Bureaucracy and Development Administration

Bureaucracy and Development

Administration

BUREAUCRACY AND DEVELOPMENT

ADMINISTRATION

V A PAI PANANDIKER S S KSHIRSAGAR

CENTRE FOR POLICY RESEARCH NEW DELHI

O

tSZS by

V A Per PeraroxER

AND

S S KsHrnsecan

PRINTED

IN INDIA

BY N S RAY, THE BOOK CENTRE LTD,, rog, srxrH RoAD, sroN (nesr), nourey-4oo o22. PUBLISHED BY THE CENTRE FOR POLICY RESEARCH, c-6, colrurncrAl AREA, pAScHrMr MARG, VASANT VTHAR, NEW DELHr-r ro o57.

Contents

vlr

Preface

IN:rnonucrloN

J

Mrrnooor,ocv or Rl,srancE

r7

Pnorrr,r or Dnvslopl{nNt PrnsoNNrr,

28

Butreucnetrc CgenAcrnnrsrrcs or

DBvnToPMENT

ADlvTNISTRATION

48

5

\Vonxrnc Cr,rlrerr rN DrvrlopMsxt AourNrsrn,t.rroN

4,1

6

BunBeucnatrc Anep:ra:rroN AourNtstnerroN

ro

DnvslopMsNr

R-r,rertoxsHIp BETwEEN Bunr,,cucnA,rrc eNo DrvrtoplrnNtar- CHenecrtnrsncs

101

r32

Bunneucracv arlo Dnvrropurur AolttNtsrRATIoN

-

Au Ovrnvrrw

156

Appendices

Besrc T,lnrss oN Runreucnarrc Pnorrrns

II

r67

Qursrrowt.lernn Ind,ex

203

Preface

Tns rascrNeuoN oF bureaucracy to the

.

social scientists is only matched by their deep-seated fear of the great institution. During recent history of mankind the growth of state, state power, and consequently of bureaucracy' has aroused both the curiosity of scholars as also their apprehensions. Does the expansion of the role of the state inevitably mean the uncontrolled growth of the bureaucratic leviathan? lVill bureaucract' gobble' up democracy? Holv can man manage to rcconcile these fir'o inherently difierent types of institutions? Can democracies survive rvithout bureaucracies? If not, hor,rr are they to be married? The issues are real and will confront human civilization for a long time to come. Some scholars like Robert Michels etc. see the inexorable process of bureaucracies and the consequential oligarchies sr.rallor.ving democratic institutions. Others are not willing to give up the ghost and rvould rather fight out the issues. . The problem is even more complicated in the developing societies rvhcrc the countervailing institutions are weak. and hence bureaucracl' takcs l commanding position. The issues become even .rnore complex given tlre paucity of state instruments and state options for tr:anslating its policies and programmes of development. Everywhere the bureaucracv emerges as thc logical or evcn the inevitable instrument for transforming traditional societ ies into modern ones. If this be so, the vital question is: Is bureaucracy capable of performing the tasks? Principally does it have the essential values and attitudes necessary for performing these tasks? Wrat are the relationships betr.r'een bure:rucratic values and developmental values? It is with these basiC concerns that. 1ve had undertaken the present study for the Administrative Reforms Commission and to rvhom rve had submitted a preliminary Report in the late sixties. We felt. horvever. that the studv had rnany more implications, both theoretical and practical, ancl therefore deserved to be presented in much greater detail and analvsis to students and practitioners and even lay-readers in Government and Public Administration. In presenting this study, our objective is to focus attention of researchers and students of bureaucracy on its fundamental administrative dimensions especially in relation to development. All the more so since developing countries appear to rely increasingly on the bureaucratic apparatus for performing the critical policy and administrative functions in development. The study is presented in eight chapters. Chapter r, the Innoduction, is r

