welfare, foreign policy, and legal and administrative matters. They aim at achieving social and economic democracy for establishing a welfare state. Directive Principles are classified under the following categories:

Gandhian,

administrative,

justice

economic and

legal,

monuments and peace and security. 19

and

socialistic,

environmental,

political protection

and of

The concept of Directive Principles of State Policy was borrowed from the Irish Constitution. The makers of the Constitution of India were influenced by the Irish nationalist movement. Hence, the Directive Principles of the Indian constitution have been greatly influenced by the Directive Principles of State Policy. The idea of such policies "can be traced to the Declaration of the Rights of Man proclaimed Revolutionary France and the Declaration of Independence by the American Colonies." The Indian constitution was also influenced by the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

In 1919, the Rowlatt Acts gave extensive powers to the British government and police, and allowed indefinite arrest and detention of individuals, warrant-less searches and seizures, restrictions on public gatherings, and intensive censorship of media and publications. The public opposition to this act eventually led to mass campaigns of nonviolent

civil

disobedience

throughout

the

country

demanding

guaranteed civil freedoms, and limitations on government power. Indians, who were seeking independence and their own government, were particularly influenced by the independence of Ireland and the development of the Irish constitution. Also, the directive principles of state policy in Irish constitution were looked upon by the people of India as an inspiration for the independent India's government to

20

comprehensively tackle complex social and economic challenges across a vast, diverse nation and population. In 1928, the Nehru Commission composing of representatives of Indian political parties proposed constitutional reforms for India that apart from calling for dominion status for India and elections under universal suffrage, would guarantee rights deemed fundamental, representation for religious and ethnic minorities, and limit the powers of the government. In 1931, the Indian National Congress (the largest Indian political party of the time) adopted resolutions committing itself to the defense of fundamental civil rights, as well as socio-economic rights such as the minimum wage and the abolition of untouchability and serfdom. Committing themselves to socialism in 1936, the Congress leaders took examples from the constitution of the erstwhile USSR, which inspired the fundamental duties of citizens as a means of collective patriotic responsibility for national interests and challenges. When India obtained independence on 15 August 1947, the task of developing a constitution for the nation was undertaken by the Constituent Assembly of India, composing of elected representatives under the presidency of Rajendra Prasad. While members of Congress composed of a large majority, Congress leaders appointed persons from diverse political backgrounds to responsibilities of developing the constitution and national laws. Notably, Bhimrao Ramji Ambedkar

21

became the chairperson of the drafting committee, while Jawaharlal Nehru

and

Sardar

Vallabhbhai

Patel

became

chairpersons

of

committees and sub-committees responsible for different subjects. A notable development during that period having significant effect on the Indian constitution took place on 10 December 1948 when the United Nations General Assembly adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and called upon all member states to adopt these rights in their respective constitutions.

Both the Fundamental Rights and the Directive Principles of State Policy were included in the I Draft Constitution (February 1948), the II Draft Constitution (17 October 1948) and the III and final Draft Constitution (26 November 1949), being prepared by the Drafting Committee. DPSPs aim to create social and economic conditions under which the citizens can lead a good life. They also aim to establish social and economic democracy through a welfare state. They act as a check on the government, theorized as a yardstick in the hands of the people to measure the performance of the government and vote it out of power if it does not fulfill the promises made during the elections. The Directive Principles are non-justiciable rights of the people. Article 31C, inserted by the 25th Amendment Act of 1971 seeks to upgrade the

