Answer

India’s civil services, designed for a generalist bureaucracy, have been pivotal in governance but increasingly face criticism for lacking domain expertise. In an era of complex policy challenges ranging from climate change to digital governance , the need for specialized knowledge is more pressing than ever.

Criticism for Prioritizing Generalist Approaches Over Specialized Expertise

• Lack of Domain Expertise: The generalist nature of Indian Civil servants results in frequent transfers, limiting their ability to develop deep knowledge in policy areas.
• Dependence on Consultants: Due to expertise gaps, policymakers outsource critical policy work to temporary consultants, creating governance inefficiencies and policy discontinuity.
• Inconsistent Policy Formulation: The absence of sectoral specialization leads to frequent policy reversals, undermining investor confidence and regulatory stability.
• Lack of Accountability and Performance Metrics: Career progression in civil services is based on seniority rather than policy outcomes, discouraging specialization and innovation.
• Mismatch Between Role and Training: Generalist officers managing technical ministries such as Energy, AI, or Financial Markets may face challenges in aligning priorities and ensuring effective execution due to the specialized nature of these fields.

Need for Restructuring Civil Services into Field and Policy Divisions

• Optimizing Talent Utilization: Creating IAS-Field (IAS-F) and IAS-Policy (IAS-P) divisions would ensure that officers with experience in administration handle field roles, while subject matter experts shape national policies.
• Encouraging Specialization: Officers in policy making would gain expertise in law, economics, health, or defense, facilitating a knowledge-driven bureaucracy.
  For example: L.K. Jha’s economic expertise during the 1960s helped shape India’s economic policies, unlike today’s generalist-dominated framework.
• Reducing Reliance on Consultants: A policy cadre would create in-house expertise, ensuring long-term policy vision rather than short-term consultant-driven decisions.
• Reducing Bureaucratic Bottlenecks : Generalist officers often take time to grasp technical subjects, delaying reforms.
• For example: Slow adoption of emerging technologies like AI in governance due to a lack of specialized knowledge.
• Improved Crisis Management: Sector-specialized bureaucrats would respond more effectively to national crises by leveraging domain expertise rather than learning on the job.
  For example: During the COVID-19 pandemic, the lack of health policy experts in administration led to mismanagement of medical supply chains.

Impact of Reforms on Governance, Policy Innovation, and Administrative Efficiency

Governance

• Better Decision-Making: Specialized officers would make data-driven, well-informed decisions, leading to improved policy outcomes.
  For example: The SEBI chairperson with a financial background would ensure better stock market regulation than a generalist administrator.
• Reduced Bureaucratic Delays: Streamlining responsibilities between policy and field officers would ensure faster decision-making.

Policy Innovation

• Encouraging Evidence-Based Policies: Specialized policy officers would use global best practices and data analytics, reducing ad hoc policymaking.
  For example: The Jan Dhan Yojana’s financial inclusion model was refined through collaboration with economic experts.
• Cross-Sector Knowledge Exchange: Allowing interdisciplinary experts to join IAS-P would foster new policy ideas and cross-sector integration.
  For example: The Digital India initiative gained momentum with inputs from industry leaders and IT professionals.
• Better Stakeholder Engagement: Experts in policy divisions can collaborate with industry, academia, and civil society.

Administrative Efficiency

• Streamlining Bureaucracy: Division-based structuring would reduce redundancy and duplication of roles, enhancing overall efficiency.
• Faster Implementation of Reforms: Dedicated policy experts would reduce procedural delays, making policy execution smoother.

Way Ahead

• Flexible Career Progression Paths: Allow IAS officers to transition into specialized policy roles after acquiring expertise through training.
• Lateral Entry Expansion: Enhance recruitment of domain experts from academia, industry, and research institutions into policymaking roles.
• Performance-Based Evaluations: Civil servants should be assessed on policy outcomes and execution efficiency, rather than seniority alone.
  For example: A metrics-driven appraisal system can incentivize bureaucrats to deliver measurable impact.
• Strengthening Conflict of Interest Policies: Implement clear guidelines for private-sector recruits to ensure integrity while promoting expertise-based policymaking.
  

A structured division of civil services into field and policy cadres can enhance governance by bridging execution and policymaking. While generalists offer broad oversight, specialized expertise is essential for complex policy challenges. Effective implementation requires inter-cadre coordination, merit-based selection, and skill upgradation. Balancing flexibility with domain knowledge is key to a more agile and citizen-centric administration.

DOWNLOAD PDF