eBusiness Weekly
My Two Cents
Last week, the Office of the President and Cabinet led a Zimbabwe Agenda for Sustainable Socio-Economic Transformation review meeting which sought to take stock of the performance of the economic blueprint under the Rapid Results Initiative.
What came out clear at the review meeting, which was attended by those who run various Government departments, was that while some successes had been recorded; there was a lack of coordination between related clusters. As a result, ZimAsset appeared to be lagging behind and there is a strong possibility that the RRI December 5 deadline might not be met.
A brief summary of the progress made to date showed that the Food Security cluster slid into red while the Value Addition and Beneficiation cluster recorded 42 percent successes.
Fiscal Reforms also performed poorly with a 20 percent success rate. The worst performer was the Social Services and Poverty Eradication cluster. It had, however, one success; the housing programme initiative which has so far parcelled out 4 000 housing stands out of the targeted 8 000 for the period.
One of the major causes of poor performance among the clusters was lack of reporting, where cluster heads presented divergent data and showed a lack of coordination especially clusters such as utilities and beneficiation which should naturally speak to each other.
This lack of coordination is what inspired this comeback edition albeit on a different platform.
Under ZimAsset, the targeted average economic growth rate is 7,3 percent per year. This means that for the past four years, Zimbabwe has underperformed its set targets and there is need for the country to go back to the drawing board and start charting a new course of action. This does not mean a change in politics as most people are often quick to point out.
It only means a change in methodology.
What this country lacks is a national perspective on the economy. There is no mechanism for building knowledge among the various ministries and therefore no convergent policy.
Each minister speaks his own gospel and is prone to cherry-picking certain aspects of presidential pronouncements to suit the agenda that his/her ministry would be pursuing.
A report in this paper (page 8) will show the differences in views between a Minister and his deputy with regards the setting up of a donkey slaughterhouse in Bulawayo. What is Government’s position on a donkey abattoir?
Elsewhere, divergent views on indigenisation and different interpretations of the law in Government persisted to a point President Robert Mugabe intervened by way of clarifying the law. And yet even then, the law is still to be amended. Apart from Indigenisation, Cabinet was also deeply divided around re-engagement with International Financial Institutions and clearing of the country’s arrears. It could have been interpreted as being tantamount to submitting to western imperialism.
The divisions around the debt clearance strategy, believed to have been fuelled by factional and succession politics, resulted in name calling and labeling among ministers.
Government officials were also divided around the Beitbridge-Harare highway dualisation. Questions were raised around concessions that were offered to the contractors while others questioned the tendering process. Despite it being a strategic national project, some grey areas around the statutory confirmation of tax incentives have delayed implementation.
The introduction of bond notes to stimulate production is among the list of contentious issues in Government where officials have divergent views with some even calling for re-introduction of the Zimbabwe dollar to resolve foreign currency shortages.
While Government agrees the solution out of the current foreign currency shortages lies in increasing production, it has remained unclear who spearheads the process. Already an attempt to boost agricultural output, achieve food security and reduce imports under Command Agriculture has been politicised.
It appears Reserve Bank of Zimbabwe governor Dr John Mangudya has been left to run with the production initiative alone, never mind that this is outside his mandate. While the country is going through a liquidity crisis, seen through the lack of foreign currency; the problem is not an RBZ problem. It is one that emanates, from two things.
Firstly, is a strong and misplaced reliance on RBZ Quasi-Fiscal capabilities Although clearly using the authority vested in it from the highest authority to make key monetary decisions without necessarily consulting parliament, it cannot then enforce the policing of its own regulations as it lacks the capacity to influence law enforcement. For example, the money changers quickly came back to the streets despite an amendment in law which carries harsher penalties.
The second problem, related to the first, is a glaring lack of economic coordination. If some form of coordination really existed, SI 64 would be effective if the Ministry of Trade and Industry, the RBZ and Revenue authorities worked together to curb smuggling. The same applies to the policing of financial transactions and enforcement of regulations.
If at least this coordination existed, the debate would take on a different character, particularly whether the RBZ is best suited to lead efforts of economic revival. But at present, we can’t even consider that given the dampening confidence currently prevailing.
This confusion around roles, goals and strategy as well as ensuring ideas are implemented as planned is testimony to the need for a superior body overseeing planning and implementation of Government programs in a systematic and coherent manner.
As early as 2011, there were reports Government was planning to set up a National Planning Commission comprising all line ministries to oversee the implementation of the Medium-Term Plan.
At the moment, it is planning and coordination that has been left to the OPC. This is a step in the right direction as they are better placed, but they are not the right office to be running with it. They seem to be running a lot of programmes at the same time and this creates confusion. The OPC is a highly esteemed office, which should, at best, be an overseer and play a supervisory role.
However if an independent planning commission were to be set up, it would be able to facilitate coordination between the public and private sectors to ensure the successes of Government policies. As present, Government alone is pushing for the implementation of ZimAsset without including the private sector.
The increasing importance of various infrastructure projects, in which the private sector is expected to participate in, cannot be left to individual ministries. Nor is it feasible to leave it to the hands of Treasury. A planning commission would be able to coordinate this and ensure efficient distribution of funds.
Another area where such a type of commission would play a key role would be the set-up of a research division where detailed and authentic projections would provide guidelines to both Government and the private sector.
An independent commission would also mobilise the potential of other agencies both within and outside Government and strengthen its skills base. With high incidences of corruption within the public sector, civil servants cannot do it alone.
Zimbabwe is not far from achieving economic growth. It only needs to take a few steps forward by coordinating and effectively planning around the same message.
Feedback [email protected]