PREFACE

vlll

followed by chapter 2 on the research methodology u-sed' f1 -chapter 3 we deal loiitr ttri profile of the developmental personnel studied in terms of their demograpiric characteristics. Chapter 4 presents the frndings relating to the natuie and extent of the bureaucratization obtaining in the Goiernment agencies included in the stud,v. The working climate of these agencies is reported in chapter 5, n'hile chapter 6 describes the extent oi adaptation of the civil servants and the agencies in r'l'hich they serve, to their developmental role. The relationships between the bureaucratic characteristici on the one hand and the requirements of the developmental role on the other are analysed in chapter 7' Lastly, chapter 8 consists of an overview of bureaucracy as a form of organisation and its comr'vith development administration' patibility ' We aiknowledge our deep gratitude to the Administrative Reforms Commission for encouraging ui to undertake this project and the Indian Institute of Public Administration for providing considerable initial support. In particular, we 'lvish to thank Dr J. N. Khosla, former Director, Indian Insiitute of Public Administration, Nerv Delhi, for all his help. We also rvish to acknor,tledge the excellent research support provided by Shri S' N' Slvaroop and Kumari Asha Kothari. specially in conducting the ficlcl rvork. trVe wish to record our special thanks to the four governmental agencies and the respondents of the study whose cooperation rn'as vital to the conrluct of our.research. \ve were indeed pleasantly surprised at their rvillingness to share with us their views, attitudes 'and assessments on matters affecting development administration. Dr A. S. Deshpande, Dr B. L. Mahesh'rvari, Prof D. L. Sheth, Dr Kuldcep \.{athur and Dr Udai C. Desai, amongst several others, were kind enough to send us their detailed comments on the various drafts of the studv. Finally, r'e record our appreciation of the excellent administrative support lent by Shri Y. L. Nangia and the finc tt'ping assistance at various stages of the draft provided bv Sarvashri Trimbak Rao and P. K. Yagneswaran. Nerv Delhi

March,

1978

V A Per P,qNeNmxnn S S KsHrnsec.ln

Introduction

Dr,rrnropltnNr coNcERNs of emerging nations the world over in the last three decades or more have brought the state aPParatus sharply in focus. The two vital instruments of the state for the completion of any critical devclopment task have been found to be: (a) the political apparatus, and (b) the system of public administration. The focus in developing countries has been on both, rvith the political apparatus receiving first attention. This is but natural. Ultimately it is left to one or two crucial institutions to galvanize the energies of the nation and direct the efforts of the bulk of the pcople lvho in most of the developing countries are generally backrvard, inarticulate and slightly removed from the Process of development. Outside thc socialist 'w'orld, ansrvers to questions on the political apparatus have varied from country to country. Several developing nations appear to find a democratic political system not suitable for- bringing about the required socio-economic transformation which development 'calls for although a few countries like India have preferred the classical democratic political system as the most suitablc. This is a decision which has profound implications not only for the entire governmental system but for the developmental process itself. In its own rvay, unlike many developing countries and even unlike many dcmocratically organised developing polities, India has preferred a far more activist role for the state. 'lhrough the institution of national planning rvhich is essentially an element taken from the socialist countries, and through its policies Lowards a socialist pattern of society, India has given the state a prominent role in the socioeconomic development of the country a matter of deep import to the manner in which the national objcctives of development are to be achieved. In a country 'n'ith a sharply differentiated ideological party system, and highly devcloped gr:assroots political organisations, this could mean that the burden of socio-economic development is borne by the party apParatus. In the Indian political system (at the Centre as well as in the States), the party apparatus does not .impinge on the administrative system as forcefully and tends to get confined essentially to the highest level, namely, the Cabinet. In other rvords, the political apparatus here affects the administrative system in a more limited measure than it does in a system where the party is essentially in control of the administration. Inherent in such a situation is the shift in power and authority in favour of the civil service. In the context of the Indian political system this has come to mean that the civil service is the principal instrument of state

