UPSC MainsECONOMICS-PAPER-II202115 Marks
हिंदी में पढ़ें
Q8.

Critically analyse the performance of public sector enterprises during the pre-reform period.

How to Approach

This question requires a critical assessment of the performance of Public Sector Enterprises (PSEs) *before* the economic reforms of 1991. The answer should focus on the objectives of PSEs during that period, their performance in terms of efficiency, profitability, and social objectives, and the reasons for their shortcomings. Structure the answer chronologically, covering the initial phase post-independence, the growth phase, and the period leading up to the reforms. Include data and examples to support your arguments. A balanced perspective acknowledging both successes and failures is crucial.

Model Answer

0 min read

Introduction

Following independence, India adopted a socialist-leaning economic model, with the public sector playing a central role in driving industrialization and achieving socio-economic objectives. Public Sector Enterprises (PSEs) were envisioned as the engine of growth, responsible for building core infrastructure, promoting self-reliance, and ensuring equitable distribution of wealth. However, by the late 1980s, the performance of these enterprises came under intense scrutiny. This answer will critically analyse the performance of PSEs during the pre-reform period, examining their achievements, failures, and the underlying factors contributing to their trajectory.

Early Phase (1951-1965): Laying the Foundation

The initial phase saw the establishment of PSEs in strategic sectors like steel (Hindustan Steel Limited, 1954), power (Damodar Valley Corporation, 1948), and transport (Indian Airlines, 1953). The focus was on building basic industries and infrastructure, often in areas where private investment was lacking. These enterprises largely succeeded in establishing a foundation for industrial development and achieving import substitution. However, efficiency wasn’t a primary concern, and many operated with significant state support.

Growth and Expansion (1966-1980): Proliferation and Challenges

This period witnessed a significant expansion in the number of PSEs, driven by the Indira Gandhi government’s nationalization policies (1969 & 1980). Banks, insurance companies, and coal mines were nationalized, aiming to redistribute wealth and control key sectors. While nationalization expanded access to credit and essential services, it also led to several problems:

  • Over-Diversification: Many PSEs ventured into unrelated areas, diluting their focus and expertise.
  • Lack of Competition: Monopolistic structures reduced incentives for innovation and efficiency.
  • Political Interference: Appointments were often based on political considerations rather than merit, leading to mismanagement.
  • Bureaucratic Control: Excessive bureaucratic control stifled initiative and delayed decision-making.

The Period Leading to Reforms (1980-1991): Mounting Losses and Inefficiency

The 1980s saw a deterioration in the performance of PSEs. Many incurred substantial losses, requiring continuous budgetary support from the government. Several factors contributed to this decline:

  • Technological Obsolescence: Lack of investment in research and development led to technological backwardness.
  • Overstaffing: PSEs were often used as a source of employment, leading to bloated workforces and low productivity.
  • Weak Financial Discipline: Lack of accountability and financial discipline resulted in wasteful expenditure.
  • Price Controls: Government price controls often suppressed profitability.

Financial Performance of PSEs (1980-1991)

The financial performance of PSEs during this period was dismal. According to the Economic Survey (1991-92), the cumulative losses of PSEs amounted to over ₹9,000 crore. The Return on Investment (ROI) for PSEs consistently lagged behind that of the private sector. Furthermore, a significant portion of the government’s revenue was diverted to bail out loss-making PSEs, crowding out investment in other crucial areas like education and healthcare.

Indicator 1980-81 1990-91
Number of PSEs 244 307
Total Losses (₹ crore) ₹350 ₹9,000+
Return on Investment (%) 4.3% -1.7%

Sectoral Performance

Performance varied across sectors. PSEs in capital-intensive industries like steel and fertilizers faced significant challenges due to global competition and rising input costs. PSEs in the service sector, like telecommunications (BSNL), enjoyed a degree of monopoly power but suffered from inefficiency and poor customer service. However, some PSEs, like Oil and Natural Gas Corporation (ONGC), continued to perform well due to favorable market conditions and efficient management.

Successes of PSEs

Despite the widespread criticism, PSEs did achieve some notable successes:

  • Development of Core Industries: They played a crucial role in establishing basic industries like steel, power, and petroleum.
  • Regional Development: PSEs were often located in backward regions, promoting industrialization and employment generation.
  • Social Objectives: They provided employment opportunities and subsidized essential goods and services.
  • Self-Reliance: Contributed to reducing dependence on imports in key sectors.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the performance of PSEs during the pre-reform period was a mixed bag. While they played a vital role in laying the foundation for industrial development and achieving social objectives, they were plagued by inefficiency, over-diversification, political interference, and a lack of accountability. The mounting losses and financial burden on the government ultimately necessitated the economic reforms of 1991, which aimed to improve the efficiency and competitiveness of the Indian economy, including a restructuring of the public sector. The pre-reform period serves as a crucial lesson in the importance of sound economic principles, efficient management, and a conducive regulatory environment for sustainable growth.

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.

Additional Resources

Key Definitions

Nationalization
The process of transferring ownership of private assets to the state, typically for public benefit or to address perceived market failures.
ROI (Return on Investment)
A performance measure used to evaluate the efficiency of an investment or compare the efficiency of different investments. It is calculated as net profit divided by the cost of investment.

Key Statistics

In 1991, PSEs accounted for approximately 30% of India’s industrial output, despite employing a significant portion of the workforce.

Source: Economic Survey, 1991-92

By the end of the 1980s, over 200 PSEs were operating at a loss, consuming approximately 25% of the central government’s budget.

Source: Report of the Abid Hussain Committee (1991)

Examples

Hindustan Machine Tools (HMT)

HMT, established in 1953, was a pioneering PSE in the machine tool industry. Initially successful, it later suffered from technological obsolescence and mismanagement, becoming a symbol of the problems facing PSEs.

Frequently Asked Questions

Why were PSEs so heavily reliant on government subsidies?

PSEs were often burdened with social obligations, such as providing employment to a large workforce and selling goods and services at subsidized prices. This, coupled with inefficiencies and mismanagement, made them financially unsustainable without government support.

Topics Covered

EconomyPolityPublic SectorEconomic PolicyDisinvestment