Answer

The Indian state is often described as ‘people-thin’ but ‘process-thick’, referring to the imbalance between the large administrative machinery and the limited human resources available for effective governance. While bureaucratic processes are well-established, the shortage of personnel hampers efficient implementation. This paradox affects governance by causing delays, inefficiencies, and inadequate public service delivery, undermining the state’s responsiveness to citizen needs.

Enroll now for UPSC Online Course

The Indian state is described as ‘people-thin’ but ‘process-thick’

• Limited number of civil servants: The Indian state has fewer public sector employees per capita, resulting in a thin presence of personnel to address complex governance challenges.
  For example: India has only 1,600 central government personnel per million, compared to the U.S.’s 7,500 per million, affecting state efficiency.
• Excessive regulatory processes: Despite fewer civil servants, the bureaucracy is bogged down by complex processes such as licensing, permits, and clearances.
  For instance: Starting a business requires navigating a labyrinth of clearances, permits, and approvals that hinder progress and delay outcomes.
• Insufficient expertise among officials: The Indian state lacks sufficient numbers of skilled professionals in key sectors such as healthcare, education, and policing.
  For example: The Reserve Bank of India has only 7,000 staff, whereas the U.S. Federal Reserve employs 22,000, limiting effectiveness in managing national financial stability.
• Decentralized policymaking but centralized execution: Policy-making is highly centralized, but implementation remains a cumbersome process carried out by limited frontline personnel.
  For example: The National Highways Authority of India executes projects, while policymaking stays at the ministry level, leading to reduced delays and cost overruns.
• Inefficiency in policy implementation: The small size of the government workforce leads to overburdening of officials, making effective policy execution difficult.
  For example: The government’s outsourcing of tasks like health policy implementation to consultants highlights the lack of in-house expertise for vital public services.

This affects governance and public service delivery

• Delays in public service delivery: Insufficient manpower combined with excessive processes leads to delayed services, as officials struggle to handle the volume of work.
  For instance: Infrastructure projects face cost overruns and delays due to cumbersome regulatory clearances and a lack of frontline decision-making authority.
• Low accountability: The division of policymaking and execution creates a disconnect between decision-makers and service implementers, reducing accountability for poor performance.
  For example: When road construction projects face issues, the absence of clear responsibility for oversight between ministries and implementers leads to finger-pointing and inefficiencies.
• Over-reliance on external consultants: The gap in skills within the government forces reliance on private consultancy firms for critical tasks, which increases public expenditure.
  For example: Over ₹500 crore was spent by the Indian government on consultancy fees for tasks that could have been managed in-house with better-trained officials.
• Bureaucratic inertia: The thick bureaucratic processes create an aversion to taking risks and making discretionary decisions, leading to stifled innovation and slow adaptation.
• Increased corruption risk: The misalignment of incentives, with high public sector salaries and job security, attracts people who are motivated by financial gain, rather than social service.

Way Ahead

• Enhance civil servant recruitment and training: Increase the recruitment of qualified professionals at various levels to bridge the people-thin gap, ensuring a skilled workforce.
  For example: Lateral entry programs and specialized training initiatives like Mission Karmayogi can improve civil servants’ skills and efficiency.
• Decentralize decision-making: Empower frontline personnel with delegated authority to make implementation-related decisions, improving accountability and speeding up processes.
  For example: Giving frontline functionaries more control in executing policies, similar to the National Highways Authority of India, reduces delays and improves efficiency.
• Simplify regulatory processes: Streamline bureaucratic processes to reduce the burden of licenses and clearances, making it easier for citizens and businesses to access public services.
  For instance: Online platforms that provide one-stop solutions for permits and approvals can reduce the complexity and speed up processes.
• Boost public sector remuneration reform: Introduce moderate pay reforms that align public sector salaries with private sector compensation, discouraging corruption and attracting individuals motivated by social service.
  For example: Implementing performance-linked incentives and ensuring competitive, but reasonable salaries can enhance the attraction of the public sector for social-minded professionals.
• Strengthen oversight and accountability mechanisms: Revamp agencies like the Comptroller and Auditor General and the Central Vigilance Commission to make audits and investigations more contextual and focused on policy objectives rather than mere compliance.
  For instance: Sensitizing oversight agencies to the complexities of policy decisions will ensure they understand context, reducing litigation and delays in project execution.

Check Out UPSC CSE Books From PW Store

India’s ‘people-thin’ but ‘process-thick’ state calls for a shift towards greater accountability and efficiency in governance. Strengthening human resources, decentralizing decision-making, and leveraging technology can streamline public service delivery, ensuring better reach and responsiveness. A future-focused approach should emphasize capacity building and transparency, fostering a more people-centric and effective governance model.

DOWNLOAD PDF