How Modi's minimum cabinet could be made smaller, more efficient

The idea of having various ministries is to ensure that there is decentralization and specialization for various sectors so that there can be concentrated action. At times, portfolios may be created as a reward for campaigners. There is still no easy answer to whether there should be more or fewer ministries. Giving the chief the title of ‘minister of state’ implies generally top down control while a ‘minister of state with independent charge’ means a greater modicum of autonomy.

The NDA has done something different this time by reducing the number of ministers to 45 distributed across three categories. The final list of core ministers, some of who have multiple portfolios, can be classified broadly under 32 main heads and 33 if the PM’s additional charge is also considered.

The multiple portfolios have been assigned probably using two criteria. The first is where the activities are synchronous and the second could be a political decision based on prestige. Therefore, defence and finance are two very important but disparate portfolios and a political call is what has been taken which is the ruling party’s prerogative. It is the first criterion which merits further discussion.

Based on our own experience in the past, multiple ministers heading different departments could be in conflict and hence some kind of consolidation was called for from the ideological point of view. This can be the raison d’etre for having consolidation. It hence becomes easier to manage conflict when there is a single head in charge that can view both sides and take a decision. This becomes manifest when related ministries have differing objectives and pull in dis-similar directions with each one pursuing their own agenda.

Second, a single minister with multiple portfolios of related subjects can bring in synergies when it comes to both policy formulation as well as implementation. The minister for industry, for instance, can also look at specific industries like steel, textiles etc. and better formulate policy so that based on national priorities steps can be taken. However, in the caseof industry, given the expansive nature of the field, it has been split across various sectors.

Third, this will also enable seamless coordination especially when there is a symbiotic relationship with each subject feeding into the other. While this can still happen when there are different ministries, anecdotal experience suggests that there tends to be some red-tape that develops once files have to move across ministries. In fact a single minister can take abroader view of things rather than be caught in the interests of a single ministry.

Given the present dispensation, there are 4 areas which could have been considered for consolidation under a single Minister.

The first pertains to Agriculture and Consumer Affairs. This has been a major roadblock for the economy when it comes to fighting inflation. The ministry of agriculture works for the betterment of the farmer and tries to provide support in the form of inputs, allocations, and prices. The MSP is the tool used to assure higher prices for farmers. These are announced just before the sowing season so that the farmers can take a call on their crop. The thrust is to increase these prices driven as it is a by a formula. The ministry of consumer affairs has been entrusted with the job of consumer protection and works towards lowering prices or stabilizing them for the consumers.

Intuitively it can be seen that when one ministry is pushing for higher MSPs, it is but natural that food inflation will be high. A single minister for both would be useful as it would reduce the conflict in issue of prices. The governmentwill confront this conundrum soon as the farmers get ready to sow their seeds and await the monsoon. With the monsoon expected to be sub-normal, the inflation factor will come up once again and a call has to be taken on these prices.

In fact, thinking a little ahead the ministry of food processing also has strong links with agriculture and when we speak of contract farming which aids the industry, there is a direct link with farmers and hence the ministry of agriculture.

The second set of ministries that could work better under one head would be industry and environment. One of the limiting factors to industrial investment and growth has been the barriers put up on the environment front.

Any new capital project would necessarily have to go through this test, which was not an issue in the past. Today with global concerns on environment and its destruction, it has become essential to reconcile the two so that investment is not impeded and there is an amicable approach taken. Given that we are looking at fewer heads, this combination would work for industry.

Third, the PM has gone in for a transport minister covering highways, roads and shipping. This is pragmatic and can actually lead to a coherent transport policy. An additional charge of Railways would have been synergistic as we moved to an improved transport system over the years. The Railway ministry and Railway Budget was more a creation of the British Raj which does not make too much sense in the present age.

Urban development is centred on the creation of metro systems, which should be synchronized with the other transport systems to ensure seamless development. Today with separate departments, coordination becomes cumbersome and aspirations of the departments of roads and railways invariably clash. Hence, as our transport system has gone beyond the plain government owned railways and into the metro or light rail systems, a single overseer could have been experimented with.

The last area which could have been looked at for consolidation would be mining and coal. Presently coal goes with power and renewable energy, which is not totally out of sync but considering that mining goes with steel and labour and employment, mining does stand out. In fact, by clubbing mining with this group and having an additional minister of state rank, there would be more cohesion.

The present form of portfolio allocation is certainly welcome as it is different from what was there in the last decade. As the motto is one of less government and more governance, this is a good symbolic step. Positive steps have been taken to synchronize multiple ministries under a single minister, but further fine tuning could be experimented with where there are obvious conflicts.

Bringing them under a single umbrella could work especially since these serious differences of opinion lead to ‘administrative conflicts’ which have come in the way of project implementation. As ’expediting decision taking’ is the fulcrum of the economic agenda set forth by the government, these combinations could help in speeding up things.

Maybe some of these thought could find a place for discussion when the next round comes up for review.

The author is chief economist, CARE Ratings