Industrialist Harsh Goenka has asked social media users who they would pick to lead an initiative similar to that of the new Department of Government Efficiency (DoGE) in India. Clearly inspired by US President-elect Donald Trump--who chose Tesla CEO Elon Musk and entrepreneur Vivek Ramaswami to head DoGE--Goenka&rsquo;s options were: Tata&rsquo;s N. Chandrasekaran, Mukesh Ambani, Gautam Adani, Nandan Nilekani, and a &ldquo;people's choice&rdquo;.
With due respect to Goenka's entrepreneurship, one must question his apparent concern for India&rsquo;s efficiency--and why he thinks only a business leader can fix the situation.
It's true that despite substantial yearly allocations, 129 million people in India still live in extreme poverty. Prime Minister Narendra Modi recently noted that 840 million people rely on the Public Distribution System, despite decades of implementing schemes like the Right to Food and the Midday Meal programme. How is it that we still face rampant malnutrition, anaemia among girls and women, and poor health metrics?
Can it really just be a matter of inefficiency, or is it due to corruption, cronyism, and self-interest among certain business houses, politicians, and bureaucrats?
Post-Independence, India&rsquo;s first government opted to become a mixed economy, with both public and private-sector investments. This led to the development of robust public-sector entities including ONGC, BSNL, Coal India, Indian Railways, Bharat Electronics, and GAIL. Meanwhile, the private sector contributed significantly through groups like the Tatas, Birlas, Modis, Bajajs, Godrejs, Wadias, Ambanis, and Adanis, among others.
Yet, public sector failures spark accusations of mismanagement and bureaucratic inefficiency. If a public entity suffers losses, it&rsquo;s labelled a failure of governance. &ldquo;Babus are good for administration, not for running business,&rdquo; becomes a common refrain. 
Meanwhile, private sector failures often escape such scrutiny. When private companies collapse, industry lobbies quickly attribute the failures to &ldquo;unfriendly government policies&rdquo; or &ldquo;red tape.&rdquo; 
Have we ever seen a corporate giant publicly admit to inefficiency? Hardly.
Isn&rsquo;t it unfair to label all government employees as inefficient? After all, post-retirement, many bureaucrats are recruited by the very business houses that criticize them. If these former officials were truly incompetent, why would top companies hire them?
The truth is that neither government systems nor bureaucrats are inherently inefficient. Rather, inefficiencies are often introduced to serve vested interests. Bureaucrats serve political masters who, in turn, are often aligned with corporate interests for geopolitical reasons. This close-knit cycle maintains the status quo. 
Sure, the proposed DoGE might sound appealing. But, do we really need a &ldquo;captain&rdquo; from the private sector to take over?
Replacing a &ldquo;captain&rdquo; without allowing a complete team overhaul will likely change little. Private sector leaders don&rsquo;t operate in the same environment. as government officials, who must work with the existing structure and constraints. So, perhaps, let&rsquo;s wait and see if Trump&rsquo;s DoGE concept proves effective before considering a replica in India.
&nbsp;
&nbsp;

USA President Elect Donald Trump, Elon Musk and Indian Industrialist Harshvardhan Goenka

The private sector isn’t immune to inefficiency—it’s just less visible as long as profits stay strong

Are Entrepreneurs and Industrialists the Only Efficient Leaders?

The private sector isn’t immune to inefficiency—it’s just less visible as long as profits stay strong

November 15, 2024 | 15:21 IST