The prime minister’s uncharacteristic dismay at the higher bureaucratic system, not devoid of truth and made in a specific context, has met with mixed reaction. This is an occasion that calls for introspection of a broader malaise. How does one objectively assess the quality of public services or of governance in general, especially at the state level? The subjective view is often shaped by a priori assumptions, ideological preferences, and the opinions propagated by the media. Besides, there is often a hidden blame game between the bureaucrat and the minister and an open one between the ruling party and the Opposition. How can a citizen then gain a dispassionate, informed perspective?

In 1970, the then home secretary, L.P. Singh, had observed that civil servants are too concerned with the political element in administration. “I know that thousands of civil servants spend a lot of time bemoaning political interference, complaining of unjust orders passed... I personally think that these preoccupations have done a great deal of harm to the civil service and to the administration of this country. For they have tended to deflect the civil service away from going more deeply into what I would describe broadly as its professional problems... let’s be honest, we have to blame ourselves, not ministers, not politicians, not legislators...” (David C. Potter in India’s Political Administrators). In the process, governance suffers, failing to satisfy basic needs and aspirations of the people. With greater resources and tools of modern management at our disposal, isn’t it time to examine the current state of public administration?

A commendable effort in this direction has been made by the Public Affairs Centre in Bengaluru by a research team under the guidance of Gurucharan Gollerkeri, a former civil servant, in the recently published Public Affairs Index-Governance in the States of India-2020. Seeking to improve the quality of governance, and following a methodology that is innovative and technically sound, “PAI 2020 provides evidence-based insights on subnational governance, and in particular, drawing on government data, an assessment of the quality and adequacy of governance in the states.” In its fifth year of publication, the annual report is getting continuously refined but is yet to receive the attention it deserves.

Any attempt at developing measurable and verifiable indices is bound to have limitations. Nevertheless, one should appreciate the ingenuity and hard work that have gone into ranking the states, categorized as large and small, based on population criterion, on a Composite Index, with “the three dimensions of sustainable development — growth, equity and sustainability” as the overarching goals of governance. Under each of these three, performance is circumscribed by five select themes of governance — the rule of law, government effectiveness, regulatory quality, control of corruption, voice and accountability. These themes, in turn, are mapped into 13 Sustainable Development Goals set by the United Nations for 2030. Below this SDG layer, there are 50 indicators used in generating the Composite Index.

The process is rigorous. But the final outcomes offer a nuanced picture. For instance, across high and low performing states, high levels of inequality are noticed, corroborating the notion of a widening gap between the rich and the poor. The finding that female labour participation is insignificant in the poor performing states is also understandable. The authors conclude “there is a slow but steady convergence between states on growth and equity... that some states have deeply entrenched inequality that must be addressed with single-minded policy focus... ” Kerala tops the overall ranking, followed by Tamil Nadu, Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka and Chhattisgarh. Andhra Pradesh under the equity parameter and Kerala under growth and sustainability head the list of large states. At the bottom are Haryana, Jharkhand, Bihar, Odisha and Uttar Pradesh. How these findings correlate with the state rankings in terms of human development indices would be an interesting facet to analyse.

While the methodology and the importance accorded to equity, growth and sustainability may be questioned, the report should have triggered a serious discussion on the subject. PAI 2020 has shown one valid way of ranking our states. By measuring inter-state disparities, the need for focused intervention has been highlighted so as to enable some states, marked by severe resource constraints and chronic backwardness, to meaningfully participate in ‘competitive federalism’. At the national level, a key to ranking various Central government departments may be found in the way civil service effectiveness is sought to be measured through the International Civil Service Effectiveness Index 2019 developed by the Blavatnik School of Government, Oxford University and the Institute for Government, supported by the UK civil service. We can study the methodology, modify it to meet our requirements and prepare our own ranking system. Select think-tanks and national academies may engage with these exercises, taking advantage of the best national and international expertise, under the supervision of the Niti Aayog.

A combination of enlightened political will and administrative skill determines the quality of governance. This quality should also lend itself to measurement. It is time, therefore, to collect the ‘big data’ and use them systematically to assess and quantify the performances of offices and departments of the Central and state governments. A bureaucrat’s performance has to be judged against this overall context, not by his proximity to centres of power.