Lack of accountability in the Budget Debate

Robert Wynter, Contributor

The 2012 Economic and Social Survey of Jamaica indicated that our Gross Domestic Product (GDP) in 2012 was almost 5% below that of 2007. We have not experienced 5% growth in our economy in a single year since 1991 - more than 20 years ago. In fact, it appears that it will take us 10 years, to 2017, to recover from where we were in 2007.

One thing appears certain: If Jamaica continues on its current path, it will NOT be the "place of choice to live, work, raise families and do business" by the year 2030. There is no indication we intend to change our path, despite the prime minister's self-characterisation of being a transformative leader.

Other five-year performances include: 26% reduction in exports; 40% reduction in Net International Reserves (NIR); 40% increase in unemployment; 34% increase in the gap between lending and savings rates. There are improvements, however: 33% reduction in the murder rate; 14% increase in tourist arrivals; and 42% increase in the efficiency of electricity generation.

Section 49 (1) states: "Parliament shall make laws for the peace, order and good government of Jamaica." As the Budget is simply the quantification of plans to ensure peace, order and good government, the Budget Debate then should signal how the Government plans to get us out of the mess, while the Opposition provides alternatives.

The fact that we find ourselves in this mess in 2013 suggests that the planning and execution of successive administrations have missed the mark.

First of all, in assessing the contribution by the main players in this year's Budget Debate, I deliberately refused to listen to or watch the presentations, lest theatrics colour my assessment. I received all the texts and used the following criteria:

1. Did we achieve our mission-critical performance targets in the previous year?

2. What mission-critical performance targets do we plan to achieve over the next three to five years and in the coming year?

3. What possible hindrances may prevent us from achieving those targets and how do we plan to mitigate same?

4. What major actions will deliver on those targets?

5. How must we reorganise ourselves to achieve the performance targets?

Year 2012 was difficult, with declines in GDP, exports and the NIR, while unemployment and hardships increased. None of the government spokesmen addressed or admitted to the performance, still blaming the previous administration.

Minister Paulwell did highlight the achievement of the pilot project to increase energy efficiency in public offices. Mr Shaw tried to give an explanation for the failed IMF agreement; he also claimed he left blueprint for tax, pension and public-sector reform. Mr Holness failed to tell us why public-sector modernisation went nowhere under his watch. Mr Bartlett's chart indicated a reduction in tourism's contribution to GDP between 2007 and 2011; however, there was no explanation.

There was a time when finance ministers predicated their respective budgets on a GDP growth target. Problem was, there was dissonance between the target, the plan and execution; hence, target was invariably missed. In fact, between 1997 and 2010, former finance ministers Omar Davies and Audley Shaw projected cumulative growth targets of 35%. The actual outcome was 7% cumulative growth, indicating a 20% actual/target performance.

Although Finance Minister Phillips indicated that growth is the way to get out of the economic mess, there is absolutely no target for growth. Any strategy without targets is simply a wish. Primary surplus and debt-to-GDP targets are secondary and less mission-critical than growth. While Minister Paulwell clearly stated that by 2030, 20% of energy and 30% electricity will be generated from renewables, he failed to set any three-year (medium-term) or one-year (short-term) targets to which we can hold him accountable.

Although Mrs Simpson Miller stated that her "approach to development is evidence-based and data-driven", she provided no performance targets to hold her accountable. We have no idea how unbalanced people's lives are now; or how to determine when lives are balanced.

In their alternative plans, the opposition spokesmen provided no performance targets, save and except for Mr Holness 9% wage bill-to-GDP target, suggesting that much more thought went into criticising the Government than into crafting their own plans.

SETTING UNREALISTIC TARGETS

Minister Phillips suggested: size, ineffectiveness and inefficiency of the public sector; inadequate support of entrepreneurship by the State; not staying the course; and inadequate access to credit. Mr Shaw suggested: reluctance to deal with structural reform; setting unrealistic targets that cause pain without gain; and lip service.

Minister Paulwell suggested: public-sector officials not changing long-held bad habits to be corrected by Cabinet's Behaviour Change and Operational Code of Conduct; OUR's methodology of charging for wheeling; continued global aluminium stockpiles. Mr Bartlett articulated that existing markets may fall apart if left unchecked while we go after new markets, so we need to ride and whistle; failure to invest in airlifts; inadequate infrastructure at MBJ; Caribbean Airlines' decision to reduce flight frequency; and the poor tourism product.

Mr Holness suggested proprietary information by investors may be exposed; congested major towns that need logistic urban plans; capacity underutilisation with the solution to create a Silicon Valley; and, finally, poor leadership. Mrs Simpson Miller warned about playing to the gallery; macroeconomic instability; the high cost of doing business; unfriendly business environment; low productivity; crime and violence being hindrances. We tend to blame external factors for
our underperformance.

By stating poor leadership, Mr
Holness seemed to have taken a swipe at Mrs Simpson Miller; and just
maybe confessing his own shortcomings. The prime minister took this bait
hook, line and sinker. She proceeded to characterise herself as a
transformational leader, suggesting that everything she did was
transformation in action.

According to Kevin O'Brien
Chang, she used the word 'transformation' 52 times in her speech. Mrs
Simpson Miller, therefore, gave credence to the dictum that 'if one has
much to say, one says it in few words; if one has nothing to say, one
says it in many words'.

It is my humble opinion that,
based on her presentation, Mrs Simpson Miller does not have a clue what
is meant by transformation; if she did, local government reform would
not have languished under her watch as minister of local
government.

The fact that there was copious amount of
desk-thumping whenever she spoke the word (or so I am told) suggests
that those around her also have no clue what transformation means. This
constant desk-thumping on both sides of the House indicates that our
parliamentarians are collectively living in fools'
paradise.

What do we plan to actually deliver on the
performance targets?

Every speaker in the debate waxed
lyrical on the activities, programmes and projects - too many to
mention here.

How to reorganise ourselves (transform)
to deliver on the targets?

The public sector has a
huge role to play in launching the country forward. Sadly, because of
perceived political fallout with taking tough game-changing decisions,
no one has the stomach do so, including the self-styled transformational
leader.

The finance minister stated that
public-sector reform is a key component of the growth agenda; however, I
see little transformation. Simply merging two inefficient organisations
will result in a merged inefficient organisation. If becoming an
executive agency will automatically improve efficiency, we should
immediately make all public-sector agencies executive agencies and stamp
out inefficiency.

The proposed Strategic Human
Resource Management Unit appears to be creating another layer of
bureaucracy in addition to the Ministry of Finance and the Cabinet
Office, which are like albatrosses around the necks of the all
government entities.

Final
Results

Table 1

Table 1 shows the criteria and assessment
results. I am willing to debate the criteria; weighting; scoring of each
criterion and the arithmetic.

Moving
forward

Space does not allow me to outline the
required changes needed for the Budget debate. I'll do that another
time. One thing is certain - there was a lot of eating, drinking and
merriment following each presentation. These celebrations have less to
do with future prospects and more to do with the work put into crafting
the presentations.

Robert Wynter is managing director
of Strategic Alignment Limited, which facilitates organisational
transformation and leadership development. Email feedback to
columns@gleanerjm.com and rob.wyn@hotmail.com.