22

Directive Principles. If laws are made to give effect to the Directive Principles over Fundamental Rights, they shall not be invalid on the grounds that they take away the Fundamental Rights. In case of a conflict between Fundamental Rights and DPSP's, if the DPSP aims at promoting larger interest of the society, the courts shall have to uphold the case in favour of the DPSP. The Directive Principles, though not justiciable, are fundamental in the governance of the country. It shall be the duty of the State to apply these principles in making laws. Besides, all executive agencies should also be guided by these principles. Even the judiciary has to keep them in mind in deciding cases. Attributes of a good policy-making process It is interesting, and indeed revealing, that the literature on the public policymaking process is far less copious than the literature on substantive policy issues. The following section on the attributes of a good policy-making process draws on the literature, and on the authors’ own experience in the policy making process. One way of describing a “good” policy-making process is one that “is committed to producing a high quality decision—not any particular decision” and that “invests any decision made with a high degree of legitimacy, power and accuracy”. What features or characteristics

23

should a policymaking process have which, if present, would lead to high quality decisions? 1. To start with the most obvious, a good policy-making process would involve due consideration of up-to-date available subject-matter knowledge and relevant data, and the use of available analytical tools. 2. Policies made ostensibly for one sector often have significant impacts on other sectors: a transport policy (e.g. expansion of national highways in lieu of investment in rail) affects the environment; an environmental

policy

(stricter

pollution norms)

affects industrial

development; a revenue enhancement measure intended to develop one sector can adversely affect another. Policy-making therefore nearly always means trade-offs, the giving up of something to get something else, losses to one group or section in exchange for (hopefully larger) gains for another. Policy-making processes and structures should ensure the gathering of information on such inter-sectoral impacts, the analysis of trade-offs, and fully informed choices between alternatives after a proper consideration of effects on different sectors. Many analytical techniques have been evolved to assist policy-makers in dealing with these issues, coming broadly under terms like policy analysis,

program

evaluation,

cost-benefit

analysis

etc.

These

techniques are not without their critics, and their effect on policy– making has been less than their protagonists would like to think.

24

Nevertheless, these techniques are generally judged to have a positive effect on the quality of decisions made. 3. Especially in a democratic polity, such analysis should invariably include an assessment of the "winners" and "losers" from a given policy and a strategy for dealing with likely opposition from losers to what has been determined to be the "right" policy. Fourth, theory and practice both show that decisions which are seen to have ‘legitimacy’ are far more likely to be successfully implemented. Legitimacy is both procedural and substantive. 4. Procedural legitimacy is sometimes narrowly viewed as meaning that the decision is made by an authority legally authorised to make it, but in practice consultation of those affected is crucial to perceived legitimacy. Procedural legitimacy can often be more important in securing the implementation of a policy, than its substantive merits. Substantive legitimacy is achieved when the persons and groups who have knowledge and expertise in the field affected by a policy are involved in formulating the policy. Note that this point is about the legitimacy—not efficacy--of a policy. The question is not whether the policy was substantively correct, but whether persons who are publicly known or perceived to have subject matter knowledge were involved in making it.

25

5. a good policy-making process should produce policies which can be executed swiftly and successfully. This requires the close involvement, during formulation, of the persons who actually have to implement a policy on the ground, and implies a degree of ‘decentralisation’ of policymaking. At the same time, a degree of centralised control is necessary, so that the priorities and interests of implementers do not supplant the public interest. Whether this central control should be confined to “process control” (i.e. control over how the decision is made) or should extend to “quality control”(control over the substance of the decision) is the subject of debate, but the choice is partly a factor of the kind of organisation and the kind of policy being made. On the whole, while policy-making must remain in touch with reality and be conscious of implementation issues, it should not be a prisoner of the current short-term priorities, time constraints and conveniences of implementers. A good policy making structure should, therefore, provide for appropriate separation between the policy and implementation functions. Finally, in order to make the (often difficult) decisions on trade-offs and make them without undue delay, information, analysis and good procedures alone are insufficient. Those charged with making, or advising on, policy, must possess certain skills (e.g. in coordination,

