Globalisation of Management Education

Globalisation means different things to different people. For understanding the term 'Globalisation,' two dissimilar approaches are useful – perceiving it as a phenomenon or considering it as a process.


Globalisation of Management Education: A Phenomenon

Globalisation as a phenomenon, is perceptible through the increasing interaction of people; the growth of the international flow of money, and exchange of ideas and culture.

Affluent segments of the population in emerging countries are attracted towards western business schools as is seen through –

• Large number of students from third world countries attending campuses in the west;
• Localised programmes on offer by the western schools in the emerging countries, either delivered alone or jointly with local players;
• Campuses of western business schools being opened in emerging countries

Quite a few business schools in Africa, Asia, Eastern Europe and South America now offer

• Nearly the same global knowledge of Management
• Provide similar contexts of learning and grading, and
• Are internationally accredited and globally ranked

The phenomenon of Globalisation of Management Education is visible.


Globalisation of Management Education: A Process

Globalisation is a process by which businesses or other organizations develop international influence or start operating on an international scale - an economic process of integration which has social and cultural aspects as well.

Western Business schools have implemented the following process for Globalisation -

• Transfer of knowledge to the emerging markets through licensing, franchising, direct entry or offer as open-source; for example HBS licenses use of its materials by other schools and has set up its operations in India
• Training faculty from business schools in emerging markets on western methods of instructions, either free or at a fee; for example - International Teachers' Programmes
• Short-period release of faculty to take up visiting assignments at business schools in emerging markets

Business schools in emerging markets have adopted the following process for Globalisation -

• Bundling publicly available knowledge usually from the western schools
• Imitating their teaching methodology, learning context and grading systems
• Joining international networks like PIM, EFMD, AAPBS and AMDISA (Partners in International Management, European Foundation for Management Development, Association of Asia-Pacific Business Schools and Association of management Development Institutions in South Asia)
• Enabling exchange of students and collaborating on executive education through bilateral agreements
• Exchange of faculty – for teaching, research and training
• Presence in international conferences and networking
• Pursuing international accreditation like EQUIS, AACSB and AMBA
• Becoming part of the international rankings

The process of Globalisation in terms of the western schools influencing the schools in emerging markets was always visible. A minority of schools in the emerging markets are climbing up the learning curve and receiving international acceptance of "being as good as" amongst faculty, employers and potential students through the above process.


Opportunities for India from Globalisation of Management Education

If people are entrusting medical professionals in emerging countries with their bodies and lives what would prevent local and foreign seekers of business education from going to alternative providers in countries with a viable value proposition and able to deliver good instruction, on campus or online, at a much-reduced cost?

As low-cost, low-quality, low-price players from the emerging markets gain experience and build brands, they could inevitably attract high quality resources and target higher-end market segments. They could challenge incumbents sitting at the top of the pyramid - the core of disruptive innovation.

Here lies the greatest opportunity for the PGDM Institutions in India to meet the fallout from the IIM Bill. (See my blog post titled - IIM Bill Impacts the Non-IIMs More). These institutions can develop a strategic response through embracing Globalisation, something that the IIMs cannot initiate being guided by local obligations and compulsions.

These institutions will however face serious constraints in Globalising emanating from ambiguity of their purpose and the capability and capacity of the people within the business schools in India. (See my blog post titled - Unravelling the Indian MBA). Not only would these schools need to overcome such ambiguity and constraints, they would need to reinvent the Management Education (See my forthcoming blog post titled - Reinventing Management Education)

------------------------

IIM Bill Impacts the Non-IIMs More

Universities and educational institutions including Business Schools are basically classified as public and private.

A good test of ownership is by examining the public versus private nature of the institution, body, or a group to whom the educational institution would look up to as a matter of first recourse when facing any existential crisis.

Under the law, in case of tertiary education, degrees, be it Bachelor's, Master's or Doctoral, can be granted only by the Universities and those Institutions that have been declared as Institutions of National Importance by the Ministry of Human Resources Development. No other institution can grant degrees and normally therefore, diplomas are awarded by other institutions in the sector.

