There is an enduring problem with how those within the government in India view those outside the government. This includes both the private sector and the non-profit sectors.
The entrenched stereotype within the government is that of a zero-sum game between public and private benefit. Private benefit is thought to come at public cost. This can be characterised by the diagram below.
In this paradigm, any public policy is viewed from the lens of whether it's benefiting any private individual or entity and if so create restrictions to eliminate, or at least limit, the private benefit. So, any regulation has the explicit objective of limiting potential damage by the private interest. Laws get enacted to catch the deviant.
Any citizen seeking a service is viewed as a private benefit seeking individual and therefore engaging in a transaction where private benefits have to be limited. This is irrespective of whether the individual is seeking a service which he/she is rightfully entitled to, and the public agency's real mandate is to deliver this service to the citizen.
What makes this world view even more corrosive is that it can tend to view public benefit in terms of denying private benefit. Even where there is a law or rule in place, avoiding its subversion takes precedence over upholding its delivery.
So, a land acquisition award is less about following the law and giving the land loser the rightful amount for taking their land and more about limiting public expenditure. Or issuing a certificate or license is less about delivering a statutory service and more about limiting fraud or wrongful claims. Or even a single-window application interface to improve ease of doing business, soon becomes overtaken by the desire to put in place controls to screen ineligible applicants.
This world view is given credence and amplified by two things. One, the general behaviours of both private citizens and private companies in India have generally tended to seek private benefit at public cost. This point has been a recurrent theme in several posts in this blog. In a repeat game, these behaviours, in turn, shapes expectations and pushes all sides into a self-reinforcing bad equilibrium. Second, this world view allows certain public officials and representatives the fig leaf for rent-seeking. And this, in turn, perpetuates the rent-seeking structure that's pervasive in public engagements across levels in India.
An alternative world view is depicted in the diagram below.
From this perspective, any public policy or public engagement is explicitly acknowledged as an interaction which creates public and private benefits. Governments exist to enable private actors, individuals and entities, engage in all forms of legitimate activities. In fact, public policy is most often enacted to enable or facilitate legally mandated activities which creates private wealth.
In this view, public and private benefits go together, and there is no tension between public policy and private benefits. In fact, the promotion of legitimate private benefit becomes an explicit objective of public policy.
Accordingly, you provide deemed approval if the application is still pending beyond a certain time. Or, more explicitly, public policy seeks to catalyse specific markets or economic activities. Or, deregulate certain activities or ease documentation requirements on the premise that the net economic costs far outweigh the public finance benefits. Or, just promote public policy options which offers the widest spectrum of private beneficiaries.
In a society where private sector is often stigmatised for crony capitalism and cutting corners, and where rent-seeking involving public officials and private interests is commonplace, getting even the honest government officials to internalise this worldview is a massive challenge.
No comments:
Post a Comment