26

synthesis and integration) and attributes (such as freedom from bias) which increase the likelihood of quick and sound decisions. To recapitulate, a "good policy-making process" would meet the following criteria:i) The problems and issues confronting a sector are subjected to expert Analysis; ii) Information on overlaps and trade-offs with other sectors is systematically gathered and made available to policy-makers; iii) Opposing points of view within and between sectors , are properly articulated, analysed and considered and those likely to benefited or harmed are identified and their reactions anticipated; iv) Decisions are made with due legal authority, after consultation of those likely to be affected, and with the involvement of knowledgeable persons in the sector(s) concerned; v) Those responsible for implementation are systematically involved in the process, but are not allowed to take control of it; vi)

Policy-makers

and

/or

their

advisers

have

the

honesty,

independence, intellectual breadth and depth to properly consider and integrate multiple perspectives and help arrive at optimal policy choices within a reasonable time.

27

One of the main problems with policy-making in India, is extreme fragmentation in the structure. For example, the transport sector is dealt with by five departments/Ministries in the government of India whereas in the US and UK it is a part of one department (Department of Transport and Public Works in the US and Department of Environment, Transport and Regions in the UK). Similar examples exist in the energy, industry and social welfare sectors as well. Such fragmentation fails to recognize that actions taken in one sector have serious implications on another and may work at cross purposes with the policies of the other sector. Besides, it becomes very difficult, even for closely related sectors, to align their policies in accordance with a common overall agenda. Another problem is the excessive overlap between implementation, program formulation and policy making which creates a tendency to focus on operational convenience rather than on public needs. Policymaking in Indian ministries occurs at the levels of Director and above, but the most important level (crucial for consideration of cross-cutting impacts) is that of the Secretaries to the Government of India, who are their Ministers’ “policy advisers-in-chief”. However, as mentioned earlier, the very same Secretaries spend a large part of their time bogged down on routine day-to-day administration of existing policy. Time is spent anticipating and answering parliamentary questions,

28

attending meetings and functions on implementation issues etc. Partly the

problem

is

symptomatic

of

over-centralisation—excessive

concentration of implementation powers at the higher levels of the Ministries. Partly, it is also due to such officers being more comfortable with implementation matters than with policy making. The result is that sub-optimal policies, where adequate attention has not been paid to citizen needs, tend toe merge. Often public policy is made without adequate input from outside government and without adequate debate on the issues involved. The best expertise in many sectors lies outside the Government. Yet the policy processes and structures of Government have no systematic means for obtaining outside inputs, for involving those affected by policies or for debating alternatives and their impacts on different groups. Most developed countries have a system of widespread public debate before a policy is approved. For example, in the US , the legislature subjects a new policy initiative to extensive debate not only in Committees but also in the Senate and House. Such debates not only enable an assessment of different viewpoints but also help build up a constituency in support of the policy through sound arguments. Probably the only example of fairly systematic consultation of outside expertise in India is in the process of formulating the Central Budget, where there is a long tradition of pre-budget confabulations with

29

chosen members of industry, labour and academia. There are several reasons for a poor pre-policy consultative process. Firstly, structures for consulting outsiders either do not exist or if they do, are moribund. Secondly, in the absence of good consultative structures, outsiders who do make themselves heard in the policy-making process are often single issue advocates. This makes them liable to the charge of having vested interests, and their views lose credibility. Even if a receptive civil servant were to take their views seriously, he would run the risk of appearing to do an illegitimate favour. Thirdly, outsiders involved in policy are usually allowed to make spasmodic or single issue inputs but are not required to sustain their interaction, to confront trade-offs or to meet the objections of other outsiders with opposite views. This makes it easy for outsiders who were indeed consulted, to then disclaim any responsibility for the final decision by protesting that their advice was only partially followed. Fourthly and as a result of the first three, there is a lack of identification of stakeholders with any policy. In countries like the USA, there are often strong advocates on both sides of a policy question—for example pro- and anti-abortion, proand anticapital punishment. In India, judging by the public reaction to many policy announcements, it would appear that almost every new policy announced by Government has “only opponents”. This is

30

because the ‘winners’ from a Government policy rarely feel involved in it, and hence rarely stand up and support it. Policy decisions are often made without adequate analysis of costs, benefits, trade-offs and consequences. There are several underlying causes for this:Excessive

fragmentation:

This

has

already

been

referred

to.