Such degree granting status is available to 45 Central Universities, 370 state universities, 74 Institutions of National Importance, 122 Deemed-to-be Universities, and 282 Private Universities (Information as of March 2017 – more updated information available at www.ugc.ac.in). IITs grant degrees being covered under the category of Institutions of National Importance.

Interestingly, IIMs so far have no degree-granting status. They have, since inception therefore granted a Postgraduate Diploma in Management (PGDM) which has been considered as equivalent to a MBA degree. IIM Bill, which the Government has come up, will modify the status of IIMs to degree-granting institutions by including them under the category of Institutions of National Importance.

Thus, India has a complex mix of Business Schools operating at Masters Level. 

The diploma granting Business Schools have been successful in acquiring acceptance for their certification as diploma on the borrowed acceptance from the nomenclature used by the IIMs. Erroneously, in the market space, quite a few PGDM holders declare their qualifications as MBA even when they have earned it from an IIM. Indian society seems to be tolerant to such misrepresentation may be because of ease in comprehension.

IIM Bill is aiming at some structural changes to governance, something that has an internal impact on IIMs. The major change with external manifestation is that instead of the PGDM, IIMs would hence forth be awarding MBA degrees.

Older IIMs had initially opposed the proposal to replace their PGDM by MBA on the premise that their PGDM had over the years acquired a higher value in credibility and acceptance, which they did not wish to lose, but the younger IIMs liked the idea as they had a long struggle ahead in acquiring credibility for their PGDM in a market-space where some of the non-IIM, PGDM granting institutions had established dominance in credibility.

The change that IIM Bill brings in will impact the non-IIM institutions more than the IIMs and will bring in enormous pressure on the PGDM awarding institutions to protect the acceptance of PGDM in the market or switch to awarding MBA degree. Neither of these are easy recourses.

Protecting the acceptance of PGDM would require these institutions to collectively engage in a mega communications programme directed towards all stakeholders – the challenge of funding and leading such a collective notwithstanding. Individual PGDM institution would need to create strong differentiation from the MBA including those from the IIMs through innovations and signal international acceptance through seeking global accreditation and rankings. 

IIM Bill affects the Business schools in two fundamental ways:

Impact on the Access to-

• Acceptance of Certification
• Quality Leadership
• Quality teachers
• Quality students

Pressures from Stakeholders to-

• Innovate
• Seek Global Accreditation
• Seek Affiliations
• Seek Degree Granting Status

Business schools in India are headed for, whether by choice or by default, proactively or reactively, major Structural, Strategic and Systemic changes due to the IIM Bill/Act. Schools failing to embrace these changes may morph into something else or simply perish.

--0-0--

Ministry of Economic Affairs

Economics and finance are not synonyms. Finance is about managing funds. The basic craft of finance involves – receiving money, spending money, saving money, keeping money and lending money. The scientific component of the craft of finance deals with the interrelation of the concepts of time, risk and money. These operations involving money are accomplished with the help of financial institutions. The craft is understood better in terms of its three general areas: business finance, public finance and personal finance.

The science of economics studies the production, consumption and distribution of services or goods. It studies how capital, land and labour transform materials into outputs. It analyses how markets demand the outputs and how the economic entities supply them. An economy is a system of producers, consumers, middlemen, labour, investors and others who are seeking some value for their role in the system. An over simplistic measure of such value could be termed as incomes.

The area of economics is usually understood in terms of its two divisions: Microeconomics – usually looking at small markets and the decisions of economic entities in managing inter-form supply and demand relations; and Macroeconomics- looking at the aggregate of markets within a nation and focussing on national variables like national income and output, price inflation and unemployment rate. The science of economics tries to explain how economies work and how do different economies interact.

Though Economics is a social science and not an exact science, its analysis is applied in various fields like finance, business, government, education, law, politics, social institutions and many more. While finance focuses entirely on the maximization of wealth, economics focuses on the optimization of valued social goals including wealth. This way, finance is a subset of economics.

Managing the Economy of the country is a responsibility of the Government. This would be the larger goal and managing of finances of the country would be included within this responsibility.

