“Administrative accountability mechanisms in India often focus on control rather than performance.” Discuss.

 Control-oriented systems, such as hierarchy, supervision, regulations, conduct codes, and audits, have historically been the foundation of administrative accountability in India. This organization, which has its roots in Weberian bureaucracy, prioritizes preventing misconduct over guaranteeing excellent performance. Although these regulations uphold lawfulness and discipline, they frequently result in inflexibility, copious documentation, and compliance motivated by fear.

In actuality, accountability is carried out through departmental investigations, judicial review, CAG audits, vigilance bodies, and parliamentary scrutiny (PAC, Estimates Committee). Although these mechanisms are essential, they are mostly procedure-centric, punitive, and post-facto. Outcomes, innovation, and public pleasure are rarely measured. Civil officials become risk averse as a result, putting regulations ahead of outcomes.

However, performance-oriented accountability necessitates instruments that look ahead. Key performance indicators (KPIs), citizen charters, Social Audits, Performance Management & Evaluation System (PMES), Results Framework Documents (RFDs), and Sevottam are some of the tools that try to change the emphasis from process to results. However, due to inadequate capacity, political meddling, subpar data systems, and disjointed coordination, its implementation is still unequal.

India must include technology-driven monitoring, decentralize operations, connect incentives to outcomes, and foster a transparent culture in order to improve performance-based accountability. In the end, accountability needs to change from a control system to one that fosters efficiency, learning, and the creation of public value.

UPSC General Studies Paper Preparation

Public Administration Optional Exam Preparation