There must be an end to CEAs airing private views in Economic Survey

The annual report should present the opinion of the government as seen from the finance ministry.

Work on the annual Economic Survey will start soon. It is intended to provide Parliament with a detailed exposition on the economy. 

From its inception it had a broad approach of data and analysis. It was a dull old thing and very few people took it seriously. 

Then in 2010 Kaushik Basu, the new chief economic adviser (CEA), started a new practice: of expounding his private views on a variety of subjects, including on corruption. 

Since then this sort of exposition has often been included in the Survey as an integral part. It appears as a separate chapter. 

This public airing of private views in a document intended for parliament provides the CEA with an official platform for airing his personal opinions. It thus treads a thin line. 

The media, bored with the old stuff, has lapped it up as this chapter paints the CEA as heroic figure, ploughing a lonely furrow, the voice of economics and reason in an otherwise boring old government. 

Stop it, please

I have always held that this practice is wrong and needs to be stopped. The Economic Survey is not the appropriate platform for expressing private views. 

After all, the finance ministry can always bring these views out as independent pamphlets or working papers or discussion papers. This is very easy to do these days because of online posts. The reach too will be greater. 

Indeed, there can be one private opinion a month if senior members of the Indian Economic Service are allowed to contribute. There are enough of them. 

Start this, instead

I have another problem with the Survey. Over the last five years or so, the analysis it provides is more coloured by the personal preferences of the CEA than it used to be in the past, perhaps because academics are lone rangers, looking to develop a stray thought into an academically publishable paper. 

This, too, is not quite all right. The Survey should present the view of the government as seen from the finance ministry. 

And, in order for this to happen, the contents should be decided by means of what in the media is called an editorial meeting where all views are heard, weighed and a decision is taken on how to present the platform’s point of view. 

Also, if the minister and the secretaries in the ministry are involved in giving it a specific direction, they will not ignore the Survey as they tend to do now. 

Finally, the PMEAC has always had a lot of analytical capability. It still does but they write in newspapers. The Survey should harness that capability as well, in a separate section. 

For let’s not forget: it’s a survey by the Government of India, executed by the finance ministry. It’s not a survey written by the CEA alone. 

One final suggestion: the Survey can be modelled on the now discontinued Report on Currency and Finance of the RBI--which should be revived. The RCF reflected the RBI’s assessment, and not of the deputy governor in charge of it.