Model Answer
0 min readIntroduction
Public administration relies on diverse organizational structures to implement policies and deliver services. Departments, Boards, and Commissions represent distinct approaches to organizing governmental functions. While all aim to achieve public objectives, they differ significantly in their operational autonomy, accountability mechanisms, and the nature of responsibility assigned. The Second Administrative Reforms Commission (2008) emphasized the need for clarity in organizational structures to enhance efficiency and accountability. Understanding these differences is crucial for effective governance, particularly in a complex and evolving administrative landscape. This answer will analyze the dissimilarities in accountability and responsibility across these three forms of organization.
Departments
Departments are the core building blocks of the executive branch, typically headed by a Minister and staffed by civil servants. They are directly accountable to the legislature through the Minister, who is answerable to Parliament/Legislative Assembly. Accountability is hierarchical and based on established rules and procedures. Responsibility is clearly defined within the departmental structure, with each officer accountable for their specific functions. Oversight is exercised through parliamentary questions, audits by the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG), and internal departmental controls.
Boards
Boards are typically constituted for specific purposes, often involving technical expertise or stakeholder representation. They operate with a degree of autonomy from direct ministerial control. Accountability is often dual – to the parent ministry and to the public, especially if they deal with public utilities or regulatory functions. For example, the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) is accountable to the Department of Revenue but also operates with functional independence. Responsibility is often collective, residing with the Board as a whole, though individual members can be held accountable for specific decisions. Oversight mechanisms include parliamentary committees, CAG audits, and performance reviews by the parent ministry.
Commissions
Commissions are usually established for a specific, often temporary, purpose – investigation, inquiry, or policy formulation. They enjoy a high degree of independence and are typically accountable directly to the government (usually the President or Prime Minister). The Law Commission of India, for instance, submits its reports directly to the government. Responsibility is largely vested in the Commission’s chairperson and members, who are often experts in their field. Oversight is limited, primarily through scrutiny of their reports and recommendations. Commissions often lack the enforcement powers of departments or boards, relying on the government to implement their findings.
Comparative Analysis: Accountability and Responsibility
The following table summarizes the key differences:
| Feature | Department | Board | Commission |
|---|---|---|---|
| Accountability | Directly to Legislature via Minister | To Ministry & Public | Directly to Government (President/PM) |
| Oversight | Parliamentary Questions, CAG Audit, Internal Controls | Parliamentary Committees, CAG Audit, Ministry Reviews | Report Scrutiny, Limited External Oversight |
| Responsibility | Clearly Defined Hierarchically | Collective (Board as a whole) | Vested in Chairperson & Members |
| Autonomy | Low | Moderate | High |
The level of autonomy significantly impacts accountability. Departments, with their low autonomy, are subject to tight control and clear lines of responsibility. Boards, with moderate autonomy, require a more nuanced approach to accountability, balancing independence with public interest. Commissions, enjoying high autonomy, rely heavily on the integrity and expertise of their members, with accountability primarily through the quality and impact of their recommendations. The 73rd and 74th Constitutional Amendment Acts (1992) also led to the creation of various Boards and Commissions at the local level, further diversifying the organizational landscape.
Conclusion
In conclusion, Departments, Boards, and Commissions represent distinct organizational forms with differing levels of accountability and responsibility. Departments prioritize hierarchical control and clear lines of authority, Boards balance autonomy with public accountability, and Commissions emphasize independent expertise and impactful recommendations. The choice of organizational form should align with the specific objectives and context of the task at hand. A well-defined framework for accountability and responsibility is essential for ensuring effective governance and public trust. Further reforms are needed to streamline these structures and enhance their responsiveness to citizen needs.
Answer Length
This is a comprehensive model answer for learning purposes and may exceed the word limit. In the exam, always adhere to the prescribed word count.