As organised presently, the Ministry of Finance comprises of five departments; Department of Economic Affairs, Department of Expenditure, Department of Revenue, Department of Financial Services and Department of Investment and Public Asset Management. The later four departments are undoubtedly in the domain of managing the national finances. However, the role of the first one, Department of Economic Affairs (DEA) needs a reassessment.

As per Allocation of Business DEA is tasked with:

• Foreign Exchange Management
• Foreign Aid for Economic Development
• Domestic Finance – currency, securities market
• Budget – preparation, market borrowings,
• Management of the Indian Economic Service
• Economic Advice to Government - on matters of economic management

The responsibility of DEA is predominantly advisory in matters of economy and secondary in terms of line responsibility of economic affairs. The other four departments of the Ministry are handling the line responsibilities of financial affairs.

Government of India to obtain advice on matters related to finance, commerce, trade, economy has an economic advisor designated as the Chief Economic Adviser who heads the Economic Division under the DAE. The Economic Division examines domestic and international economic trends. It undertakes research studies focusing on economic policies and management of the economy. Based on the research it provides advice to the Government of India. Ministry of Finance has an additional adviser designated as the Principal Economic Adviser.

Prime Minister's Office has an Economic Advisory Council responsible for addressing issues of macroeconomic importance and presenting views thereon to the Prime Minister. Ministry of Commerce & Industry has a full Office of the Economic Advisor (OEA) performing the advisory and statistical record keeping functions. Every Ministry and Department of the Government has some designated Economic Adviser and/or a Financial Adviser.

NITI Aayog is the premier policy 'Think Tank' of the Government of India, providing both directional and policy inputs. While designing strategic and long term policies and programmes for the Government of India, NITI Aayog also provides relevant technical advice to the Centre and States.

The  economic  governance  institutions of India include the central government,  state  and  local  governments,  the  Reserve  bank of India,  and the  banking &  financial institutional and regulatory  framework. 

Indian Governance structure is closer to the British Westminster design. In the UK, Chancellor of the Exchequer (Her Majesty's Treasury) is the government's economic and finance minister, maintaining control over public spending, setting the direction of the UK's economic policy and working to achieve strong and sustainable economic growth.

In the US, Secretary of Treasury pursues the mission of maintaining a strong economy and create economic and job opportunities by promoting the conditions that enable economic growth and stability at home and abroad, strengthen national security by combating threats and protecting the integrity of the financial system, and manage the U.S. Government's finances and resources effectively.

The presentation of the Annual Economic Survey of the country precedes the budget presentation. The Budget of the country is voted upon. Economic Survey or Economic Strategy is not voted upon. Clearly therefore, Economic Affairs of the country have somewhat remained a STAFF function for the Governance Structure of the country and everyone (finally no one) involved with governance is responsible for the economic affairs of the country.

Indian Central Government has 52 ministries as against the US which has 14 and the UK which has only 17. Yet the US and the UK have a clear Allocation of Business of Economic Growth to a Ministry, something that is not clear in the Indian Governance. France has a Ministry for the Economy and Finance and is responsible for economic governance. Turkey also has a Ministry of Economy.

Not as an additional 53^rd ministry, but through restructuring the ministries, a serious thought to setting up of a Ministry of Economic Affairs that manages the Indian Economy as a LINE responsibility may be timely.

-o-

P&L Duty of Universities is in National Interest

Less educated the parents and lower their family income, the probability of their children accomplishing academic success is rather low as per recent research. Consequential risk of our children missing the academic success would harm the economic growth. No satisfactory educational outcomes are likely without economic well-being and not much is going to be happening to economic well-being without education. To break the vicious circle, a great push is needed.

What could possibly be the connection between education and economic growth? There are indications that a more educated labour force is more mobile and adaptable; it can learn new tasks and new skills more easily. Educated work force can use a wider range of technologies and sophisticated equipment (including newly emerging ones), is more autonomous and thus less in need of supervision, and is more creative in thinking about how to improve the management of work and innovate.

