India has only a fifth as many public servants as United States, relative to population. The highest ratios of public servants to population among the Indian States are in the conflict-torn or border regions
Long reviled for being bloated, India's Central and State governments in fact have just a fifth as many public servants as the United States, relative to population. The figures raise doubts, ahead of a Union budget that is likely to slash social-sector spending, on whether the country has the personnel it needs to improve governance and ensure universal access to services like education and health.
Data compiled from multiple sources, including a 2008 official survey, Right to Information applications, media reports and the 2011 census show, India has 1,622.8 government servants for every 100,000 residents. In stark contrast, the U.S. has 7,681. The Central government, with 3.1 million employees, thus has 257 serving every 100,000 population, against the U.S. federal government's 840.
This figure dips further if the 1,394,418 people working for the Railways, accounting for 44.81 per cent of the entire Central government workforce, are removed. Then, there are only about 125 central employees serving every 100,000 people. Information technology and communications services account for another 7.25 per cent of the Central government's staff.
Eminent economist V.K. Ramachandran says: “One of the most important lessons of the economic history of modern nations is that the most crucial requirements of social transformation can only be delivered by the public authority. A government that does not pay for skilled personnel to deliver education, health and land reform is one that condemns its people to under-development.”
The Central government's figures also show that 59.69 per cent of public servants belonged to Group C and another 29.37 per cent to Group D — the two lowest paid categories. Though these workers are important, the numbers suggest there are system-wide shortages of skilled staff and administrators.
Interestingly, the data show a marginal decline of 0.13 per cent in the size of the Central government in 2008 from 2006, though the population grew.
“People keep complaining the government is too big,” says Ajai Sahni, director of the New Delhi-based Institute of Conflict Management (ICM), “but the figures show that it is in fact too anaemic to govern the country.” The ICM, which spent over a year assembling the data, discovered that only some States even had centralised records on their employees — and there were no published estimates of staff members needed to realise new development objectives.
The highest ratios of public servants to population among the Indian States are in the conflict-torn or border regions, where the Central government has made special funding available for enhancing employment in an effort to contain discontent. Thus, Mizoram has 3,950.27 public servants per the 100,000 population, Nagaland 3,920.62 and Jammu and Kashmir 3,585.96. Bar Sikkim, with 6,394.89 public servants per 100,000, no State comes close to the international levels.
For the most part though, India's relatively backward States have low numbers of public servants. This means staff members are not available for the provision of education, health and social services needed to address the worst kinds of poverty. Bihar has just 457.60 per 100,000, Madhya Pradesh 826.47, Uttar Pradesh has 801.67, Orissa 1,191.97 and Chhattisgarh 1,174.62
This is not to suggest there is a causal link between poverty and low levels of public servants: Gujarat has just 826.47 per 100,000 and Punjab 1,263.34. The data could explain, though, why even well-off States like these have found it tough to ensure universal primary education and eradicating poverty.
Keywords: civil servants, public servants, beurocrats, governance
I find it hard to believe there are less government agents in India than in the USA. I am sure your number don't include all the public sector banks, industries and various other institutions.
This is another meaningless comparison in two countries where services provided by Govt are vastly different, India has public health sector US does not have one except maybe in millitary. India has railways provided by govt while Amtrak is totally private same is the case for defence production. If author wants to compare then he should do is compare each individual arm of Govt i.e. defence, police, health, education, judiciary etc. and to understand effectiveness it would be better to separate regulatory roles from the execution i.e in financial sector separate SEC SEBI from actual banks then we will know where we stand!
some of the points mentioned by the author are practically correct
indeed,but at the same time there is a need to reform the entire
public services such that max work is get extracted from every public
servant relative to his CTC. All these bashing of the civil servants is because they are in the public glare. I think there are lot of misconceptions about the civil servants that everyone involves in the corrupt practices all the time.But this is true only to some extent. The teachers,postmen,defence personnel and other vast majority of the public servants cannot be corrupt, simply because they dont have any opportunities to ask for the bribe.Alos there are lot of people who are honest and productive. One cannot forget the police personnel who are working 14-16 hours a day without a leave(pragmatically speaking)for a single day in a week. As a western thinker has quoted "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely",no matter you are in public or private sector.
I know people in India taking years of leave to baby sit or visit their children in foreign countries or even join the spouse working in foreign countries. I am sure US would not allow this..Compare the Systems and the efficiency.. And India would be pathetically leaps behind.br/>
It doesn't matter how many individuals are in the bureaucracy, its how
effective it is.
The article raises some interesting points: 1. A vast majority of the government servants are at the bottom of the pyramid. Are all of them necessary for efficient delivery of service to the people? Do we really require an army of peons, clerks and drivers? These tasks can be easily automated - saving money and as well as closing avenues for corruption. 2. Increase the number of workers who actually deliver services to people. That means increase teachers, motor vehicle inspectors and the like. Pay these folks well (if you pay peanuts, you get monkeys), train them well and equip them well (how many electricity repair persons in India have access to quality equipment? not many). 3. Have a good law and order infrastructure. Improve the delivery of justice means reducing the time for grievance redressal. Actually this is the first step in getting the country on its feet. This will help in prosecuting the wrong doers in a timely manner.