BUREAUCRACY AND DIiVELOPMENT ADTIINISTRATION

policy, and more imporranrl,v ir is the onlv r.ehicle of administrative policy. ivith th" result that the civil service begins to take upon itself many a task lvhich would, in a differcnt context, be essentially politrcal. not in any partisan sense but in terms of irnplementing it as a policy. The emergence of the administrative systern varies consitlerably in different countries, and some of them have been createcl virtualtv from scratch. In such a context which obtains in miny an African nation todav, the administrativc s,vstem tends to be opportunistic in signilicant respects. In India, hor'r'cver, the administrative systcrn has a strong personalitv of its orvn, going back into British and even pre'British history and influenced irr several wa,vs bV thc Nfacaulavan traditions of the r qth centurv administrati\e lheon'. - The Indian administrative s,vstem has taken great pride in its nonpartisan, neutral, and constitutionally based status and in its role in the governance of the countrv. This is good as far as it goes and mav have been exceedingl,v reler,ant if the functions of thc state which non' devolve upon the administrative system had stayed the same as the r gth century or traditional maintenancc functions of the state. viz. of regulation. t:rx or revenue collection and lar'l' and order. \Vith the Indian administrative system steeped as it is in the various control instruments, cspeciallv those of the enforcement, these functions have become almost its second nature. Thcse traditional functions had a certain logic, viz' l'ith the exercise of force and state ,authoritv over the people and as such crirical fttnctions of a colonial or imperial administration. They are also relativclv simple functions in the sense that they represent a one-rvay traffic from the civil servants to the people. There are felv or no compulsions of responsivencss to the people's needs or feelings; no need to heed to their desires and asoilations. The logic of developmental activities is, horvever, diflerent. DeveloP' mental process does not have only an economic aspect. It is also importantl,v (and perhaps more so in developing countries), a process of social change, of a change in the values, attitudes and behaviour, even in the vocabular,v of the people. Success in developmental activities, unlike in traclitional activities, cannot therefore be achieved rvithout cbncurrence ancl even activc involvement of the people. It hangs critically on the attitudes and responses of the public. If they accept thc directions of change of the clcvelopnrent sought, the hope for effectivc state performance rvould be high. On the other hand if they do not, the state programmes r,vould be only partially successful. In a traditional society like India, attitudinal barriers to development H'ould be at least as important as, if not more important than, the structural barriers. Any realistic del'elopment pro' gramme must therefore havc .plans and strategies for removing them. From all evidence. traditional state activiiies have been least concerned rvith bringing abour social changes in the country. In other words, the fundamental values of a der-elopmentally oriented administrative apparatus have to be different from those of the traditional

Introd'uction one. The question rve are raising here is : Is development administration di{Iercnt fr-orn traditional achninistration ? The ansrver is a clefinitc 'Yes'' Surelv it is not possible to have a static, control-lnindcd state aPPeratus anrl expect it to supervise and bring about something as funclamcntal as social change. Af thc srtmc timc l'e appreciate the importance of traditional administralive fgnctions to provide the necessarv suPPol't to development.al e{forts of the govcrnments of developing countries' But, it is inconceivable that rvhile one part of the aclministrative s,vstern concerns itself rvith development, the other or the more traditional part of the administration continues to function in the old stylc botJr in terms of content and procedures. If the developmdnt Process l's to progress smoothly the latier has perforce to partake of the philosgPll' 9f !h" former. But rvhat u'e fincl it -utty a developing countr)r like India is that tlre ne$- tasks of development are being assigned to the traditional administrative machinery for implementation. By all tiris n-e do not mean to suggest that social change is an easily definablc or even administrable concept. It is indeed not. But to the extent that social change is the crux of development administration, it is strikingly cliffercnt from traditional administration. Despite imPortant strrrctural connotations ancl implications development administration is not'merely a structiral concept. It implies essentiallY an orientation ior'r'ards bringing about changes nhich di{Ierentiates it from the status quo orientation of traditional .administration. This obviously has profound implications for the organisational systems from both the sttuctural and behavioural points of view. The crucial questio.n arising from the foregoing. discussion is rvhether the traclitional 'bureaucratic' structural and behavioural l a.lies and norms are at all compatible n ith the requiremcnts of development administration? \Vhether the tlvo are not basically antagonistic to cach other and in that sense contratlictory? The hypothesis of the study l'as in facr that the present bureaucratic organisation of the civil sen,ice in India is incompatible with its developmental role. Bureaucracy hcre is taken to mean essentially the civil service system because of the key place it holds in the execution of developmental tasks. This Indian circumstance is npt a necessary adjunct of state-craft. N'Iany other devcloping countries lrave follor'ved drastically differ ent patterns. T'he most notable of these is the Chinese experiment rvhere the Communist Party acts as a vital lever of bringing about changes. At the grass-l'oots le'r'el thc commune organisation. with its decentralised porver structure developed out of the local community, plays the crucial role. In.comparison lr.ith China the developmental path being followed in India and several other countries has beeen rather traditional. Nlost of the deve' lopmental practices in these countries get rvelded together in a big adminis' trative exercise as alternatives to the traditional institutions have not been developed or have not been allon'ed to be developed. The rePresentative or democratic system has meant essentially decisional interfacing at the

