How to use experts

Government needs doers, not more advisors

Prime Minister Narendra Modi's overwhelming mandate has been generally interpreted as being to take action to re-energise India's economy. This would require, above all, administrative changes: the United Progressive Alliance (UPA) government, whatever its intentions, repeatedly floundered on implementation. There can be no question that Mr Modi's predecessor, Manmohan Singh, had the best of advice, from all sorts of advisors across the political and economic spectrum. Dr Singh himself had no shortage of information and experience. Where his administration struggled was in translating good advice into effective policy. Thus, recent reports that Mr Modi is likely to set up an "advisory board" of 10 to 12 people should be viewed with some concern. It is believed that this board will contain area experts and will help the Prime Minister's Office (PMO) set policy priorities. It is, of course, entirely questionable as to what makes this advisory board any different from the National Advisory Council (NAC) of the UPA, which was the subject of much acrimony. It could be claimed that this board will be advising the prime minister and located in the PMO, but, in effect, the NAC too was merely advising the prime minister and the Cabinet. The problem is one of accountability. The problem is when there is power to give influential advice, without the accountability that forces that advice to be useful and positive.

What is actually needed at this point is doers, not advisors. Not just the NAC, the previous government had a plethora of advisors to the prime minister, to no good effect. It had the prime minister's council of economic advisors, the National Knowledge Commission, the National Manufacturing Competitiveness Council, the National Innovation Council, the National Council on Skill Development and many more than anyone can easily remember. But everyone can remember that they did little for the economy, or for manufacturing, or for skill development, or for innovation for that matter. Indeed, the Planning Commission itself, with its vast array of advisors, serves the same function.

If there are 10 or 12 subject experts the prime minister trusts, he should not merely seek their advice; he should put them in positions of power and responsibility. He should give them missions to head, with specific targets and political and statutory backing. He should make them doers, not advisors. Surely, this will sit better with the people chosen, too. One of the names mentioned, for example, is the engineer E Sreedharan, who made a name for himself running complicated projects like the Konkan Railway and the Delhi Metro. As an advisor, he would simply get in other people's way. If he is to be used, then he should do what he does best - he should be put in charge of a project. He should be doing, not advising. The same is true of most other such subject experts. The spirit behind the decision to abolish groups of ministers (to create greater accountability) should extend to advisors as well. Doers will have accountability; advisors will have none.