Mr. Swami, rather than a headcount, the average amount spent on a government employee in India vs. US would be more convincing. Especially if we include, along with such data, the volume of funds that are supposed to be spent on public good.
I have seen since last 31 years of my experience as a State Govt.Servant of Maharashtra, that whenever anything discussed in media about the conditions,pay & perks,the purchasing power of rupee value, amenities of govt.servants,whether public servants are well paid in india, nobody is interested to take the side of govt.servants for the reason of all pervasive rampant corruption in govt.service which cannot be refuted,but only highlighting the issue of corruption in public service would rather lead to worsening the situation than any fruitful efforts to mitigate the corruption in public service. But it is a good sign of development in favour of public servants in india, that somebody is trying to ascertain and bring out the true picture of state of public servants in india, with statistical study and that too on global counts. I would like to emphasize that there must be done a thorough statistical study of public service in india rather than accusing it of corruption.
Sure, maybe it's not bloated, but there are too many civil servants not doing their job properly.
Dimension of Manpower allocation in public institutions is very important one to take into consideration, while we address various factors that effect the delivery of essential services. Some other important aspects that influence the performance of public servants that has to be captured are A) Multiple responsibilities coupled with short stay- it can be observed that senior administrators are given diverse tasks, but their profiles and geographies ( through transfers keep changing so often that, layer of decision making always in state of flux. B) Ratio of Public servants to citizens should also have Urban to Rural split - intuitively one can tell that, this gets worse as we move to rural locations. C)Administrative roles versus specialized skills - the ratios should also be varied desirability depending on how specialized is the skill i.e this has to be different for specialized skills like medicine, teaching etc. d) lastly sectoral ratio should also be considered .
It is true that the number of public servants in Govt. offices are very few, and even those who aught to have been there are not found in their counters or tables because of the ubiquitous holidays and the lack of work culture. the public are the casualty and they waste their precious time in visiting and revisiting the Govt. offices for as simple things as birth or death certificates,income certificates etc.
There are quite a few things wrong or inadequate about this analysis: 1. The US is, in some sense, a heavily 'militarized' country with a very, VERY large military relative to its population. The same is true for several other countries including China. In fact India has one of the smallest defense forces (relative to its size) in the whole world. Because the sources you quoted here actually quantify 'employees' as a whole, those numbers are skewed due to the aforementioned fact. In any case, just because the US's government and bureaucracy is super-bloated doesn't make ours 'anaemic'in comparison. 2. Public servants per population need not be a function that must necessarily scale linearly. In fact because organizations become more and more inefficient with increasing size, there is every reason that government size per population must instead scale logarithmically.
It is commom complaints of Janata that there are to many government workers. Same goes for the complaints for the Business folks. However, if government is to implement its plans and program right, it will need capable people and devoted civil servants. trying to cut down government work force is some sort of mass mania. However, government needs to stand firm if it means business. The Country's Arm forces are also government workers so also the Railway workers & postmen and women. Treat them fair. Even in the colonial days, civil servants were treated fairly. So don't go on dumping on Government workers. they are their to carry out mission of the democratic government. Try them well.
This news has not taken in to the size of the country. US has more than 51 states. Area is huge. So where is the need to compare with India. The particular do not give the bi-furcation. Bureaucracy could be many folds. Idle, creative and monitoring. In India, politics interfere with this white collered bureaucracy. The politics do not give room the Admn to move fast and to attempt good things for the country. There are so many departments attend the duplication of work. With all these draw-backs, India is doing well. Economy/agriculture/education etc are growing. What else India Need.
RAW numbers may not help analysis; should we be asking: 1.Is the Govt doing what it must, or has it got too many noses in troughs, it should not? 2.What should be the role of the civil service: strategy/policy, overall planning, monitoring/quality improvement, OR 'colonial-style administration'; to maximise personal wealth of themselves and political masters? 3.What is the logic of following a labour-intensive model (when western countries with 'legacy structures' are rapidly down-sizing) in the emerging world of e-governance and increasingly educated public, who have a better civic sense and can be entrusted to self-govern (eg filing of e-tax-returns)? 4.What is the breakdown of the numbers - how many Generals/ platoon commanders/ foot soldiers? 5.Why does India have so many Generals, or rather Dukes and Earls under a monarchy/oligarchy, with 'unbelievable powers' and potential for 'limitless tyranny' - so frequently reported? 6.Should we focus on 'quality' not 'quantity'? ...etc
When people think of government service, they don't just think of the administration. They also think about the entire public sector, such as the nationalized banks, insurance companies, mining, oil, etc. Is all that included in this calculation?
A piece of statistics,which will make politicians happy who may plan to gather more votes during election time by creating and doling out additional Government jobs,irrespective of actual requirement, burdening the exchequer and common man with more taxes and without any addition to productivity whatsoever.Long live Incredible India.