Yet another reason could be that skills beget more skills and new ways of doing business, workers learn from one another, and firms adapt their technology and their use of capital to the skills of the available workforce. The benefits of having a more educated workforce accrue to everyone, not just to the firm but the economy as a whole and such gain may be especially important in an increasingly competitive global marketplace.

Beyond that, a more educated workforce may produce a less crime-ridden and healthier environment with better functioning civil institutions and all the benefits that flow to the business sector from that environment.

Government has many social development concerns like health, safety, nutrition, sanitation, infrastructure, public transport, employment, and literacy, besides higher education.  Most of the other social developmental concerns are shorter to medium oriented in matters of urgency as compared to higher education in terms of relevance and demands of the constituents. Government also have finite and limited financial resources to fund the developmental projects. In light of limited funding from the government, especially to bridge the revenue deficits, P & L (Profit and Loss) Management is the one of the most important duties of the Universities, both in their own interest of survival and in the national interest of growth.

How is a university like, and not like, a business? Large integrated universities are similar to a multi-product firm with many lines of work, from education provision and basic and applied research to benefits and services, such as health care and athletics. In addition, the university takes advantage of shared inputs across its business units to provide some cost and quality advantages. While universities tend to operate as high-quality firms, administration and coordination issues also tend to make them have high production costs. Clearly, a university is not a profit-maximizing firm; rather, a university tries to maximize some notion of knowledge-based value. So, how good are universities at doing this? How should they be governed and in whose interest?

One factor driving costs of higher education has been the languishing productivity. Even if instructional productivity has been increased by putting more students into the same classroom, it has fallen relative to other segments of the economy. Staffing levels outside the classroom have grown considerably. Today, there is more non-faculty professional staff per 100 students than they were some 25 years ago. In a system like a university, technical changes do little to increase productivity because basic inputs e.g., staff and physical facilities are still needed. Since wages still grow to keep pace with other industries, costs tend to grow at the overall rate of inflation plus productivity. The role of the university as a conservatory implies that higher education institutions cannot do all of their innovation through substitution. They need to retain knowledge of the past. Finally, the need to stay on the cutting edge implies increasing technology costs. And competitive pressure to retain the best faculty puts pressure on wages.

Tuition becomes the major revenue source that the university administration has some control over. Universities have also become better at price discrimination, meaning they charge different consumers different amounts of tuition based on the perceived intensity of demand. For example MBA programmes at most universities are priced higher than other Masters programmes. There are also issues of cross-subsidy between various functions on campus— research, athletics, undergraduate education, and graduate education—that make pricing less transparent.

Universities must develop other funding sources to supplement government support. These options include increasing revenue from tuition, having faculty find external sources of funding to support their research, and raising more private donations and endowments. Finally, leadership is needed to push cost reductions and increase productivity.

Power and Corruption

'Bringing back Public Trust' the blog mentioned on Twitter, caught the attention of Rohit K Sharma‏ @srohit19, who sent a reply to my tweet.

Rohit works for IBM these days. He is my former student of over 12-13 years of standing. Inside the classroom as well as outside of it, he was a 'teacher's delight' in terms of his curiosity and diligence. I could not have ignored his comment. What followed was a wonderful interaction on Twitter and I reproduce the whole of it below:

Rohit:

Thanks for writing and I disagree with central premise that lower bureaucracy does not have power. What explains corruption then?

Mukul:

Corruption is a matter of individual attitude though power may make it more intense.

R:

Power corrupts, no power would mean no basis of corruption, if the person has no power can't execute even after a bribe. They have power. 

M: 

Greatest power of people that no one has is power to reject and power to raise their voice. If they don't use it for selfishness. .. 

R:

Solution is less power to bureaucracy and more freedom to people.

M:

Why would you need a toothless bureaucracy and what would it do? 

R: 

Too many teeth already to bite. 

M: 

Sure.. disband bureaucracy. .. but even to achieve that...  need to reject it and raise voice against it... unable to agree with you.  

R: 

You have not provided any argument sir, only contentions.  

