Problems of Autonomy, Accountability and Control | Public Administration Optional for UPSC (Notes) PDF Download

Introduction

In this section, we will explore the concept of accountability, methods of securing accountability, elements of autonomy, and objectives of accountability. We will examine the importance of accountability in various contexts and discuss how it can be effectively implemented. By the end of this section, we will have a comprehensive understanding of accountability and its significance in fostering responsible behavior and ensuring desired outcomes.

Concept of Accountability

Accountability is a fundamental principle in public administration that ensures individuals and institutions are responsible for their actions and decisions. It refers to the obligation of public officials to be answerable for their conduct and performance. Accountability promotes transparency, integrity, and trust in government, and it is essential for effective governance. The concept of accountability encompasses both individual and institutional responsibilities, aiming to prevent corruption, abuse of power, and negligence.

Methods of Securing Accountability

Securing accountability in public administration involves various methods and mechanisms. These include:

• Legal Frameworks: Establishing laws, regulations, and codes of conduct that define the responsibilities, obligations, and standards of behavior for public officials. These legal frameworks provide a basis for holding individuals accountable for their actions.
• Performance Evaluation: Implementing performance evaluation systems that assess the performance of public officials against predetermined objectives and standards. Performance evaluations help identify areas of improvement, reward exemplary performance, and hold individuals accountable for their performance.
• Oversight and Monitoring: Establishing oversight mechanisms such as audit institutions, ombudsman offices, and parliamentary committees to monitor the activities of public officials and ensure compliance with laws and regulations. These oversight bodies play a crucial role in detecting and addressing instances of misconduct or maladministration.
• Whistleblower Protection: Creating mechanisms to protect whistleblowers who report wrongdoing or misconduct in public administration. Whistleblower protection encourages individuals to come forward with information without fear of retaliation, thus enhancing accountability by exposing and addressing corrupt practices.
• Citizen Engagement: Promoting citizen participation and engagement in decision-making processes through mechanisms such as public consultations, citizen feedback mechanisms, and social audits. Citizen engagement holds public officials accountable by ensuring their actions align with the needs and expectations of the people they serve.

Elements of Autonomy

Autonomy is another important aspect of public administration that complements accountability. Autonomy refers to the independence and discretion granted to public officials and institutions to make decisions and implement policies without undue external influence. The elements of autonomy in public administration include:

• Decision-making Authority: Public officials should have the authority to make decisions within the scope of their responsibilities without external interference. This enables them to exercise professional judgment and act in the best interest of the public.
• Budgetary Autonomy: Granting autonomy in financial matters allows public officials to allocate resources effectively and efficiently, ensuring optimal utilization for public services. Budgetary autonomy reduces dependency on political influences and promotes financial accountability.
• Functional Independence: Public institutions should be structurally and functionally independent to perform their roles effectively. This independence protects them from undue pressure or influence from external actors, allowing them to carry out their duties impartially and without bias.
• Professionalism and Expertise: Autonomy in public administration requires recruiting and promoting professionals based on merit and expertise. Public officials should have the necessary qualifications, skills, and knowledge to perform their duties independently and with integrity.

Objectives of Accountability

The objectives of accountability in public administration include:

• Transparency: Ensuring openness and disclosure of information to the public, promoting trust, and preventing corruption and misuse of power.
• Efficiency and Effectiveness: Holding public officials accountable for the efficient and effective use of resources, ensuring optimal service delivery to citizens.
• Rule of Law: Upholding the principles of the rule of law by holding public officials accountable for their actions and decisions, ensuring they comply with legal and ethical standards.
• Public Trust: Building public trust in government institutions and officials by demonstrating transparency, integrity, and responsiveness to public concerns.

Summary

The concept and policy of accountability and autonomy are crucial for effective public administration. Accountability ensures that public officials are answerable for their actions and decisions, promoting transparency and integrity. Various methods such as legal frameworks, performance evaluation, oversight mechanisms, whistleblower protection, and citizen engagement help secure accountability. Autonomy, on the other hand, grants independence and discretion to public officials and institutions to make decisions and implement policies, fostering professionalism and expertise. The elements of autonomy include decision-making authority, budgetary autonomy, functional independence, and professionalism. The objectives of accountability encompass transparency, efficiency, effectiveness, rule of law, and public trust, which are essential for good governance.

Problems of Autonomy in Public Sector Undertakings in India

• The absence of fixed tenures for chief executives in public sector undertakings (PSUs) hampers policy stability and continuity in a significant manner.
• The minister assigned to the PSU holds complete authority to dismiss the Chairman, Director, or Chief Executive.
• The Chief Executive, due to their short tenure (as per the Standing Conference on Public Enterprise, the average tenure is only 2 years), faces constant pressure to deliver short-term results at the expense of long-term disadvantages.
• Several committees have recommended that the procedure for terminating a CEO's contract should mirror the appointment procedure, which involves an appointment committee's recommendation to the cabinet. The central government has partially implemented this recommendation, but with certain conditions.
• Government-appointed directors on PSU boards often attempt to influence the decision-making process without assuming responsibility, leading to significant interference in their independent functioning and impeding their economic initiatives.
• Excessive control from higher authorities poses a major obstacle to the functioning of PSUs. Whenever a PSU undertakes a new project, it must navigate through the Expenditure Finance Committee and Project Investment Board, resulting in cumbersome processes, unnecessary delays, and an authoritarian environment.
• There is a lack of clear criteria for evaluating the performance of PSUs. To address this, certain memoranda of understanding have been signed between the PSUs, the central government, and state governments, based on recommendations from the Sen Gupta Committee. A recent example is the agreement between the central government and SAIL.
• Political appointments in PSUs, driven by nepotism and favoritism, contribute to inefficiency and incompetence in their operations. Therefore, merit should be the sole criterion for selection.
• Adequate retention policies are lacking to retain competent staff who are enticed by lucrative offers from the private sector.
• Challenges such as inadequate corporate planning, inefficient inventory management, resource shortages, below-par pay scales, and project implementation delays exist.
• Insufficient authority to pursue commercial opportunities for profit-making results in PSUs getting entangled in bureaucratic and political red tape, maintaining a bureaucratic nature instead of a balanced approach combining profitability and social obligations.

An effective measure to enhance the autonomy of PSUs is the introduction of the Navratna, Maharatna, and Miniratna statuses, which confer greater privileges and independence upon them.