WORKSHOP REPORT
Detours to Development: Public Administration gets Practical 17-18 Nov 2016, Singapore
OVERVIEW SUMMARY This by-invitation workshop was attended by 28 people, comprising government officials, academics, and professionals from development organisations, including the World Bank and UNDP. Geographically, participants represented 9 institutions based in 9 countries from Africa, Asia (South-East, South, and Central), Europe, and the Pacific. Conceptual background and final programme are provided in the Annex. The keynote speaker was Lim Siong-Guan. Mr Lim was Head of Civil Service in Singapore for a number of years and candidly shared about his experience as an administrator within the public service working with politicians to enable rational, practical public administration. The UNDP Global Centre for Public Service Excellence (GCPSE) launched a new booklet at this workshop Detours, Dead-Ends and Diversions: Singapore’s Road to Development Reconsidered, available at: http://www.undp.org/content/dam/undp/library/capacitydevelopment/English/Singapore%20Centre/Booklet_Detours2Devt.pdf. Representatives of public services and think-tanks from Papua New Guinea, Rwanda, Indonesia, Kazakhstan and Bangladesh also contributed significantly to the discussion by presenting cases from their respective countries. The presentation associated with the booklet launch was a de-facto Singapore case. Dr Michael Woolcock from Harvard University/World Bank provided a global perspective of research and practice in this area. On evaluation, all respondents were ‘more than satisfied’ with the design and overall experience during the workshop. The presentation of country cases related to the topic was regarded as good or excellent by all respondents, as were the small-group discussions, although some felt that more time could have been allocated for such discussions (“one more day to discuss to make dialogue more effective”). Participants appreciated the practitioner perspectives that were shared – “Experiences from real examples was excellent; the study tour complemented, and was very relevant.”; “Practical, thought-provoking.”; “Very useful; good exchange of ideas and peer-learning; taking back ideas to implement.” As a follow-up to this workshop, GCPSE will explore preparation of a discussion paper on the topic of practical administration, deepened by inputs from case presenters, as well as the rich participant discussions.
1
COUNTRY CASES Papua New Guinea is characterised by tough governance settings. Land mobilisation effort initiated in 2005 was used as an example to illustrate how the absence of committed political leadership, vested interests and corruption prevent sound and much needed policies from taking up. The ‘Disrupt’ factor of the 7 ‘D’ framework is missing from the policy discourse in PNG as the context cannot prevent vested interests from influencing policies. Some of the lessons learnt include the foundational role of political leadership, not unlike that in Singapore; the need to strengthen institutions, and recruit a dedicated taskforce based on abilities and merit. Rwanda which is being rebuilt after the genocide and the erosion of economic, human and social capital. Its priority is a pragmatic shift towards consensual democracy with security and unity as the foundation of development. Implementing home-grown solutions, transformational leadership and resilience-building are the cornerstones of Rwanda’s development at the moment. The country puts citizens at the heart of its approach to policy-making: citizen report card is an example of one such initiative whereby the public appraises the role of institutions in cementing unity and social cohesion. Indonesia is currently in the midst of a public service reform aimed at improving public service delivery, accountability and transparency, recruitment and selection of public servants, and their performance. ICT is being increasingly used to inform service improvements and incidence of corruption in recruitment has been considerably reduced. However, challenges remain in the form of weak commitment, vested interests, and difficulties in changing organisational culture. Kazakhstan in its development journey often turns to experiences of other countries and best-practices that can inform its own development. Aware of the fact that effective public service is one of the essential components of successful development, the country implemented several public service reforms in the recent years. Kazakhstan is gradually moving towards a career-based public service system to ensure that public servants are promoted according to their work quality. Lessons learnt include the importance of considering the local context when implementing reforms, and building a strong coalition to dismantle existing institutions in order to move forward. The experience of Bangladesh is illustrative of the lessons that detours bring and how they can contribute to furthering development. Some of the lessons are in line with the 7 ‘D’ framework: the path to reaching the goal is not always straightforward, visioning is key, and ‘paralysis by analysis’ or spending disproportionate amounts of time analyzing the issue at hand may be an obstacle to progress. Thinking big while starting small may bring more positive change than being overly ambitious from the very beginning. Introducing data-driven culture is instrumental for increasing objectivity and helping with impartial prioritization.