Fragmentation has led to a widespread prevalence of the ‘blind men and the elephant’ syndrome in policy-making. Inadequate time spent on policy-making, mainly due to excessive overlap of policy-making and implementation and to over centralization of implementation authority (discussed above). Inadequate professionalism of policy-makers and advisers: Debates have been common in India about the pros and cons of ‘generalists’ vs. ‘specialists’ in Government. There is a school of thought which suggests that the excessive involvement of poorly informed generalists is the main cause of poor policy-making and implementation. However, when it comes to the realm of policymaking and the making of tradeoffs, experience in government and the private sector suggests that this is usually best handled by an intelligent, well-informed person who has a wide rather than narrow perspective. This person could be termed the “intelligent and informed generalist” who, though not a specialist in any one field, is in fact a specialist in analysis, integration

31

and synthesis—i.e identifying problems, trade-offs and solutions. His strength and training lie in being well-informed about a variety of related subjects, in incisive analysis, and in intelligent use of information provided by specialists to frame policy options and assess their consequences. Note that many successful businesses in India and abroad are headed by generalists (MBAs for instance) and the Tata conglomerate continues to operate through the generalist “Tata Administrative Service” to man key positions—an approach regarded as a great success. The problem currently encountered is that the civil servants (who act as key policy advisers) often are not sufficiently well informed or trained to act in this manner. This could be described loosely but conveniently as “inadequate professionalism” Inadequate consultation of in-house specialists: Even conceding that public policy-making might not be improved by insisting on specialists becoming the policy-makers, it is nevertheless crucial that specialist knowledge be fully consulted and utilised in arriving at policy. For reasons ranging from ‘generalist arrogance’ to interservice rivalries between groups of specialists, the available expertise of specialists within the Government is often under-utilised. Mediocrity of in-house specialists: While there are many outstanding specialists working for the Government, there is a widespread feeling that many in-house specialists are not on top of their specialisms. This

32

perception of mediocrity vis-à-vis outside experts tends to worsen the problem of inadequate consultation of even the good in-house specialists who get tarred with the same brush. It also promotes an undue respect for outside specialists and the error of accepting poorly formulated prescriptions from outsiders simply because they have a more professional or expert image. The making of public policy for a country as large, populous and diverse as India is intrinsically a more complex task than in a smaller political unit. India remains not only an underdeveloped country but one which is usually regarded as an under-performer, which could do better. If it is taken as given that India is an under-performer, the question then arises as to why is this the case. A priori, under-performance visa-vis potential could be due to • adopting the wrong public policies • poorly implementing the right public policies. There can, of course, be valid disagreements as to what is the "right" policy in a given sector, in a given situation. It can be argued that merely because there are errors, changes or postponements in policies,

one

cannot

conclude

that

policy-making

suffers

from

weakness. Success is often the result of trial and error. Disagreements, often strong ones, are common and, in a democratic

33

society, both inevitable and healthy. Vigorous debate prior to policymaking and adaptation in response to debate is good, not bad. Flexibility in policymaking to respond to evolving exogenous factors is good, not bad. And the phenomenon of political considerations intervening in decisions otherwise well taken, is inevitable in a fractious but genuinely democratic polity like India.

34

REFERENCES

Chareles K. Rowley and Alan T. Peacock, Welfare Economics: A Liberal Restatement, York Studies in Economics, Martin Robertson, 1975 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decision_making Kotler, P. and Andreasen, A. R, (1996) Strategic Marketing for Non Profit Organizations (5th Ed.), New Jersey: Prentice Hall. Newman, B. (Ed.) (1999) The Handbook of Political Marketing. Sage. Sargeant, A (1999) Marketing Management for Non-profit Organisations. Oxford University Press.

35