Sriprakash Jaiswal, minister of state for coal with independent charge, was hogging the limelight just about a month ago after overseeing a highly successful initial public offer of shares by state-controlled Coal India Limited. With India’s largest coal producer being listed on the stock exchanges at a valuation that would be a matter of envy for any promoter, Jaiswal expectedly earned a pat on his back from his ministerial colleagues and the prime minister.
Barely two weeks later, however, Jaiswal had a mild shock in store. On November 18, the Union Cabinet approved the establishment of an Independent Evaluation Office for impartial and objective assessments of various public programmes. A government announcement stated that the creation of the new body was a follow-up to the President’s address in Parliament in June 2009 where she had talked about the need for establishing an evaluation office that would operate at an arm’s distance from the government to assess the outcomes and impact of its major flagship programmes.
Jaiswal’s cause for concern should arise from a little-publicised fact. In addition to being the coal minister, Jaiswal has another ministerial responsibility. He is also the minister of state with independent charge for the ministry of statistics and programme implementation. Few people, however, would have heard or seen Jaiswal in public forums on issues concerning the government’s statistics or programme implementation. Kaun Banega Crorepati may not be the right forum, but if the quiz master of that programme asks for the name of India’s minister for statistics and programme implementation, chances are that no one would get the answer right even with the help of all the lifelines available to them.
Now, the ministry of statistics and programme implementation deals not only with numbers on the economy but its other equally important function is to monitor the government’s key programmes and projects. The programme implementation wing of the ministry has four key functions. It monitors the government’s Twenty Point Programme. It evaluates the performance of the country’s eleven key infrastructure sectors (power, coal, steel, railways, telecommunications, ports, fertilisers, cement, petroleum and natural gas, roads and civil aviation). It keeps track of all central sector projects costing Rs 20 crore and above. Finally, it also monitors the implementation of the Member of Parliament Local Area Development Scheme or MPLADS.
The question that may be bothering Jaiswal now is if the Cabinet has approved a new independent evaluation body, what role will the programme implementation wing of his ministry play? The Cabinet decision made it clear that the Independent Evaluation Office will be attached to the Planning Commission with a full-time director-general in the rank and status of a member of the Planning Commission. It will also enjoy full functional autonomy. The programme implementation ministry may continue to monitor MPLADS, but what about the government’s Twenty Point Programme? And should the ministry continue to monitor projects costing Rs 20 crore and above? Would the new Planning Commission body also monitor and evaluate these projects and schemes?
The government’s announcement on the creation of the Independent Evaluation Office had stated that it would strengthen the evaluation process by drawing the best resources available from leading research organisations and the Office would report its findings to the government and place them in the public domain. Does this mean that the programme implementation wing of Jaiswal’s ministry should wind up its operations and let the Independent Evaluation Office perform the task of monitoring and evaluation of such programmes?
The questions are important. Since one has heard precious little of what the programme implementation wing of Jaiswal’s ministry has been doing so far, it seems the government must have sensed a clear gap in its programme evaluation mechanism. There is nothing wrong, therefore, in meeting the gap. The problem, however, arises when there is duplication of work. If the Independent Evaluation Office can do a better job with a new brief and the promise of autonomy, it also makes sense to wind up the programme implementation wing of Jaiswal’s ministry. A better idea would be to rename it as just the ministry for statistics. The responsibility of monitoring MPLADS, too, should ideally come under the brief of the Independent Evaluation Office. That will leave nothing for the programme implementation wing. If that means redeploying the surplus employees in some more useful government jobs, an obvious welcome outcome will be a marked improvement in governance along with some possible salary savings for the central exchequer.
Indeed, it is time the government looked at the entire central administrative structure in place to monitor and evaluate central projects. For the last few years, the Union Budget documents provide an estimate of the outcomes against the financial outlay allocated for each of the main government programmes. This exercise can become more focused and sharper, if the Independent Evaluation Office can undertake this task as well. It is much better to have a centralised evaluation body to monitor all central schemes and projects, instead of different ministries auditing their progress separately. The Planning Commission already has under it the Secretariat for Infrastructure, which monitors the implementation of programmes and projects across infrastructure sectors. An omnibus independent evaluation organisation, attached to the Planning Commission, is certainly an idea whose time has come.
