Strengthening institutions and organizational
capacity:
Can public sector take the initiative?
Prof. Rajiva Wijesinha, MP
Some of the issues I have raised in recent columns in this series
came up in a different form in a presentation made by Indrajith
Coomaraswamy during one of the discussions the Liberal Party has been
conducting on Reform. Though initially we had thought of concentrating
on Constitutional Reform, it soon became clear that that alone was not
enough, and questions of change had to be looked at holistically.
Need to increase productivity in agriculture |
Given Sri Lanka’s current status, as a Developing Country that has
got over the hump of under-development (the only under-developing
country that was still under-developing, as the Economist I think once
sharply put it), it is obvious that economic issues are of particular
concern. We were fortunate therefore to get four speakers who dealt, in
short and succinct presentations that were amongst the best I have
heard, on political economics, and the issues we now face.
All of them should be widely disseminated, but in particular what
Indrajith Coomaraswamy said should be studied by all decision makers.
Pointing out that we were now in a better position than ever in the last
half century to go forward, he pointed out the severe institutional
constraints we face.
Electoral worries
Getting over these would however be easy, if we had the will to go
ahead. Though there are always electoral worries about unpopular
decisions, given that the benefits of such will kick in within a couple
of years, government can easily go ahead, since the President does not
need to go to the electorate for another 3 ½ years. Though
Parliamentarians who are concerned about their own futures are pushing
him to go earlier, falling victim thus to the strategy J R Jayewardene
introduced with the 3rd Amendment to the Constitution, he has no reason
to sacrifice any portion of his current term, when there is so much to
do.
Chief amongst these is the need to increase productivity in two
crucial areas. I will not dwell here on what Indrajith had to say about
Agriculture, which is so vital a part of our social fabric but where we
have done little to increase efficiency (as for instance Thailand has
done in recent years). Nor will I refer to the other areas about which
Indrajith expressed concern, such as the mounting proportion of high
interest debt we are forced to seek if we live beyond our means, since
we are no longer eligible for aid on easy terms.
I will dwell rather on what he had to say about the public sector,
which is the main theme of this series. He noted in fact that ‘The
situation in the public service is particularly challenging, because it
indicates active input on the part of government which is proving
increasingly negative. Thus the public service has increased from
600,000 in 2005 to 1.4 million in 2012.’
Public sector recruitment
The initial reason for this was a reaction to the Wickremesinghe
government’s total freeze on public sector recruitment. But it turns out
to have become a Pavlovian reaction to unemployment, or rather perceived
unemployment, because as Indrajith put it, the private sector has
vacancies which cannot be filled.
Recruitment to the government sector sometimes contributes to this,
as I have found amongst several of those recently recruited, who gave up
jobs in the private sector to take advantage of what they saw as
relatively easy money – and which I should add they are sometimes
propelled to by parents and the still prevalent idea that nothing is as
satisfying or prestigious (or secure) as a government job.
I had seen this earlier in some of my own students, who easily found
employment given the soft skills we had equipped them with at
Sabaragamuwa, but who gave up private sector jobs when government
started recruitment. But, given that such recruitment is seen as an end
in itself, it does not make government productive.
Indeed it sometimes has the opposite effect, since already hard
worked Divisional Secretaries now have to find work for the thousands of
graduates who have poured into their offices.
It has been apparent, from what I have observed, during my regular
visits to the North, and from what graduates themselves have said, that
they are contributing little. Many say they are collecting data, but to
what purpose they do not know. Others are covering duties in positions
that should be filled properly, but they are not trained to do this
properly, and there are no duty lists or systems of identifying
objectives and measuring results.
Monitoring systems
Underlying this ineffectiveness is the absence of planning, and of
monitoring systems, that dogs our administration. I still cannot
understand why government abolished the Ministry of Policy and Plan
Implementation, since the Treasury, with its Secretary also having to
look after Economic Development, simply cannot devote the concerted
energy the subject needs at this crucial stage of Development. Sometimes
I wonder if the decision was made because the Ministry previously had
been so efficient, and developed such effective models of monitoring,
that Ministries unused to such disciplines thought this a nuisance that
had to be got rid of.
But, over and above deficiencies with regard to planning perhaps, are
problems to do with the absence of initiative in the public sector, as
well as systems that encourage initiative. Indrajith put his finger on
perhaps the main problem we face, not only in the public sector, when he
referred to the need to ensure modern Education, Training and Skills
Development.
Unfortunately, we still seem content with the idea that our basic
indicators in the field of education are satisfying. But that is simply
not enough in the modern world, and particularly at the stage we have
reached. We must rather develop the cutting edge technology and
youngsters able to practice it and engage in entrepreneurship and attain
high productivity in all. That is what our public sector needs, and
until we recognize that and promote it, we will continue moribund. |