BUREAUCRACY AND DEVELOPMEN.T ADMINISTRATION

Central or State Government levels, lvith little or no p,rlitical involvement at the actual administrative level. As a result the entire developmental process is run b,v the civil sen'ice largely according to its own predilections and sense of priorities witl-r or without political commitment and objectives. There is an oft-repeated criticism that the political decisions and commitments get watered dorvn by the administrative processes, with fer,v political correctives possible at the grass-roots levels; that even the administrative system has no built-in checks as in the French system with its administratir.e larv and organisational safeguards such as the administrative tribunals, to prcvent abuses of power by the bureaucracy. Consequently it is alleged th,at the Indian developmental apparatus continues to operate on traditional lincs 'rvith all its rigid framer'vork and behavioural norms and pattern.s. The present study lvas addressed to the abof/e noted vital dimension of the orientation of the civil servants in India, rvhich is often described as 'bureaucratic'. Obviously the study r'l'ould not have been possible without making an empirical assessment of the 'bureaucratic' nature of the Indian civil service. The study is not horvever merely confined to such assessment. More importantly, it explores the question, ,as mentioned earlier, t'hcther the bureaucratic orientation of the administrative s,vstem is compatiblc rvith its developmental tasks and responsibilities. To recapitulate, the study mainly aims at (a) empiricall,v establishing the bureaucratic character of the civil sen/ice system in India, (b) discovering the extent of development orientation of the civil service system, (c) examining the factors in the personal and organisational life of the civil servants that are associated with their bureaucratic and developmental _

orientations, and (d) examining the compatibility of the bureaucratic svstem of administration with the developmental functions. Towards the development of an analytical framervork and a reasonable methodology to test the hypotheses of the study, it r'r'as irnportanr to ser forth the characteristics of (a) 'bureaucracy', and (b) 'development administration'.

Tnr

CoNcrpr

or

BunnArrcn,rcy

. The cruciality of'bureaucracy both as a form of organisation and as a social system t'as perceived by sociologists beginning rvith Max \Ve ber and followed by several others. On the presuppositions and causcs of bureaucracy, Weber felt that "The development of the money economy, in so far as pecuniary colnpensation of the officials is concerned is a prcsupposition of bureaucracy. 'foday it not only prevails but is predominant. This fact is of very gr:eat importance for the lvhole bearing of bureaucracy, yet by itself it is by no means decisive for the exisrence of btreaucracy".l Weber proceeded to point out that bureaucracies. historically rather disr, Weber, Max, From Max Weber :, Essays in Sociology, Ed. Hans H. Gerth and C. Wright Mills, Iondon, Oxford University nress, 1946, p, :o4.

Introd,ucti,on

tinctly developed and quantitatively large, existed in ancient Egypt, Rome especially during the Dioclatian monarchv and the Byzantine polity and China from the time of Shi Hwangti until the soth century.2 Bureaucratil zation by itself horvever rvas no guarantee of the success of the state. ""Ihe ancient Roman Empire disintegrated internally in spite of increasing bureaucratization and even during its very execution."s Even so, largescaie bureaucratic systems have been the continuing phenomenon of the post-industrial revolution era and remain one of the most important instruments of state Power toda)r. Bureaucracy has been defined as "The type of organization designed to accomplish large-scale administrative tasks by systematically coordinating the work of many individuals."a Bureaucracies are crucial elemeirts of the political system all over the world and have been recognised as such more or less openly' As Bensman and Rosenberg note, "bureaucracy is not intrinsic to communism, socialism or capitalism. It can exist in any type of society, with or lvithout private property, and in a basicalll, dictatorial or a basically democratic climate."5 While horver.er bureaucracy may be a useful single concept to describe the organisational system in societies rvith varied political systems, the context and specific character of the bureaucracy differ a great deal according to the nature of the political system itself. A bureaucracy staffed and controlled by the Communist Party in the Soviet Union or China is a different system from that in the United Kingdom, the United States of America or for that matter, France. The problem of bureaucracy has been somewhat more complex in developing countries rvhere social and political institutions are relatively less developed and where, therefore, the state has had to depend upon. bureaucracy as its major instrument of its activist functions. This has meant that the bureaucraciis in countries like India have had to perform functions which in the non-socialist developed countries are performed by a variety of other institutions. The dilemrna is somewhat less, though perhaps still present, in the socialist countries rvhere the bureaucratic system is more integrally intertwined rvith the political

system.

Rrvrrw or Bun seucnerrc Tnronv Three key contributors to the classical literature on bureaucracy

are

Karl Nlarx, Robcrt Michels and Max Weber. While bureaucracy was not central to Marr