Attrition in government

It is reported that, in Maharashtra, the last six months have seen no fewer than seven officers belonging to the Indian Administrative Service (IAS) leave the service to join the private sector, at salaries that are at least five times what the government was paying them. Several more are waiting to follow, it is further reported. This brings to mind a rude saying in Hindi, "Majboori ka naam Mahatma Gandhi". Its rough equivalent in English is "Making a virtue out of necessity", which is what the government was doing when it asked its senior services to focus on public service instead of money. Thus, for far too long has the government paid its premier service too little in cash and too much in perks, especially by way of housing, medical care and pension, not to speak of transport and communications. Power, too, has been an important perk, especially in a shortage economy where status determines access to many goods and services. Indeed, this is generally true of all employees of the state and its agencies. However, in a steadily more market-driven economy, the trade-off between cash and perks was bound to get altered. As long as competing opportunities did not compensate for the combined utility of the government salary and benefits package, employees preferred to wait out the full term of around 35 years and only then seek private sector jobs, often as glorified liaison men. But it would seem that the trade-off has now changed with the high current incomes more than offsetting the loss of perks. This loss, in most cases, would in any case be notional as far as material perks are concerned and confined to the inability to exercise state power. It is now only a matter of time, in a skill-scarce economy, before other government agencies begin to get affected.

For the Sixth Pay Commission, this poses an altogether new challenge. Until now, pay commissions have not had to cope with the problem of attrition. They only needed to raise salaries and perks, albeit without much reference to productivity. What the latter meant was that top salaries were kept low, because the gap between the highest- and lowest-paid could not be too much in a system with socialist pretensions. But now this lack of attention to the productivity side of things is beginning to extract its toll, even as the gap between top and bottom in the private sector has increased dramatically during the last five years. It will be interesting to see how the Pay Commission deals with the problem. The most effective way would be for certain types of jobs to carry special pay packets that reflect the usual economic parameters. The point is a simple one: a distinction must be made between the general administration jobs and jobs that need special or managerial skills. These latter need to be carefully enumerated so that special packages can be devised for them. The same thing needs to be done for top public sector jobs as well because there is no reason why, to take one instance, the salary of the chairman of the State Bank of India or Air India should be pegged in some way to the senior IAS jobs. Whichever way the issue is approached, it is clear that a new problem has cropped up for a government system that is already high on the ladder of incompetence.