M: 

Thanks for pointing out the deficiency.  I will try to improve  

R: 

Thanks for engaging, always enjoyed your classes and your Socratic method. Let's agree to Disagree.  

M: 

Happy to engage with you in your usual style. Please allow me to carry forward this conversation to the blog itself.

Well, the above interaction shows some reactions that other people reading the blog could also share and therefore, it would be appropriate to reply to them collectively.

Corruption is a form of dishonest or unethical conduct by a person often to acquire personal benefit. When such a person is entrusted with a position of public authority, his conduct is likely to be under scrutiny and discourse. The dishonest or unethical conduct would have the other party who would normally be seen as a victim of corruption. Morally and ethically, the so called victim is equally corrupt. A state of helplessness of the victim is the usual argument extended to legitimise such corruption.

But what is the usual helplessness of the victim – it could be coercion by the corrupt to impinge on personal liberties like personal safety, freedom to carry on with life of one's choice, ownership of money and other economic resources, social reputation, vanity and self-esteem. Any threat to personal liberties is inconvenient and the victim engages in dishonest or unethical conduct like bribing the corrupt to escape the threat of inconvenience.

The threat of attack on the personal liberties of the victim by the corrupt that are in a position of public authority is real. The moot point is that a person is corrupt attitudinally first, and then his place in a position of public authority makes his threats real. Power can enable or catalyse corruption but it cannot cause corruption.

Then there is a symbiotic corruption. The so called public servant and the presumed victim are in collusion for mutual benefit. Plying of unlicensed transport vehicles, unauthorised street hawking, illegal parking, selling counterfeits and other similar activities flourish through such nexus.

Institutionalised corruption by businesses is a very different game. Here the victim is the person in position of public authority. This bureaucrat needs to fall in line or could be made to fall out of the position.

Dishonest or unethical are contextual terms. Rosario island-group off Cartegena de Indias in Colombia is a famous tourist destination that I visited some 13 years back. There was one Rosario who came from Spain to Colombia and parked himself in these islands. Rosario kept attacking the port of Cartegena from these islands until he succeeded in capturing it. Rosario is called the Pirate and these islands are also called pirate islands. Interestingly, Rosario is remembered as Sir Rosario in Spain. Colonel Todd, a British historian, in his famous books on British history describes Bhagat Singh, Rajguru and Sukhdev as terrorists while we adore and worship them as selfless martyrs. Evaluation of the work of the intelligence services in terms of honesty and ethicality is completely based on the contextual perspective.

The highest level of corruption is treason or sedition and a traitor is such a conduct is driven by an attitude and a desire for selfish benefit. The current malady of fake news is also corruption.

The power of the state is the summation of the power that its citizens forgo from out of personal liberty in lieu of the responsibility that the citizens have delegated to the state for conducting their lives and on their behalf. If every individual can look after one's own life and takes complete charge of it, there is no nation and there is no power in that state. Everyone is completely free and there is no corruption. But then there is also no community, no society and no nation state.

The contemplation (meaning - deep reflective thought) about more empowerment of the junior bureaucracy   is through the delegation of power from the senior bureaucracy. The argument (meaning - a reason or set of reasons given in support of an idea, action or theory ) in support of the contemplation is the boundary level problem that the junior bureaucracy faces during their interface with the citizens wherein they are unable to deliver public service for lack of power but the citizens expect them to deliver.

Finally, this blog is about ideas (meaning - a thought or suggestion as to a possible course of action). Disagreements can be caused by differences in - facts relied upon, definitions used, personal values, information processing methods, default beliefs and self-interest. Logical fallacies and motivation behind signalling disagreement can also be amongst the causes for disagreement.

Thanks Rohit, for motivating me to write this post. Lack of agreement does not reflect the weakness of the idea.

Bringing Back Public Trust

"Sufficient food, a strong army, and the trust of the people…. without the trust of the people, no government could survive," replied the master, when Zigong asked Confucius about the essence of government. Only a handful of corrupt politicians, elite and the professionals are responsible for a litany of betrayals of public trust in institutions and governments. Unfortunately these handfuls of unscrupulous have their way with the system because of the silence of the non-corrupt.

