India’s Next Governance Reform is Structured Consultation

As industry comes forward with feedback from the ground, the consultations underscore an important lesson. Good policymaking depends not only on sound intent but on timely stakeholder evaluation. Unless industry inputs are captured consistently and translated into policy, governments risk solving problems while inadvertently creating more.

As industry comes forward with feedback from the ground, the consultations underscore an important lesson. Good policymaking depends not only on sound intent but on timely stakeholder evaluation. Unless industry inputs are captured consistently and translated into policy, governments risk solving problems while inadvertently creating more.

The Case for Institutional Dialogue

India's economic transformation over the past decade has been built on a partnership between government and industry. From building world-class digital public infrastructure like Unified Payments Interface (UPI) and Open Network for Digital Commerce (ONDC) to the emergence of a robust startup ecosystem to the success of initiatives like Make in India in attracting global manufacturing investment, collaboration has repeatedly translated into positive outcomes. Such partnership has not only improved policy design but strengthened investor confidence in how India governs its economy.

India's economic ambitions today are significantly larger than they were a decade ago. As the country seeks to become a global manufacturing hub, deepen supply chains and attract long-term investment, the quality of its institutional mechanism will increasingly determine the quality of its outcomes. One area where global experience offers valuable lessons is the institutionalization of government-industry consultation.

The Architecture of Economic Dialogue

Countries with strong industrial ecosystems treat consultation as a permanent feature of governance with tripartite engagements between the government, industry, and academia or other social partners supported by minister-led roundtables, sector-specific forums and parliamentary scrutiny.

In the United Kingdom, public authorities are required to consult stakeholders on a range of policy proposals, with consultations typically remaining open for 12 weeks and departments expected to publish timely responses. At the center of its industrial strategy sits the Industrial Strategy Advisory Council (ISAC), a standing body that meets formally at least four times a year, and, in practice, considerably more frequently. Similarly, Singapore's Committee on Future Economy, its apex dialogue body, engaged more than 9,000 workers, unions, companies, and trade bodies before issuing its report in February 2017. France has gone a step further. Reporting directly to the Prime Minister, the National Council of Industry oversees formal agreements with industrial value chains, assigning businesses clearly defined co-delivery responsibilities.

Although ministries in India regularly consult industry associations, stakeholder groups and business leaders, these interactions are often irregular and driven by immediate policy needs. As a result, consultations lack consistency in their frequency, structure and follow-through, limiting both their reach and effectiveness.

A Practical Framework for India

To begin with, every ministry with a significant industry interface could designate a fixed monthly interaction day. For example, the third Monday of each month could be established for each participating ministry, creating a predictable rhythm that both government officials and industry can plan around.

Equally important is who participates. Industry associations play a valuable role, but they cannot be the sole channel through which government receives feedback. Allowing companies to register directly would democratize participation, bring fresh perspectives into policy discussions, and reduce the risk of engagement becoming concentrated among a small group of recurring participants.

In addition, a dedicated email ID could be created for each ministry to receive industry suggestions and complaints throughout the month, not just on the meeting day. This converts the interaction from a periodic event into a continuous feedback channel.

The effectiveness of such a framework would ultimately depend on accountability. Each consultation could begin with a concise presentation by the ministry. It could first summarize the key themes emerging from industry representations and the actions taken in response. This would demonstrate that stakeholder inputs are sincerely acknowledged. It could then provide an update on the ministry's additional work and progress, improving transparency around priorities and implementation. And lastly, it could outline the ministry's planned priorities and actions for the month ahead, giving industry advance visibility to prepare. Such a structured approach would close the feedback loop, discourage repetitive representations and reinforce consultation as a meaningful mechanism for policy design rather than a procedural formality.

Conducting these interactions through secure video conferencing would further enable access, allowing companies from across the country to engage without the constraints of geography.

Importantly, such a framework need not remain confined to industry. Its institutional architecture could be replicated across ministries for sector-specific engagement and, eventually, extended to citizen consultations, making participatory governance a routine feature of public administration.

Ultimately, every policy decision rests on an informed understanding of the ground. As economies become more complex and policy choices more consequential, the advantage will increasingly belong to governments that can systematically absorb information from the markets they seek to regulate. Governance that listens on a schedule, not just in a crisis, is the difference between policy that reacts and policy that governs.