2005-12-01,+Learning+how+to+share+the+weight,+Whittaker,+B+Day


 * Business Day, Johannesburg, 30 November 2005**

= **Learning how to share the weight** =


 * Brian Whittaker**

WHAT do we do after we have decided what to do? Just do it? Not so easy. Think of the reconstruction and development programme, the job summit, the growth and development summit, and now the accelerated and shared growth initiative. All arose out of an acceptance of a challenge. All stretch our capacity to act, and to act together. Most fall short of what they promise. We know where we want to go, but getting from here to there is another story.

The implementation challenge is not unique to SA. In his book, The Implementation Game, Eugene Bardach writes: “It is hard enough to design public policies and programs that look good on paper. It is harder still to formulate them in words and slogans that resonate pleasingly in the ears of political leaders and the constituencies to which they are responsive. And it is excruciatingly hard to implement them in a way that pleases anyone at all, including the supposed beneficiaries.”

In SA the problem is frustratingly compounded by more apparent resources than most in our position: a democratically elected government with wide support; a sound market economy; an established business sector; and a strong civil society and nonprofit sector. But harnessing these resources is apparently stymied by suspicions of old and administrative constraints wrought by colonial and apartheid rule. Complaining about the past won’t help, but neither will failure to acknowledge its impact.

Now that we have to move beyond talking about what ought to be done it is clear broad strategies won’t automatically convert into action. Strategists seldom have the capacity for implementation and the implementers have their hands full with routine tasks. Special arrangements are required that mobilise new resources, cut out clutter, simplify procedure and allow risk.

Can we construct arrangements that will allow us to work together in creative ways? There is enough evidence of progress to encourage those who believe most of the serious challenges we face can’t be met alone. In the area of formal public-private partnerships, the treasury shows partnership deals worth R8bn from 2000 to 2004, with a similar amount in the pipeline for the next five years. The municipal infrastructure investment unit facilitated work worth R6bn over the past five years.

But these are just part of a widening range of partnerships. For example, a task team including the trade and industry minister and business leaders is driving the development of the outsourcing sector under the auspices of the Business Trust. It is backed by substantial private-sector funding and world-class experts working with government officials. A similar arrangement has been made to support the implementation of the expanded public works programme and a commitment has been made to do the same for infrastructure development.

Much more is needed if we are to meet the implementation challenge. We need a spectrum of partnerships applied in different circumstances. Formally structured partnerships are mostly about the procurement of private finance for public purposes. But in most cases money is not the problem. The management capacity of the private sector should be applied to tasks such as managing public-sector capital budgets, or accelerating the provision of social services.

We should not be religious about this. Partnerships always have transaction costs that can’t always be justified. Similarly, partnership should not be equated with privatisation. It is possible for public authorities to demand as much, if not more, of a private service provider than they would of themselves.

Of course this entails risk. Partnerships can fail. Political masters and the publics they serve seem to be more tolerant of a slow inability to achieve objectives than committed and decisive action that entails some risk. Without providing support to those involved in these risks, it is unlikely that the challenge will be met.

At the heart of this is the question of the nature of the state we are trying to build. The creation of shared arrangements to achieve agreed results by using private companies, nongovernmental organisations or communities is resisted because of a fear of creating a parallel bureaucracy. How will we build a strong administration if we are constantly using outsiders? That depends on the nature of the administration we are trying to build. A developmental state that is setting the direction, building frameworks and enabling action will be different from one in which the state not only steers but also does all the rowing.

We are at a crossroad. The path we are on is aimed towards building a complex and sophisticated state apparatus with differentiated powers at national, provincial and local level. It tasks government with creating the framework for public action but also with being a primary actor. The second route gives up on working through these arrangements, centralises authority and responsibility, and drives the process from the centre.

A third way would be to use the state to set direction and create the frameworks for co-operative action involving the full range of public, private, profit and nonprofit actors in SA.

Right now we are constitutionally committed to the first route and defaulting to the second to get things done.

Neither will serve the purpose of accelerating and sharing growth. If that is to be achieved, the mechanisms for shared action must be substantially improved. That will require more creativity all round and ultimately sufficient trust to work together without escalating administrative and regulatory procedure to the point where the principle of partnership is eroded by the practice of control.

In a world on edge since September 11 2001 and Enron, trust will not come easily. But the alternative — a slow dance of potential partners circling one another while the challenge escalates — will undermine the interests of business, government and civil society and betray the promise of a better life for all.

‖Whittaker is CE of the Business Trust.

From: http://www.businessday.co.za/articles/topstories.aspx?ID=BD4A120544