‘7D’ FRAMEWORK The ‘7D’ Framework developed for the new GCPSE publication was applied in peer group discussions as an overlay for the experiences from the country cases presented. Some of the key points raised during the discussion include:
The ‘Dream’ stage can involve negotiating with different stakeholders and power brokers who have differing interests in outcomes. Deciding on the wrong dream may alter the development trajectory altogether. Packaging the dream is extremely important – communication to key stakeholders is key. At the ‘Design’ stage it is important to form effective taskforces for consultation with stakeholders to get them on board to prevent them from becoming stumbling blocks later.
2
In order to differentiate ‘Detour’ from a distraction it is extremely important to keep the objective in mind. Detours and disruption that have budget implications are not easy in rigid bureaucracies due to programming and budgeting, as well as political restraints. When planning disruption technical language should be avoided – communication is key for securing stakeholder support. Other important issues to consider include: making the vision so compelling that new leaders will buyin; overcoming risk aversion; increasing the role of policy entrepreneurship. ‘Dismantle’ and ‘Disrupt’ may be the stages when political leaders are the most reluctant to act, and that is where effective coalition-building plays an important role. Disruption can also be created from outside, through citizen pressure and consultation. Learning from detours, and realising that development is not a straight line, as well as being aware of changes and opportunities is what it comes down to.
3
ANNEX Conceptual Background In its simplest form, pragmatism is an approach to problems and situations that is based on practical solutions. Such an approach allows a country’s government to chart the most efficient and effective way to achieve its development targets and the global Sustainable Development Goals, taking into account prevailing conditions – addressing or avoiding constraints, and taking advantage of opportunities. Charles Lindblom, in his two nowclassic papers,1 argued that a pragmatic approach of “successive limited comparisons” was more useful than a “rational comprehensive method” in public policy. At the same time, in complex situations involving existing systems and different personalities, some form of political settlement always exists - as the ground reality that cannot be ignored. Consequently, in the public policy environment, practical solutions often reflect a consideration of subjective relationships, as much as on objective facts. A seldom-articulated but quietly-acknowledged factor impacting national development success is the ‘Political-Administrative Leadership Pact’2that exists between political and bureaucratic elites in a country. The degree to which leaders of these two groups work together effectively, and in line with development objectives for the country, determines to a large extent the ability of the country to conceptualize, agree, and most importantly to adopt practical and effective responses to its constraints and opportunities. Singapore’s success has been attributed, among other reasons, to pragmatism3 and to its dynamic public service.4 This ability of its government to respond quickly, adopting appropriate ideologies (or none) as needed and implementing practical solutions competently to solve problems or to take advantage of opportunities, is to a large extent, facilitated by the existing Political-Administrative Leadership Pact (PALP) between political and administrative leaders in Singapore.5 This is reflected in a professional relationship of trust between these two groups.
Final Programme Day 1: Thu 17 Nov 2016 9.15-9.40am Morning Refreshments SESSION 1: OPENING 9.40-9.50am Welcome Remarks Max Everest-Phillips, Director, GCPSE 9.50-10.00am Opening Remarks Vanessa Chan, Board Member, GCPSE; Director-General, International Organisations Directorate, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Singapore 1
These two papers by Lindblom were identified among the 75 most influential papers published by the American society for Public Administration between 1941 and 2012: Lindblom, C., 1959. The Science of ‘Muddling Through’, Public Administration Review, Vol. 19, No. 2, pp. 79-88; and Lindblom, C., 1979. Still Muddling, Not Yet Through, Public Administration Review, Vol. 39, No. 6, pp. 517-526. 2 UNDP Global Centre for Public Service Excellence, 2016. Political/Administrative Leadership Pacts and Public Sector Performance, consultation paper, pp.1-5. 3 See Schein, E.H., 1996. Strategic Pragmatism: The Culture of Singapore’s Economic Development Board, MIT Press, Cambridge MA, and http://www.ipscommons.sg/sp-2015-should-pragmatism-be-retained-as-singapores-governing-philosophy/ 4 Neo, B.S. and G. Chen, 2007. Dynamic Governance: Embedding Culture, Capabilities and Change in Singapore, World Scientific Publishing, 508 pp. 5 UNDP Global Centre for Public Service Excellence, draft in preparation. Detours, Cul-de-sacs, and Diversions: Singapore’s Less-known Paths to Development.
