What govt can learn from the corrupt: efficient delivery of outcomes

Three major things have happened over the last 10 days that have brought forth renewed economic excitement. First, we had the India-European Union “mother-of-all-trade-deals”, followed by a forward-looking and non-populist Union budget which strikes all the right notes, and, last of all, the Indo-US trade “deal” whose contours are not fully clear yet. There could be some worms in the fineprint, but overall it can’t be negative to India’s growth story.

But here’s the problem: outlays do not automatically lead to outcomes, and trade deals do not automatically deliver on their promises of mutual benefit. So how does one ensure that there is no slip between the cup and the lip? How do deals move forward from pious intention to effective implementation?

There is a lot one can learn from the corruption economy - which works on the simple principle that wheels must be greased to ensure the right outcome for the party paying for a specific outcome (Eg: getting a driver’s licence). The middleman you pay bribes to knows which palms need greasing, where files or decisions are stuck, and who makes a vital difference to the outcome. This information is what enables outcomes through bribery.

If you want the same effective outcomes without bribery and sorcery to achieve important national goals, whether it is implementing trade deals or making budget allocations a reality on the ground, we need a middleman (in fact, several middlemen) to connect the dots and ensure the delivery of results.

During the G20 summit in 2023, India ensured productive outcomes by appointing a sherpa, Amitabh Kant, to liaise between the various powers and ensure that the summit generated a positive outcome, even if that outcome is just a final statement of consensus.

To ensure worthwhile national outcomes from outlays and policies, each specific goal needs a sherpa at the central, ministerial and state levels. The job of the sherpa would be to listen to complaints and suggestions on issues that crop up during implementation, and iron them out using his or her clout with ministries and state governments. Or local bodies. No clearance from the defence department? He should be able to liaise with the right person in the ministry, and, if needed, get orders from higher authorities to get a move on. No power for data centres? Move the relevant state authority or power provider to get the desired results.

The idea of sherpa is not a new one, and many facilitators and nodal agencies do serve the same function. At the state level, for example, there are single-window clearance facilities for businesses and entrepreneurs. This window is used to facilitate the onboarding of new investors by cutting out the hassle of dealing with multiple agencies located in different places, each with different procedures and laws governing them.

But, as the Economic Survey pointed out, if India needs to implement better than before, and in tough timeframes in an uncertain world, it has to go beyond just ministries and bureaucrats to get important policies implemented ASAP by involving “all of society”. 

Sherpas can be either mission-oriented, or sector-oriented. While a budget initiative involving one ministry or one sector and a few states can have one sherpa, those involving multiple stakeholders and states may need more than one. A data centre policy could do with one sherpa outside the ministry, while a Garbage Elimination Mission (Swachh Bharat 2.0) may need a much larger and more diverse range of sherpas, including those who know how municipalities work, and how states manage them. (Local bodies are under the thumb of states, as per entry 5 of the state list)

In the case of large initiatives, for example the two big trade deals with the US and EU, we may need not just many sherpas, but a Czar above them all to make things happen in multiple domains. There can be sherpas heading sector-specific rollouts and monitoring of progress. 

How should these sherpas be chosen?

In smaller initiatives, ministry-level bureaucrats can well be assigned these jobs, but larger initiatives like cluster-development of university towns attached to business and other establishments, we may need czars from the private sector, with short-term appointments of sherpas from ministries, state governments and experts from business and the higher education sectors. The indigenous AMCA project (Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft) may need a Czar, possibly one of the retired air marshals, who must work with the private partners chosen, and who can call on help from defence ministry personnel. He could report directly to the defence ministry and must have the necessary clout and respect within the defence establishment to manage this power without causing too much heartburn.

India’s ability to execute has improved under Narendra Modi, thanks to multiple digital and other initiatives taken over the last decade, but we must now accelerate. 

Last, and not least, we must follow-up on projects that are already completed. And do a post-mortem. If we do not know how they are faring, we can never know how to design future schemes better, and how faulty schemes can be rectified.

For example: does the government know how people are actually using the toilets built under Swachh Bharat 1.0? Are they still being used or have they gone to seed? Or are they being used as storage depots for household junk?

No government programme should ever be left alone even after they are completed. We owe our taxpayers that much. And the country even more.