“In a desperate move towards tackling the shortage of coconuts and the skyrocketing of its prices, the government has permitted the private sector to import coconut kernels, official sources said. The Coconut Development Authority (CDA) called on interested importers to import coconut kernels without delay considering it as a national priority as there is a severe dearth of coconuts in the country and its price has gone up to Rs100 to Rs125 per nut, a senior official of the CDA disclosed,” (News Report, 14th Dec. 2017).
Following the above report, manufacturers attempted to import coconuts to keep their factories running. Existing regulations prohibited coconut imports, so the producers inquired about the process to be followed. The problem is that at least three ministries and twenty nine institutions are involved in agriculture. None knew which one was responsible for implementing the directive. The Department of Import Export Control had seemingly never dealt with the import of coconuts. The Ministry of Plantation Industries had not dealt with import regulations.
The two coconut related institutions; the Coconut Development Authority and the Coconut Cultivation Board focused more on cultivation and research, not trade. The Ministry of Agriculture was not sure if coconuts came under them and neither was the Department of Agriculture. The Ministry of Primary Industries which supervised the Department of Export Agriculture was clueless as to imports. Customs and BOI could offer no guidance either. The manufacturers were sent from pillar to post and eventually, a brave producer decided to go ahead and import a consignment. It was ultimately rejected in quarantine. The producer had to bear this loss in addition to not having coconuts for his value-added business.
Why was it impossible to import a coconut after a government directive to do so? This actual example highlights the problem of excessive bureaucracy and red-tape in the country, possibly the most significant barrier to business. The challenge starts with the large cabinet which reflects the need to dole out political favours to reward important allies. In order to create enough positions to accommodate all their allies governments split functions, which results in overlapping authority and all manner of inconsequential ministries.
The ministry functions lack coherence; previously, we have seen a ministry simultaneously responsible for higher education and highways. The only relationship between the two functions seems to be the letter “H” in the subjects. Another was responsible for foreign affairs and lotteries. Perhaps this reflected the fact that foreign policy was something of a gamble? These ministries, in turn, split up institutions willy-nilly, which results in a lack of clear responsibility and overlaps with other departments/ministries. With opaque mandates, these entities start devising procedures and regulations ad-hoc and often end up working at cross-purposes.
The result is the vast bureaucratic mess that businesses attempt to bypass using political influence or bribery. Sorting this problem requires a wholesale rationalising of government functions. It is a very complicated process that demands teams of independent experts to review and consolidate activities. A suggested approach to this is described below. According to information published by the Department of Management Services in 2017, there were
51 Ministries
21 State Ministries
121 Departments
22 Special Spending Units.
The first step is to understand the workings of the many bodies; an enormous task that is impossible for a minister to handle alone. It will, therefore, be necessary to set up dedicated teams of independent experts to map the functions of each area and then identify the means to improve efficiency. The teams need to be multidisciplinary. These will need to be senior, experienced people who have enough authority to summon heads of departments and ensure all required information is received.
Each team must be supported by secretarial and research assistants who will go into detail in the areas identified by the senior members and document the results. Each ministry will require one team to study its work, and since the number of ministries is large, it calls for a vast amount of technical expertise that may not be available locally. Some of the technical expertise in the functional areas (e.g. health, education etc.) and economics may need to be sourced from overseas, but it’s critical each team have one or two experienced local staff who are technically competent and familiar with the workings of the public service.
Retired civil servants, public officials or senior private sector hands could be included in these teams. Agencies such as the ADB, World Bank etc. could be tapped to provide some of the technical and economic experts. The teams would need to start by identifying the core objectives of each ministry and preparing summaries of the institutions, staff, locations, resources and costs.
This is essentially the blueprint of each ministry and should answer some broad questions: what purpose does it serve, how does it go about fulfilling its mission, what does it cost and how is it funded? Once this initial mapping is complete, a central committee can review the overall picture and identify overlaps of authority. This will allow a logical grouping of subjects under each ministry on functional lines. Well-founded policy must be based on rigorous analysis and subject to periodic review.
It is only by this that the efficiency of government can be raised. The president has taken the first step by appointing a small cabinet. This is an excellent starting point, but the bigger goal is to rationalise all government functions.