Bureaucratic Incompetence
Some Observations

-By Shanker K.C.

POLITICIANS, donor communities and the common men on the streets seem to be blaming that Nepalese bureaucracy has become incompetent, inefficient, ineffective and almost defunct in implementing development projects and programmes. Also, every symptom of bureaupathology-corruption, red tapism, file circumventing, unnecessary delay in decision making, absenteeism exists in Nepalese bureaucracy. Arguments are often heard that alternative mechanisms of implementing development programmes like NGOs, INGOs, CBOs and even private sector have proved more effective in implementing development programmes and projects than bureaucracy.

Policy
Politicians and high level policy planners have constantly threatened to use carrot and stick policy to make bureaucracy function. However, they have neither offered carrot nor used stick to make bureaucracy work. Limited and fragmented government reform measures without any vision have proved inadequate to make bureaucracy more responsive to the rapid changes undergoing in the political, economical and social scenarios of the country.

Government employees do not work in isolated environment and they are in constant interactions with the societal environment in which they have to operate. Pro multi-party democracy era has seen the mushrooming of many NGOs, CBOs and INGOs in the field of development administration. The work forces in these organisations have also increased in geometric proportion and non-governmental sectors now employ the sizable portion of force. At present, large proportions of foreign development grants are mobilised through these organisations.

While blaming the public sector for their non performance and praising the NGOs for their effectiveness and efficiency we should look at the drastic discrepancies in monetary incentives between the non-governmental organisations and governmental organisations. Even the grass root workers of the NGOs and INGOs receive very attractive remuneration compared to the salary of senior level government officers. Whereas, the remuneration provided by the government to its employees are so meager that it is not even enough to meet the basic necessities of life. At the present exchange rate of US dollar government staff at lowest level gets salary of approximately 25 US dollars per month. A government officer with graduate level education receives the salary of less than 55 US dollars and a secretary gets less than 100 US dollars as his monthly remuneration.

On the other hand, the programme managers, directors, consultants, advisors and programme officers in INGOs and donor organisations receive higher salary than the government officials. In such a situation dissatisfaction
among the government employees has increased and bureaucracy has lagged behind in prestige and morale have plummeted.

Except for the very fortunate few, the financial situations of majority of government workers remain bleak. Often the logic offered for higher remuneration in these NGOs and INGOs have been that these organisations need to attract higher caliber national talents.

Even by the South Asian standard, Nepalese public servants get a paltry sum as remuneration. In India alone, the Union government has recently hiked the remuneration of its employees more than three hundred per cent. Whereas in Nepal politicians and policy makers are constantly alleging that almost ninety per cent of revenue is consumed by public servants as salary and compensation. If this allegation is true, either there is a grave anomaly in our revenue system or the allegation is subjective and biased one. The budgetary data does not support this allegation as substantial portion of our regular budget is spent on repayment of the capital and interest of external debts and meeting the other regular expenditure of the government.

However, no one is raising a voice about gross misutilisation and extravagant expenditures of development grants and loans that come to Nepal in the name of poor Nepalese from the NGOs and INGOs. Are the austerity measures and belt tightening only for the public sector or it should also be extended to non-governmental sectors?

Experiences from many developing countries show that even where the basic necessities are fulfilled, money does play a major role in uplifting the morale and motivation of the employees. On the other hand, in Nepal monetary incentives provided by the government to its employees are not even sufficient to fulfill the basic necessities. But whatever our emphasis on alternative implementing mechanisms government cannot relinquish basic functions of governance and good governance and economic development will only remain a mirage without mobilising and attracting professionals of high caliber in bureaucracy. For this, public employees should be offered pay and benefits, at least, sufficient to fulfill their physical and social needs.

Fact
From the foregoing discussions one might conclude that monetary incentive is all that matter in modern management. Though this is not the intention, however, the fact is that only when pay is fair and adequate, other motivational factors operate with greater effects.