Public trust in government is the essence of good governance. It defines the relationship between citizens and government and determines the acceptability and effectiveness of public policies.  When citizens trust their government, they are more likely to have faith in the long-term benefits of public policies even when some policies appear to be counterproductive in the short term.

Trust in institutions is an extension of trust in people. People trust a company, for instance, because their interactions with it have been successful, even when they don't see the faces of the people behind those interactions.  Government is no different. People know the functionaries at the top though they may trust some and not some. People also get to know some others, usually in the lower hierarchies with whom they interact on emails, phones and over the counter.

The problem is that lower level bureaucrats have much less power or authority than what people think or maybe wish for them to have, a typical boundary-level problem. These bureaucrats are bound by  a system that's designed  to work top-down and is not  adept at handling anything outside  "business as usual". Negative incentives to be open as a public servant are too many to count. They may have empathy with people but they do not have the means to do something about it.  Most of them therefore take on the mask of arrogance, aloofness and apathy to people primarily to cover up for their inadequacy and protect their self-esteem. A peek behind their institutional mask, most of them have the same concerns and desire for improvement and positive change as those who demand that change from them. They are concerned citizens, like the rest of the people. Exceptions aside, most public servants would love to see the same things that frustrate the rest of people, fixed.

Transparency and participation are no longer an option but two indispensable pillars in the trust relationships between citizens and institutions.  People are not content with voting every 4-5 years: they demand, and have come to expect, spaces to present their concerns and ideas. This enables elements of direct democracy – where decision-making power of a person is not delegate to a distanced government, rather the person is part of the decision-making.  Citizens' lack of confidence and distance from institutions and their distrust in the ability of those that should meet their needs cannot be ignored. To restore trust we need to recreate governance from the ground up, and put citizens (back) at the heart of institutions.

Unfortunately, the democratic values and principles associated with reforms oriented to increasing transparency, accountability and modernization processes – are unknown or not well-understood by public servants, especially those in lower level positions. These officials often hold positions attending the public and receiving information requests, which means their lack of knowledge and understanding can limit the citizens' ability to fully exercise their rights. It implies that along with transparency reforms, more serious efforts need to be made to train public servants in the structures of the bureaucratic system.

Similar challenges are faced by the general public, where there is a pronounced lack of knowledge and understanding of the norms, mechanisms and obligations associated with these institutional efforts, as well as a strong and growing skepticism about their potential to increase accountability or prevent corruption.  Sadly, many policymakers have acted as if participation is their gift to bestow upon constituents. For them, transparency or participation clashes with the institutional culture.

The correction has to begin at that level of government where interaction with citizens is greatest and let the transformation grow from there. The solution therefore lies in focussing on transparency, participation, inclusion and fairness at the lower levels of bureaucracy.  There are always some "Champions" within the government. Only a few of them are visible. Need is to find them in every nook and cranny of government so that they are not lone champions, but a coalition of reformers.

Public servants have to be empowered to work with other actors, and permissions and structures enabling them to act upon external inputs anytime should be institutionalised. Introducing regulations to hold good  quality co-creation processes, ensuring funding and  mechanisms to act on citizen feedback, collecting  feedback from public servants, and recognizing  and encouraging innovative practices of co-creation  or even whistle-blowing, can go a long  way in empowering lower level public servants. If we allow those in government (not to be  confused with those in  power!) to act openly, to  be honest, to admit the  unknown and embrace the  problematic, then they will  be able to build the trust  that is desperately being sought,  from the bottom-up.

And what is about the top-level bureaucracy and those in power? They will only be surprised and happy about the success of a project which was implemented with all proper approvals, but without them having to get involved at all. They would jump upon the opportunity of showcasing to their constituents, such success, as an example of their efficient and effective governance.

Government can earn trust only when change is visible and reform hits like a wave – fast; but ready to dissolve should the wave (reform) face an obstacle. There is no place for arrogance and obstinacy in governance.

Credibility of Economic Advisers is on the Block

The swift economic growth of India over the past 25 years has an interesting paradox; while India has reduced the number of destitute, the growth mostly benefited the wealthiest 10 per cent of its population.

