5.2. ITP impact-capacity assessment framework

b. Further utilise and mainstream the use of the productivity-growth nexus conceptual framework as economic development logic; c. Further lock-in the four driving strategies of the CFE as four pillars of the ITMs; d. Indicate, at least in the case of some ITMs, more clear or more explicit distribution of agency responsibility for activities falling under specific pillars; e. Deepen tripartite coordination to reach sectoral level; f. Increase the depth of legitimacy of public support towards sectoral level; g. Increase the efficiency of public support via better coordination; h. Increase the effectiveness of public support via better consultation; i. Distribute (and make less explicit) the decision making, possibly to reduce government public relation risks as regards unsuccessful or miss-used industry-specific investments, which are easier to identify for horizontal instruments like CIP j. Develop/improve matrix-type governing structure (functional and sectoral dimension)

5.1.5.Potential decision power re-distribution effects of ITMs

The introduction of ITMs, as policy coordination platform might also generate some tensions between the earlier hierarchical structure of decision making in the public sector and the new, more horizontal cross-departmental and cross-sector coordination. This would likely be particularly visible in cases where certain bodies would be interested to use the platform to increase the power in influencing decision making in other bodies. For example this could include strategic, intended or unintended actions to enlarge or reduce the power by:

a. ITM lead agency over horizontal agencies as regards planning of specific activities falling under specific ITM; b. ITM lead agency over financial distribution and scope of activities within / across ITMs; c. The pillar-specific agency to influence activities falling under a specific pillar but implemented by other agencies (i.e. productivity – SPRING; skills – SSG; internationalisation IE; research

A*STAR); d. The TAC to influence activities and funding decisions of the public sector; e. The Unions to influence activities and funding decisions of the public sector; f. The MTI to have more control levers over the implementing agencies.

5.2.ITP impact-capacity assessment framework

Initial reflection allows understanding and analysing the impact of ITIP/ITMs (various effects might be intended or un-intended; expected and un-expected) as a governance/political intervention via these dimension, i.e. as an instrument of:

- Vertical governance, via: o Programming of the (mental) growth model (productivity = growth); o Lock-in the use and integration of the four CFE strategies; o Industry sector as the locus of government intervention; - Horizontal governance and power (re-)distribution, via: o Designating responsibilities for pillars and sectors; o Mainstreaming a 3-dimensional matrix governing structure - Public administration/industrial policy quality management/improvement, via: o Efficiency improvements (concentration and duplication avoidance); o Effectiveness improvements (more optimal focusing of interventions); - Internal and/or external legitimacy, via:

103

o Deeper (sectoral and cluster level) legitimation vis-a-vis industry; o Distribution of accountability among social partners (tripartite bodies); o Defensibility of decision making mechanism by introducing analytical logic (based on sectoral growth forecasts and productivity comparisons). - Analytical/feedback-loop o A government-wide analysis and forecasting exercise, carried out with industry partners, to identify broad industries as well as specific sectors with largest growth potential and focus public investment to develop those sectors

It is important to highlight that only one of the four angles of impact assessment has been publicly acknowledged – that of quality management (as defined by the author of the report), presuming an improvement of efficiency and effectiveness of government industrial policy interventions to be achieved via the ITMs. This angle, being explicitly intended and publicly acknowledged, could be called a “surface level impact mechanisms” of ITP as a governing intervention, while the other three aspects, all of which are presumed by the author and would need an empirical assessment to what extent they are actually present, noticed, intended and expected. These angles could be called the “deep level impact mechanisms” of the ITP as a governing intervention.

104