4
SESSION 2: POLICY IMPLEMENTATION AND THE POLITICAL-ADMINISTRATIVE LEADERSHIP PACT IN SINGAPORE Presenting an overview of how politicians and senior administrators developed and operationalised a common imperative for governance, and a framework of how policy is implemented in Singapore. Facilitator: Arndt Husar, Deputy Director, GCPSE 10.00-10.30am
11.45am-12.15pm
Dynamics of Cooperation between Politicians and Administrators in Singapore Lim Siong Guan, Group President, GIC Pte Ltd; former Head of Civil Service, Singapore (1999-2005) Q&A and Discussion Detours, Dead-Ends, and Diversions: Singapore’s Road to Development Reconsidered Nigel Goh, Senior Advisor, GCPSE Q&A and Discussion
12.15-1.15pm
Networking Buffet Lunch
10.30-11.15am 11.15-11.45am
SESSION 3: LEARNING JOURNEY: ITE College Central Generous resources allocated for the Institute of Technical Education (ITE) would appear disproportionate in many countries. This did not arise merely because of many years of good economic performance, leading to excess funds that could be directed at schools for the less academically-inclined. Support to the ITE reflects deeper ‘policy postures’ of the Singapore system, including its willingness to conceive and implement policy with few ‘best-practice’ precedents elsewhere. It also reflects the long-standing pragmatic perspective (at the national level, but manifested clearly here within the education sector) of recognizing the need to maximise all available manpower resources. 1.15-2.00pm 2.00-4.00pm 4.00-4.30pm 4.30pm
Travel to ITE College Central Briefing and Tour of campus Bus return to GCPSE/central location End of Day 1
Day 2: 18 Nov 2016 SESSION 4: BUT WHAT ABOUT IN … Expert practitioners will share country cases, including challenges experienced in implementing practical policy solutions within their specific national contexts (30min presentation and 10min for clarifications). Facilitator: Michael Woolcock, World Bank 9.15-10.00am
10.00-10.35am 10.35-11.10am 11.10-11.30am
Familiar Problems, Unfamiliar Explanations, Pragmatic Responses Michael Woolcock, Lead Social Development Specialist, Development Research Group, World Bank; and Lecturer, Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University Papua New Guinea Charles Yala, Director, National Research Institute, Papua New Guinea Rwanda Shyaka Anastase, Chief Executive Officer, Rwanda Governance Board, Rwanda Tea Break
5
11.30am-12.05pm
1.15-1.40pm
Indonesia Raden Siliwanti, Director of State Apparatus, National Development Planning Agency, Indonesia Kazakhstan Yerkebulan Berdibekov, Division Head, Department of Civil Service, Agency for Civil Service, Kazakhstan Bangladesh Anir Chowdhury, Policy Advisor, Prime Minister’s Office, Bangladesh Wrap-up
1.40-2.30pm
Networking Buffet Lunch
12.05-12.40pm
12.40-1.15pm
SESSION 5: SOLUTIONS FROM PEERS Experts will collectively discuss practical solutions in a peer-to-peer ‘lab’ to address problems actually faced ‘in the trenches’ as discussed in previous sessions. Facilitator: Arndt Husar, Deputy Director, GCPSE 2.30-4.00pm
Facilitated Discussion Participants will break into small peer groups to share experiences, knowledge and solutions. Guiding Questions: Within the group, select 1-2 real situations where it was not possible to be practical and to adopt the most rational solution to a problem? What were the key reasons for this? Discuss how these constraints can be solved. As a group, recommend key steps for public administration in developing countries to become more practical and adopt rational actions to solve important challenges.
4.00-4.30pm
Tea Break
SESSION 6: CLOSING Facilitator: Nigel Goh, Senior Advisor, GCPSE 4.30-4.45pm
Feedback and suggestions
4.45-5.00pm
Closing Remarks Arndt Husar, Deputy Director, GCPSE End of event
5.00pm
6