The absolute number of people living in extreme poverty in 1993-94 was above 36% of the total population of India. For  the  country  as a  whole,  the  poverty  ratio  declined  to  29% in 2011-12 and further to about 26%  in 2016-17. These percentages mean that there were about 340 million, 365 million and 345 million people from out of a total population of about 940 million, 1260 million and 1320 million in 1993-94, 2011-12 and 2016-17 respectively. This is incredible in the sense that India has definitely succeeded in pulling a lot of people out from states of destitution.

Data available from the World Wealth and Income Database at the Paris School of Economics shows that at 2016 prices, the average income for an Indian in 1990 was about Rs. 69,000 which rose to Rs. 159,000 by 2013. Contrast this with the average income for an Indian belonging to top 10% which moved from Rs. 213,000 to Rs. 775,000 while for the middle 40% people this movement was from Rs. 70,000 to Rs. 104,000. For people from the bottom 50% in the income category the growth was from Rs. 28,000 in 1990 to Rs. 42,000 in 2013.  

                                                                                                                           

Putting it simply, while the Indian Economy as a whole was growing at 5.6%, income for 90% of the citizens grew merely at 2.0% while income of the top 10% people grew by 11.5%.  

Liberalising the economy appears to have triggered a drastic divergence in incomes and wealth. With the economy hitting a rough patch in recent months, the government is under pressure to do something and the advisers are likely to play a major role in shaping the Executive Actions. The Governmental machinery has no shortage of expertise for advising them about what needs to be done. There are at least six distinct sources of advice –

1.  NITI Aayog is the premier policy 'Think Tank' of the Government of India, providing both directional and policy inputs for national development. The Vice Chairman and three of the four full time members are Economists.
2. The Economic Advisory Council to the Prime Minister (EAC-PM) is an independent body to give advice on economic and related issues to the Government of India, specifically to the Prime Minister. EAC-PM, a five-member body which was reconstituted last week, has four economists as members.
3.  The Chief Economic Adviser (CEA) is the economic advisor to the Government of India who advises the Government on matters related to finance, commerce, trade, economy. The CEA reports directly to the Minister of Finance. The CEA heads the Economic Division under the Department of Economic Affairs (DEA). The Economic Division undertakes research studies focusing on economic policies and management of the economy. Based on the research it provides advice to the Government of India.
4. Office of the Economic Adviser (OEA) in the Department of Industrial Policy & Promotion (DIPP) of the Ministry of Commerce & Industry renders advice relating to formulation of Industrial Policy, Foreign Trade Policy with respect to industrial sector in general with thrust on manufacturing, issues relating to bilateral and multilateral trade, as well as taxes and duties related to industry, including anti-dumping duties. The office is staffed with career economists belonging to the Indian Economic Service.
5. A large number of economists of varying caliber offer free and unsolicited advice through research journals, TV shows and media articles. They may be working for the government, for business, or in the banking, brokerage or financial industries. They may hold positions in academia or work as journalists. Each of these employers may have objectives or agendas which colour the opinions of such economists. Their advice may thus suffer from data-inadequacy, indoctrination or personal bias.
6. Perhaps the most vocal are a set of educated and articulate people who seem to have an opinion on most subjects as to what is going wrong accompanied by an advice in real-time as to the way to correct that wrong. These arm-chair experts shape public opinion and discourse besides a fueling a lot of anti-institutional propaganda. Majority of these disagree with economists on every issue. When informed of the consensus position of economists, they are more likely to agree with them.

Agreement among experienced and knowledgeable economists is atypical. The principal disagreement is a matter of economic philosophy. Besides, economics is not a completely empirical science. The unpredictable, including unintended consequences may occur in the complex world of economics, thus surprising the experts and defying their forecasts.

The widening gap in incomes and wealth has been accompanied by a gap in opinions about how to tackle it and the challenge before the Economic Advisers is to make it possible for the government to deal with the real economic situation besides helping shape the public-opinion and voters-perceptions.