By Amar Yumnam
The corruption, corruptibility and incompetence of the people in government are common talk in Manipur. We even talk as if the people in the State are corruptible in general. In fact, in most of the administrative manifestations of governance characteristics, the charges turn out to be more or less true except in the case of certain responsible and responsive functionaries.
Given these situations, we certainly need to examine whether the governance problems we experience are typological ones or relate to the incentives characterizing the administration.
Typological:
If we are to treat the problems as typological we are relating them to the inherent type or personality disposition of the individuals in the society. We would, in other words, treat the issues as characterizing the culture traits of the people of the State. The corruption, corruptibility and incompetence (CCI) would be a result of the inherent personality traits of the population rather than the circumstances of work in the State. Further these would not have anything to do with the question of whether the type of administration we have is a product of endogenous evolution or of exogenous superimposition. Still further, they would have no relationship with the corruption, corruptibility and incompetence of governance seen elsewhere in the country. Whatever we observe here in this respect is unique to this place.
Incentives:
If we are to characterize the problems of CCI as emanating from the failure to get incentives right, then we are diagnosing them as a product of the circumstances. We would then acknowledge the variation in individual performances in connection with CCI as to whether they are systematic or just noises in the system. Here we would rather be concerned with the incentives facing the individuals in work.
Diagnosis:
In the absence of a systematic survey based research of the individuals in the administration, it is a difficult task to assign a priori CCI in Manipur to either typology or incentives. Further, given the strong resistance the State administration displays against studies purporting to examine the matters of governance or to the proposals for research with implications for examining the existing database, we are not sure if such a study would ever see the light of the day unless otherwise sponsored from outside.
But the malaise we are in is such that we cannot afford to wait for the full diagnosis to take place. While a detailed study would certainly do good, we should for the time being adopt a symptomatic strategy. There certainly are a very few key personnel in the State administration with proven competence and capability to think contextually. These are consistent people in an otherwise inconsistent administration. These are the people whose type the state should definitely nurture. I understand that it is easier said than done because there is every reason to feel CCI in the State as systemic and typological; it might not have been so to begin with but over time it looks like one now.
The other approach of getting the incentives right is rather easier to adopt if it were only a question of incentives. But if it were accompanied by typological problems, it is a rather difficult task to get the right incentives implemented. In fact, if the history of pay-fixation and pay-anomaly is any indicator, this is exactly what we are afraid of.
But let us assume that certain forces, external or the divine God, compel the State government to nurture the right type of key functionaries in the State and adopt as well right incentives for the administration. If this were so, the typological strategy would take care of the higher echelons in the administration. We need this to be accompanied by another strategy to address the issue of incentives to take care of the interests of the lower stratum in the administration.
An example immediately comes to mind. There seems to be widespread discontent with the job among the employees in the administration. This needs to be addressed carefully and purposefully. The example I have in mind is the case of ACP (Assured Career Progression) which was a component scheme of the last pay revision.
The State administration should convert this scheme into reality without further delay. I understand that the administration now is genuinely strict in taking care of the wrong-doers. Similarly, its capacity and inclination to award incentives should also be salient.
In short, the State now looks forward to the generalization of some key traits in core functionaries of the administration.
Source: The Sangai Express
The corruption, corruptibility and incompetence of the people in government are common talk in Manipur. We even talk as if the people in the State are corruptible in general. In fact, in most of the administrative manifestations of governance characteristics, the charges turn out to be more or less true except in the case of certain responsible and responsive functionaries.
Given these situations, we certainly need to examine whether the governance problems we experience are typological ones or relate to the incentives characterizing the administration.
Typological:
If we are to treat the problems as typological we are relating them to the inherent type or personality disposition of the individuals in the society. We would, in other words, treat the issues as characterizing the culture traits of the people of the State. The corruption, corruptibility and incompetence (CCI) would be a result of the inherent personality traits of the population rather than the circumstances of work in the State. Further these would not have anything to do with the question of whether the type of administration we have is a product of endogenous evolution or of exogenous superimposition. Still further, they would have no relationship with the corruption, corruptibility and incompetence of governance seen elsewhere in the country. Whatever we observe here in this respect is unique to this place.
Incentives:
If we are to characterize the problems of CCI as emanating from the failure to get incentives right, then we are diagnosing them as a product of the circumstances. We would then acknowledge the variation in individual performances in connection with CCI as to whether they are systematic or just noises in the system. Here we would rather be concerned with the incentives facing the individuals in work.
Diagnosis:
In the absence of a systematic survey based research of the individuals in the administration, it is a difficult task to assign a priori CCI in Manipur to either typology or incentives. Further, given the strong resistance the State administration displays against studies purporting to examine the matters of governance or to the proposals for research with implications for examining the existing database, we are not sure if such a study would ever see the light of the day unless otherwise sponsored from outside.
But the malaise we are in is such that we cannot afford to wait for the full diagnosis to take place. While a detailed study would certainly do good, we should for the time being adopt a symptomatic strategy. There certainly are a very few key personnel in the State administration with proven competence and capability to think contextually. These are consistent people in an otherwise inconsistent administration. These are the people whose type the state should definitely nurture. I understand that it is easier said than done because there is every reason to feel CCI in the State as systemic and typological; it might not have been so to begin with but over time it looks like one now.
The other approach of getting the incentives right is rather easier to adopt if it were only a question of incentives. But if it were accompanied by typological problems, it is a rather difficult task to get the right incentives implemented. In fact, if the history of pay-fixation and pay-anomaly is any indicator, this is exactly what we are afraid of.
But let us assume that certain forces, external or the divine God, compel the State government to nurture the right type of key functionaries in the State and adopt as well right incentives for the administration. If this were so, the typological strategy would take care of the higher echelons in the administration. We need this to be accompanied by another strategy to address the issue of incentives to take care of the interests of the lower stratum in the administration.
An example immediately comes to mind. There seems to be widespread discontent with the job among the employees in the administration. This needs to be addressed carefully and purposefully. The example I have in mind is the case of ACP (Assured Career Progression) which was a component scheme of the last pay revision.
The State administration should convert this scheme into reality without further delay. I understand that the administration now is genuinely strict in taking care of the wrong-doers. Similarly, its capacity and inclination to award incentives should also be salient.
In short, the State now looks forward to the generalization of some key traits in core functionaries of the administration.
Source: The Sangai Express
