Charles Darwin's Descent of Man listed several human organs that no longer had any apparent use. Now called vestigial organs, these are parts of human body that have become redundant through the process of evolution. The most familiar vestigial organ is the appendix. It doesn't do anything for human body but can cause pain.
Governments, too, evolve, and over time get populated with vestigial organs. Smart governments discard or replace them. Other governments, less imaginative and less unaccountable, live with them, unmindful of the cost of carrying them or the risk of their infecting the healthier parts of government body.
Once upon a time Pakistan also used to excise away what was no longer helpful, or replace it with something that was. When the import regime changed the Government did away with the powerful office of Chief Controller Imports and Exports. When Corporate Law Authority was found inadequate for purposes of corporate growth it was replaced by the Securities Exchange Commission.
Things have changed. It took the government 23 years to learn EDB (Engineering Development Board) was not promoting industry but protecting rent seeking. Despite its dissolution in April 2018 the battle is still on. The vested interests want its revival. The dust hasn't quite settled yet.
In the business sector you judge performance by success (on the basis of pre-determined parameters), and what success looks like. It is quite used to zero-based budgeting and profit/cost centres to weed out what costs more than it earns. Government, on the other hand, is a natural and voracious procreator, and once created the off-spring is seldom subjected to a cost-benefit analysis.
Also, somewhere along the way the distinction between output and outcome slipped out of the governance tool box.
Competition Commission of Pakistan may show several outputs in terms of notices issued and fines imposed, but has it made a dent as far as outcome is concerned? Do we now see a distinctly less anti-competitive conduct in, for instance, Banking, Cement, Insurance, or Steel sectors? Are we seeing less cartelization and collusive price-fixing? Have the 'barriers to entry' been lowered?
What exactly does the Utility Stores Corporation do? Its purpose in life is claimed to be provision of quality foodstuff at affordable prices and to act as a 'price moderator'. After almost half a century of its existence, and billions lost, it is known better for gross mismanagement and 'leakages' than accomplishing its stated mission.
There is this Intellectual Property Organization which baldly claims on its website, "Thus the Government of Pakistan has invested its finest human resources in the governance structure of IPO to make IPO a vibrant and dynamic organization". We will gladly award the hilarity cup to IPO but has anything changed since the days when Copyrights was under the umbrella of Education, Patents under Industries, Trade Marks under Commerce, and Plant Breeders Rights under Agriculture? Are intellectual property rights better protected now? Have the processes become more efficient and infringements better checked? Has the expenditure of having a whole new organization to do more of the same been worth it?
Once upon a time, Export Promotion Bureau used to be the mecca to which exporters turned. We decided to rehash it on the perfectly sound premise of trade development superseding trade promotion. The only problem is it is easier said than done. The new wine put in the old bottle, TDAP, reminds one of parable of Jesus (according to Mathews) "and the wine runneth out and bottles perish".
The doubting Thomases, who once sneered at the importance of Exports, have since been silenced. Export revival is now centre stage. Does TDAP have what it takes to make a difference? It still does Fairs and Delegations - hopelessly outdated tools, even for trade promotion - and no trade development. It sure spends a lot of money but we are willing to wager that its cost-benefit ratio is no better than hundred to one.
When we ask for expenditure cuts we are told, often with justification, that they are largely inelastic; but our off-the-cuff sampling, from a legion of vestigial organs, makes out a case for considerable pruning. It will save some money, but more importantly, it is a step towards greater bureaucratic accountability. Simply put, if a department or agency cannot deliver in terms of outcome (not output), it needs to be shut down.
It is not that we don't need such agencies; what we need is for them to perform. Of course, we need a Competition Commission; but we need a body to visibly reduce anti-competition behavior. Of course, we need a TDAP; but its performance is not to be judged on the basis of the number of trade fairs but how exactly it has contributed to export growth. Yes, give them time and resources but hold them accountable for outcome.
Imran Khan (Pakistan, a Personal History, 2011) approvingly recounts Obama asking the right questions about committing troops to Afghanistan: what are we fighting for, what will we achieve, and what constitutes victory? This is exactly the kind of questions his team should put to heads of all the organs of state. That is where you transform the change slogan into change management.
In managing change the Cabinet will have to focus on outcome, based on minimum time and funds. The objective should not be building dams, or more health facilities. The objective should be the end result: do we have greater water resources, either brought about through dams or aquifer recharge, or better pricing, or a combination of all three? Are we providing better health cover through more hospitals and basic health units, or insurance cover, or better nutrition and preventive measures, or a combination?
Once the Cabinet has figured out what it wants and what it will take, it should provide operational autonomy to the professionals (and if the bureaucracy is bereft of professionals, get them. We don't care from where. We don't want a chef who can't cook) and hold them accountable. That's the divide between political leadership and civil service: the former has the right to set the objectives and the latter the right to choose the most appropriate tools.
We won't get Naya Pakistan doing more of the same. We would need to break some eggs - and make walking on eggshells less of an art.
Beghot2@gmail.com