So far, the group has dealt with bureaucracy in theory. Now, the group will go on to give you some real life examples of bureaucracies while going on to analyze what makes these examples of bureaucracies efficient or inefficient. I will focus on the case study of bureaucracy in India.

According to a report by the Hong Kong-based Political and Economic Risk Consultancy , India has the worst bureaucracy in Asia. This consultancy ranks bureaucracies in Asia on a scale of 1 to 10, with 10 being the worst possible score; India scored 9.21. The report cites excessive red tape and the lack of accountability of the bureaucrats as reasons for inefficiency. It also blamed India’s bureaucracy for the difficulty of starting businesses there, corruption and the lack of infrastructure. The inefficient bureaucratic system seems not to have impeded economic performance, however, if we consider the set of strong growth figures that the Indian government has just released. The report claims that for many foreign companies that success is despite rather than because of the system they face and that, to quote the report exactly, “the inertia generated by a stifling bureaucratic system will, in the medium term, prevent India matching the growth rates of its great Asian rival China”.

Are there any other reports that support this view of India’s bureaucracy? Yes, there is. The World Bank has several “Governance Indicators” that measure the performance of countries on several dimensions of governance. 2 are relevant here: ‘government effectiveness’, which measures perceptions of quality of public service provision, quality of the bureaucracy, competence of the civil servants and the credibility of the government’s commitments to policies and “graft” which measures perceptions of corruption. On a scale of -2.5 to 2.5, with higher scores indicating better outcomes, India scored -0.04 on government effectiveness and -0.21 on the corruption index. That is considered pretty bad when contrasted with its Asian counterparts.

Why does India have a problem with its bureaucracy? There is no question that the Indian state is legitimate. When electing their government, fair and free elections are held in a vibrantly democratic environment, and in theory, the bureaucracy is designed to carry out the directions of the political establishment and be accountable to it, and in turn, the political establishment is held accountable to the people. However, in reality, there is a sharp disconnect between the politicians who make the policies, and the bureaucrats who implement the policies in India. The bureaucracy, both at the centre and state levels, has emerged as the locus of executive power, accountable, neither to the political establishment nor the people.

Right now, I’d like illustrate the inefficiency of government bureaucracy in India by focusing on the aspect of education. This is because India is still considered a developing country and the quality and accessibility of education is an issue that is crucial to any developmental process in any one country. Furthermore, education in India is something that is very closely associated to government bureaucracy, as more than 80% of the schools are state-run, and the private schools are too expensive for the masses.

In 1950, Article 45 of the Constitution of India stated that the State will aim to provide free and compulsory education up to the age of 14, and the political establishment declared that they planned to achieve this by 1960. However, by 1986, not even 50% of all rural children in the age group of 6-11 had ever been enrolled in school. In 1987, the National Policy on Education declared that by 1995, all children would be provided education up to 14 years of age, but this was revised in 1992, extending the time frame to the 21st century. So in this case, we can clearly see that the

democratically elected government has come up with a stated national policy that has well-meaning and ambitious goals but it has failed to make its resolve a reality. Why? Basically, while the policies all had the explicit function of aiming to provide free and universal education, they did not set out practical steps or directions to reach that function. So these policies translated poorly into improvements in the standards of education in India.

In addition, the education bureaucracy has had little incentive to strive to reach the function of the national policy. A study done by the Annual Status of Education Report team in 2011 found that 25% of teachers in primary schools were absent in any given day, while amongst the teachers that were present, only half of them were engaged in teaching. It also found that the attendance rate of teachers was dependant on the type of teacher. Para teachers, which are hired on an annual contractual basis, were found to have more regular attendance than regular teachers who are employed on a permanent basis, with salaries, perks and the employment security guarantee that all civil servants have. So here, we can infer that the employment guarantee along with a lack of performance based incentives has led to a culture of lethargy and poor performance. Basically, civil servants in the educational bureaucracy have little incentive to perform well or attempt to meet the function of the national policy which is to improve the standards of education.

There is also an issue of corruption within the education system. We find that the education bureaucracy’s commitment to improving the quality of schools is questionable. A program called the Mid Day Meal which involved the provision of one cooked meal a day to all students enrolled in primary schools was proposed. Even though there are clear benefits to this program, such as better health of children and a positive correlation between school meals and school enrollment and school attendance, there was much resistance from the education bureaucracy to implement this plan. For example, a high level official from the education department in Uttar Pradesh explained that the program would cost the state 680 crore rupees (that’s $170 million US dollars) and that the state would be at a loss to find such resources, but a few days later, the Members of Legislative Assembly in Uttar Pradesh passed a motion raising their salaries and perks at a potential cost of 425 crores rupees to the state. This illustrates the amount of power that bureaucrats in the education system have over the allocation of public funds. They are able to appropriate the funds for their private gain. I think that we can infer from here that there is a clear lack of accountability from the education bureaucracy to the people.

In the higher education system, we can also find an issue of red tapism. I’d like to highlight 2 issues: over regulation and over control. Almost every aspect of operations for about 8,500 private and public colleges and universities is overseen by the All India Council for Technical Education, a New Delhi-based government body empowered by law in 1987. The council approves the opening of new colleges and accredits existing colleges. It requires that college principals and professors hold doctorates and assistant professors have master's degrees. It forbids colleges from introducing new programs or courses without its sign off. It also stipulates rules that dictate space requirements, the exact size for libraries and administrative offices, the ratio of professors to assistant professors and lecturers, quotas for student enrollment and the number of computer terminals, books and journals that must be on site. So basically, there are a lot of regulations, but like Samuel said, regulations aren’t considered red tape unless they fail to achieve their function.

So let me give you an example of a regulation that has turned into red tape. One of regulations that Pharmacy colleges adhere to is that they must provide 168 square feet of building space for each student. The rule is intended to ensure students have enough space to learn. Because of this regulation however, the Kundnani College of Pharmacy has to cap enrollment at 300, even though students are spread so thinly in the eight-story building that the top floor remains unused, its lecture halls padlocked. So this regulation serves little function in this case, given that the building clearly does have enough space to hold more students and the students have too much space. Another example will include the university, S.P. Jain, having to cancel a program that allowed students to take a dual master's degree in systems management and information technology in collaboration with Virginia Polytechnic Institute due to guidelines that the All India Council for Technical Education adopted governing foreign collaborations. This was despite the obvious success of the program, where 1500 students competed for the 60 spots on this program. The council's vast purview has prompted an outcry from educational and business leaders who want to see the higher-educational system reformed. The Federation of Chambers of Commerce and Industry even proposed abolishing the council altogether in 2008.

So to sum it up, I have illustrated 4 problems with bureaucracies by using the example of the educational bureaucracy in India. First, there may be a lack of practical directions to meet the function of national policy; secondly, there may be a lack of incentives for bureaucrats to meet the function due to a lack of performance based incentives; third, there may be rampant corruption in the system due to a lack of checks and balances to ensure accountability of the bureaucracy to the people; and finally, the problem of red tapism due to overregulation and over control.

I don’t think I will have time for reforms. But I’ve got a few if you guys think it’s necessary. Oh, and I only focused on the education aspect of India’s bureaucracy, coz the whole system was too complex and I couldn’t really understand it so I figured that just focusing on one part to illustrate inefficiency would allow me to go in depth and illustrate inefficiency better. I hope it’s okay!!