Why is it difficult to make things happen? Absence of robust evaluating mechanism

Let us look at some other institutions that have been set up without evaluating the performance of similar institutions that were in existence before. Lokpal is one such example. It was created as a consequence of a social movement. Was this institution created after evaluating the performances of Lokayukta in the states? Did the Lokayukt bring down corruption or corrupt practices in the states? In fact, none of the states have evaluated the impact of Lokayukt on corruption. Will Lokpal also end up as an institution to “reward” civil servants and judges because there appears to be no effort to evaluate its impact either? There is, in fact, nothing laid out upfront to determine whether this institution will be evaluated. Hence, parameters have not been laid down for its evaluation. There is a number of similar institutions that have been created by the government without even thinking about whether such institutions will at some point in time be assessed to ascertain whether they served the desired purpose.

The Planning Commission was dumped because it was “felt” that it was not serving the desired purpose. It was a decision that was not based on objectively evaluating the organization but on a “belief”. Will the NITI meet the same fate at some point in time? Isn’t it advisable to assess what this institution is doing? Is it actually adding value? Only a third-party evaluation can determine this. The primary objective of such evaluations will be to see whether the objectives for which such institutions were set up were actually achieved and, if not, what steps could be taken for course correction. This will also push the government to clearly define the roles of such institutions and parameters to measure the progress.

In some social sector schemes evaluations are done periodically. No one doubts the success of Swachh Bharat Abhiyan in rural areas because of repeated robust evaluations of the scheme. Similarly, despite some shortcomings (we must appreciate that no scheme is perfect), MGNREGA has also been periodically evaluated and course corrections are done on the basis of such evaluations. Such evaluations have helped the programme to sustain despite changes in the government. Similarly, the Rashtriya Swasthya Bima Yojana (RSBY) got re-incarnated in a modified form (accounting for shortcomings of the schemes) as Prime Minister Jan Aarogya Yojana (PMJAY) despite being “condemned” lock stock and barrel by a Group of Secretaries.

To a certain extent, the malaise afflicts the private sector as well. Hence, instead of depending upon objective analyses of various ed-tech applications, the pitch for a certain high-profile application is being made by a well-known superstar whose educational credentials would perhaps not justify his appearance.

There are indeed some organizations that can undertake evaluations of various institutions, organizations and processes. More such organizations can and should be set up to undertake the task. However, what is most important is the attitude toward such evaluations and the willingness to get evaluated. There is a general reluctance to get oneself evaluated. Evaluations are more often than not used to serve a limited purpose of dumping “others”. This needs to change. Evaluations need to happen in the interest of the institution/scheme/process.