The Narendra Modi government’s decision to allow lateral entry into the central government at the middle management, or joint secretary level, is surprising.

After reports appeared in the media last year that government was working on a plan to allow lateral entry at joint secretary level, in March 2018, Jitendra Singh, minister of state in the prime minister’s office, informed Lok Sabha that there was no proposal to introduce lateral entry.

The Modi government has since then changed its mind which is a good thing. There is a strong case to be made in favour of lateral entry into the government.

The idea is not new. Lateral entry has for long been a way to induct talent into government through an alternative route. Perhaps the most successful and well known lateral entrant into central government is Manmohan Singh.

A decade ago, a report of the second administrative reforms commission, “Refurbishing Personnel Administration-Scaling New Heights,” made a case for lateral entry. The report identified one of the biggest challenges that a lateral entrant will face, which is resistance from incumbents.  Most of government officers’ associations the commission’s members spoke to were not favourably inclined to lateral entry.

One reason for the resistance is valid. Lateral entry has thus far been a bit ad hoc in its approach. This has led to an impression that it is the preserve of the well connected.

Hopefully, the latest attempt, which is open to all people who meet the qualifying criteria, will to an extent blunt the criticism that lateral entry is another way to dispense patronage.

The current lateral recruitment for the joint secretary post, an absolutely critical function within the administration as it includes both policy making and supervision of its implementation, is through a short-term contract. It is for three years, with the possibility of an extension.

There are a couple of issues with this approach. An outsider may not find it easy to supervise the implementation of policy in a three-year timeframe. A bureaucracy is complex and by nature, be it in government or private sector, resistant to change.

Given the scale of the challenge, will the offer of a three-year contract provide adequate incentive to catalyse change?

A three year contract in critical positions such as revenue, which deals with tax policy, will likely trigger speculation about the motives of lateral entrants. There are lessons to be learnt from US where faith in democratic institutions has been undermined on account of the “revolving door” policy between private sector and the government.

For sure, nothing prevents a retired government employee from seeking a private sector job after a cooling off period. But that does not in any way offset the possibility that a short-term contract in a critical position can provide unintended incentives for potential lateral entrants.

Therefore, it is worth looking at a proposal made last year by D. Subbarao, an IAS officer who ended up as Reserve Bank of India’s governor, to allow mid-career lateral entry but simultaneously provide a career path for these entrants to continue in government service till retirement.

If it’s just a short-term contract the Modi government is keen on, perhaps it is best to stick to existing system of bringing in advisors with specialised skills into government for a limited time. To illustrate, the last three chief economic advisers in finance ministry are accomplished economists who joined on short-term contracts. They have all made useful contributions.

An entry at the middle management level should include a path which allows the entrants to spend the rest of their working life in government.

Linkedin
Disclaimer

Views expressed above are the author's own.

END OF ARTICLE