Writings @ Ankur Mutreja by Ankur Mutreja - HTML preview

Chapter 4.5.3: Bureacracy Is Good

Bureaucracy is good. Bureaucracy checks corruption. Now let me explain why I am making such unpalatable statements.

Below is a definition of bureaucracy quoted from an online dictionary:

A system of administration wherein there is a specialization of functions, objective qualifications for office, action according to the adherence to fixed rules, and a hierarchy of authority and delegated power.

Adherence to fixed rules is what attracts me the most. Assurance to this adherence is actually an assurance of non-arbitrariness and thus equality, and it does work: the only requirement is that of an informed and active citizenry. Neither privatization nor decentralization/localization on the lines of Delhi’s Bhagidari Scheme is an effective replacement. The private sector is obviously arbitrary: the only rules they follow are the ones laid down by the Big Bosses, which change every second minute; and the Big Bosses are also invisible, so they can’t be taken to courts — it’s like fighting an unknown enemy. Decentralization/localization leads to politicization: it’s the most basic universal principle of sociology that people make stupid choices in groups; politicization is obviously group decision making, so it can be good only for those who either control group decision making or those who live their lives in dreams.

Another big advantage of bureaucracy is the initial qualification and the varied specialization. It may be true that an IIT-IIM graduate has a much higher IQ, but he can’t have the wisdom of an ICS officer, which comes only with knowledge, and the ICS officers get this first mover advantage because they actually gain lots of knowledge while preparing for their entrance examinations, and I don’t think the UPSC will select rank idiots as civil servants, so the IQ is also not bad. In fact, the kind of exposure a civil servant gets in the very first year of service is not to be seen for at least five years of service in the private sector, and that high quality experience of the first five years does make a lot of difference. Moreover, the private sector has straight-jacketed and boring jobs, which anyways curbs intelligence and creativity. The local politicians need not even be discussed: they only have grey hairs, wide spectacles and lots of dogma; the intelligence and creativity is a far cry.

The biggest problem with bureaucracy is inefficiency, and that’s mainly because of hierarchy and delegation. The higher officials are generally inaccessible, and the delegates are the ones who control the market for bribes — a head clerk is generally the one who supervises the bribe market and fixes the bribe rates; the entry barriers are generally very high, therefore the agents charge abnormal premiums, even 10 to 20 times the actual bribes paid. The easiest way to check inefficiency is to use technology, but which is conspicuously absent in government offices — I fail to understand why people need to line up at a DC office to fill forms, and why clerks need to make paper notings and physically file them for approval from the higher officials. I think the technology is not utilized deliberately in order to keep the friction and grease the palms. But, with the advent of RTI and activism in general, the patient people can still get their work done sans bribes and sans adjectives. The only advantage of private sector over public sector is high and efficient use of technology, but its benefits go to a few entrepreneurs, not public. Decentralization/localization would be disastrous because that would lead to slavery of people by politicians, which even now happens to a very great extent in cities like Delhi, where the proximity to politicians is the most important qualification.

I would anytime prefer a conceited but wise Babu to a corrupt politician or a goggled executive with hands in his pockets. ©2013-2015 Ankur Mutreja