what is downsizing the role of government
Answers
Explanation:
Downsizing is the permanent reduction of a company's labor force through the elimination of unproductive workers or divisions. Downsizing is a common organizational practice, usually associated with economic downturns and failing businesses. Cutting jobs is the fastest way to cut costs, and downsizing an entire store, branch or division also frees assets for sale during corporate reorganizations.
KEY TAKEAWAYS
Downsizing is the permanent reduction of a company's labor force by removing unproductive workers or divisions.
While it is generally implemented during times of stress and a decline in revenues, downsizing can also be used to create leaner and more efficient businesses.
Downsizing is not always positive and can have an adverse long-term impact on a company's bottom line.
Understanding Downsizing
Downsizing is not always involuntary. It is also used at other stages of the business cycle to create leaner, more efficient businesses. Eliminating any part of an organizational structure that is not directly adding any value to the final product is a production and management philosophy known as lean enterprise. Downsizing can also be carried out to align the firm's skill and talent with the broader market. For example, a company may pursue downsizing to weed out employees with obsolete skills which may not be useful in its future direction.
Consequences of Downsizing
However, there is evidence that downsizing can have adverse long-term consequences that some companies never recover from. Downsizing may actually increase the likelihood of bankruptcy by reducing productivity, customer satisfaction and morale. Firms that have downsized are much more likely to declare bankruptcy in the future, irrespective of their financial health.1
Losing employees with valuable institutional knowledge can reduce innovation. Remaining employees may struggle to manage increased workloads and stress, leaving little time to learn new skills—which can negate any theoretical gain in productivity. Losing trust in management inevitably results in less engagement and loyalty.
Because severe long-term consequence can outweigh any short-term gains, many companies are wary of downsizing, and often take a gentler approach, by cutting work hours, instituting unpaid vacation days, or offering employees incentives to take early retirement. Some companies also offer employees the chance to retrain themselves by subsidizing part of their tuition costs. In some cases, they also rehire laid off workers after revenues stabilize.
Answer:
ExplaIn China, Zhu Rongji is looking at ways of cutting the bureaucracy. In India, Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee must be wishing he could expand the government to reward all his allies with ministries.
In this scenario, can India ever cut its bloated bureaucracy? What are the vested interests standing in the way of the cuts?
G V Ramakrishna, former secretary to the government, former chairman of Sebi and now head of the Disinvestment Commission, puts it succinctly, Coalition governments need to have many ministers to accommodate everyone. These ministers need departments that they can head, and secretaries to the government naturally want to remain secretaries. On the other hand, the set-up needs to be reorganised for better coordination and as part of the effort to reduce staff drastically.
Take the field of economic decision making where, in the eyes of most experts, the size of the bureaucracy is glaring. The departments that need the most urgent attention are industry, commerce and energy. In industry, for instance, despite seven years of progressive delicensing, the ministry still boasts six secretaries.
There are many routes to downsizing. Which one is chosen depends on the extent to which India chooses to become part of the global economic order.
Assuming that India realises that it cannot remain an island and state-owned companies do not make the best global competitors, two acts follow. One is large scale disinvestment and eventual privatisation of healthy and important PSUs. The second is strong coordination of export promotion and industrial development policies.
One way this could be achieved is through a mega ministry for industry and foreign trade on the lines of Japans MITI but without its overarching reach.
The administrative implication of this, according to a reform-minded politician and former minister, is large-scale privatisation which would reduce the industry ministrys role. Then there will be only one department in the industry and trade ministry to focus on planning and development.
The other part of the industry and trade ministry should be focus on the business of international trade and WTO-related negotiations. With the rapid elimination of quantitative restrictions and import licensing, a large chunk of the directorate general of foreign trade will be redundant.
But this is a drastic step, since the economic ministries are power centres in the government. As an immediate alternative, Ramakrishna suggests a smaller shake-up. Small scale industry and food processing, which is now under a different ministry, should be combined. The other combine could consist of industrial policy and heavy industry. With privatisation inevitable, the department of public enterprises could be wound up.
A senior government economist also says several departments have overlapping functions that could well be combined. For instance, there is the Bureau of Industrial Costs and Prices. At the same time, there is also the newly-formed National Pharmaceutical Pricing Authority which now does these same sums for the pharmaceuticals industry. There is also the Tariff Commission to recommend competitive tariffs
explanation:
plz mark my answer as brainliest and give thanx plzzzzzz