5.1. The intervention logic of ITP

5.1.The intervention logic of ITP

While the Industry Transformation Programme has been launched in 2016, many of the actual policy interventions, that will be covered by this programme, have been launched earlier – in some case as early as 2010 when a renewed emphasis on productivity has been placed by the Government of Singapore (Auyong, H., 2014).

Therefore, the context of the ITP and each ITM falls within the broader GDP and productivity growth agenda as stated in the Economic Strategies Committee (ESC) report in 2010 and re-confirmed by the Committee on the Future Economy (CFE) in 2017.

It is also notable that to support the achievement of national productivity and GDP growth targets set in 2010, already from the beginning of the decade the most important industry sectors have been set productivity growth targets towards 2020. Some of these targets, set in 2011 and 2012, are retained as targets also for the ITMs (for example in PE ITM).

Therefore a comprehensive analysis of ITP intervention logic had to include at least four separate levels of analysis, i.e.:

- The broader governance and institutional logic of the ITP (particularly the coordination, consultation and targeting functions) - The specific instruments in action between 2010 and 2017 (including through instruments announced as part of the ITP), and - The content – actions and logic behind specific ITM(s) - The links between these three levels and the general strategic development framework as set in the ESC 2010 and CFE 2017 reports.

5.1.1.Stated intervention logic of the ITP

The Industry Transformation Programme, as stated in the Budget 2016, has four main mechanisms how it will generate impact:

a. It will involve integrating our different restructuring efforts. Our efforts to raise productivity develop our people, and drive research and innovation are working, but we can maximise impact by pulling these together. b. We will take a more targeted and sector-focused approach to better meet the needs of firms in each sector. c. We will deepen partnerships between government and the industry, and among industry players to identify challenges, and develop solutions to support transformation. d. And we will place a stronger emphasis on technology adoption and innovation.

5.1.2.Stated intervention logic of the ITMs

The 2016 budget statement includes these explicit purpose set for the ITMs: “As a government, we must adopt a more integrated approach to support transformation. Our

101

agencies will work more closely together, integrating their different support schemes to take a more targeted approach to developing each industry. We will work closely with enterprises and at the industry level to develop transformation maps for each sector. These will help us allocate the resources to develop each sector appropriately.”

Furthermore, the 2017 budget statement includes some further details: “To systematically facilitate such partnerships, I announced in last year’s Budget a major initiative, the Industry Transformation Maps, or ITMs. The ITMs are integrative platforms, bringing together various stakeholders – TACs, unions, and Government – so as to align our efforts around a common plan to transform each sector. We will develop ITMs for 23 sectors, covering about 80% of our economy. Six have already been launched. We will keep this going at a good pace, and launch the remaining 17 within FY2017.

The ITMs help us to identify key enablers, which involve different stakeholders, to transform sectors. For example, the Centre of Innovation for Supply Chain Management at Republic Polytechnic works with companies to level up their capabilities and provides students with hands-on experience.

As I said last year, the ITMs are “live” plans that we will adjust along the way. Where we spot opportunities, including ones that do not fit any existing industry, we will adapt our ITMs to seize them. We must also maximise synergies between related ITMs, such as between the Food Services and Hotel industries.

Our companies, TACs and unions can play a key role in the success of our ITMs.”

Similarly, but somewhat even more focused position is confirmed by the statement of the Minister for Trade and Industry of Singapore in the Committee of Supply debate in the Parliament of Singapore in 2017, indicating that the two primary objectives of the ITMs are:

i. “Integrate Government policies and initiatives”; and ii. “Promote collaboration among industry stakeholders to achieve transformation and growth through productivity, skills development, innovation and internationalisation.”

5.1.3.Mandates of different bodies in the ITP/ITM process

From the documents available in the public domain there is as of yet no very clear view of the distribution of responsibilities between the different actors and different bodies (particularly the tripartite bodies at national, cluster and sectoral levels) within the overall process of designing and implementing the ITP/ITMs.

5.1.4.Other (hypothetical) effects of the ITMs

In addition, beyond the explicit intervention logic, from previous analysis it could be presumed that introduction of ITMs as policy instruments carries also other effects. These effects could be intended in advance, but they can also be un-intended consequences of inter-institutional politics as well as other, ad-hoc or instrumental uses of the ITMs resulting from accumulation of experience within ITP/ITMs processes and newly recognised opportunities: a. Distribute more clearly the lead responsibility for sector-specific coordination of industry transformation policy efforts;

102