This is interesting. According to my knowledge on state District manual, a District Collector or an IAS officer incharge for the district can ensure universal primary education and eradicating poverty provided he/she is honest, dedicated to work and no political interference. But out of 600 plus districts, one can find only one honest district collect in TN state. Corruption and no fear of punishment and lack of commitment and collective responsibility makes many public servants aggravated poverty since independence of India rather than eradicating though huge money spent for wages/salaries for these public servants/bureaucratic administration across India.
It is not that the Indian public sector is 'too anemic' to govern India but is too ineffective. Most of civil servants are not trained, either educationally from elementary to high school and onward, or even on-the-job as necessitated. Public experience over 60+ years clearly demonstrates this. Lack of accountability, vote-bank politics, cash pay-outs to win elections, use of funds for ineffective and pet-peeve projects (if not down-right pilferage) to stay in power as in this current government all contribute to this ineffectiveness. Rather than make an apples-to-oranges comparison with the US where economy is assessed and managed very differently, India would be better to focus on how best India can collect, budget, and utilize any and all public funds. As things have stood over six+ decades, it is clear these processes are nowhere near optimum. That's what Praveen Swami should be bringing up for public discussions, to better educate, and elicit an informed public participation.
Great. Now lets see figures bust the "myth" that India's bureaucracy is a Kafkaesque nightmare to navigate. It's inefficiency, it's inflexibility and its moronic adherence to 'procedure' is what makes Indian bureaucracy a nightmare for the aam-admi.
The conclusion makes no sense. The issues with statistics have always been one of interpreting the numbers, not the numbers themselves. What's not visible is, what are the Indian 'public servants' tasked to do, and are they accomplishing all that? For example, if one were to look at how many civic personnel per capita are connected to, say, storm drain services in Chennai, one might conclude it must be *the* most effective and productive for such a service provided in a city anywhere in the world! What's not visible is the complete categorization of all public employees, say, as in the US. Your example of Indian Railways actually makes this point very well; i.e., an engine driver is providing yeoman service, but an unnecessary paper-pusher in an IR office may not. Also, it is common knowledge that every 'employee' in the US is fully 'accounted for', whereas outside of the Indian private sector, one can't say with certainty how government or the ruling parties' expenses get accounted.
1 : 5 [Public servant to Population] 5 : 1 [ Public servant income to Average Public population income] + Pension at cost of public. very interesting.
while I agree that from the ratio of public servants to citizens view point Indian bureaucracy might look like a lean mean machine, however, that is not a KPI, rather, time take to services provided to ordinary citizens through the government machinery, is. for e.g. I went to obtain my son's birth certificate from the government office here in the US, it took all of 45 mins and no hassels', the best part, I did not have to bribe any one.
can the author prove that Indian bureaucracy is effective as described above? What
counts is the effectiveness of the government machinery not it's size.
PS: No disrespect to India or the author, but c'mon lets call a spade what it is, a
spade and not sugar coat it.
Thank you for very interesting statistics and comparison between USA and India on the number of government servants. This story would become more complex if you recognize that the Indian civil service is also most outdated in its use of modern technology and practices making it perhaps the least productive and prone to corruption if I may add. Therefore smaller numbers with lower productivity due to outdated practices and a shortage of higher skills result in poor delivery to the public. The latter then exacerbates a poor image of government making increased investments in public servants more difficult to justify. I believe the Manmohan Singh Government did make good progress in increasing productivity at the central level, but attracting the right skills still seems to be a prisoner of bureaucratic inertia. I also have two questions to the author, whether he took the military and Para-military forces into account? Second, did you consider employees from local bodies (municipality) as government employees?
Let us stop this Chest thumping 'that we are better than US' when it comes to civil servants per capita. Instead of looking at the dry numbers one should look at the programs and services delivered to the masses for the amount spent on civil servants (include salary, pension, holiday, leave travel, medical and other facilities given). I am sure that the figures will tell a different story.
If corruption is this high with less bureaucracy, can't imagine how it will be if there are more of them. Numbers do not matter, what matters is their efficiency and honesty which is between 0 & 1 percent.
Salary shall be compared to median income as well. Also comparison shall be % of salaried jobs in government Vs total salaried jobs. Since most of the people in India are under employed or un employed the statistics based just on population is not relevant.
63% of the US government civilian employment total as implied in the report is accounted by local governments (14.5 milion). Out of all the local government employment in the US, 50% is accounted by education sector (includes elementary, secondary, and higher education). I bet that the Indian government employment numbers do not include the education sector. Also, readers should note that bulk of US education sector is in the hands of local and state governments. Hope the author of this report can correct his numbers and analysis.
Any wonder nothing moves in the govt offices? And still the State govt and Central govt want to cut down the bureaucracy, as WB/IMF wants. There are many posts in Kerala lying vcant now which Govt is not notifying to the KPSC as his govt does not want those posts to be filled in.
Please Email the Editor