On the MID project , food security, energy and water issues, industrial development policy and more recently the national debate on the reform of the CPE, the Minister of Finance had very little to contribute. On most of the issues of national importance they are totally absent - on their own web site, in board meetings,in meetings with line ministries, on the sectoral plans , with the IMF and World Bank and other consultants, you name it !!!
This would never have been tolerated from the earlier Ministry of Economic Development with a stewardship that ensured that its economists participated and brought value addition to general and technical debates/discussions on sectoral and national issues. This is inconceivable from a mega-ministry that has merged three cadres- the Finance Management Analysts of the ex-Management Audit Bureau, Economists of the ex-Ministry of Economic Development (MED) and Budget Analysts of the Ministry of Finance (MOF). The merger was effective as from 2006. It was expected to improve economic management and facilitate the work towards programme or results-based management within a medium to long term macroeconomic framework. The purpose was to optimise use of public resources including skills and capacity, as well as to ensure better co-ordination and consistency in the execution of specific activities and functions. And more importantly it was expected to help in generating holistic planning for the economy and sectors in order to evaluate if actions and policies are consistent with government’s vision and priorities and participate/produce detailed analysis of the existing policies and their costs, as well as a review of other policy options that may enable government to achieve policy objectives more effectively.
But lately the situation has deteriorated as a result of a new Scheme of Service (SoS) for new analysts that is causing havoc in the Ministry- the last straw that broke the camel’s back. Most of the economists, budget analysts and accountants are against the new SoS that comes to aggravate an already tense situation. The economist cadre continues to have strained relations with management and their main points of dispute is a) an irrelevant SoS whichis incoherent, ambiguous, incongruent band inconsistent b) three different salary entry points for similar work that goes against the principle of equal pay for equal work c) the disruption of relativity d) failure to set up an appropriate structure to accommodate the existing cadres with different skills as stipulated in the PRB 2008 Report d) poor prospects of promotion and e) the non-recognition of their legitimate aspirations.
The PRB 2008 Report advocates the setting up of a structure that would accommodate the different competencies of the existing cadre and allow for a more comfortable integrationof three cadres that would have given full play for the different skills to excel in their respective areas of specialisation. Six years after the merger , the SoS for Lead Analysts has not yet been agreed upon between Management and the Union because of inherent incompatibilities. The SoS for Analysts is being presently contested. Quite a sizeable number among the three cadres consider that it is not healthy to work in an environment where there is discrimination and unfairness and employees have to legally challenge management via petitions and ‘mise en demeure’. An atmosphere of mistrust has already been installed ; many young analysts are disappointed and are looking for opportunities elsewhere.
This would never have been tolerated from the earlier Ministry of Economic Development with a stewardship that ensured that its economists participated and brought value addition to general and technical debates/discussions on sectoral and national issues. This is inconceivable from a mega-ministry that has merged three cadres- the Finance Management Analysts of the ex-Management Audit Bureau, Economists of the ex-Ministry of Economic Development (MED) and Budget Analysts of the Ministry of Finance (MOF). The merger was effective as from 2006. It was expected to improve economic management and facilitate the work towards programme or results-based management within a medium to long term macroeconomic framework. The purpose was to optimise use of public resources including skills and capacity, as well as to ensure better co-ordination and consistency in the execution of specific activities and functions. And more importantly it was expected to help in generating holistic planning for the economy and sectors in order to evaluate if actions and policies are consistent with government’s vision and priorities and participate/produce detailed analysis of the existing policies and their costs, as well as a review of other policy options that may enable government to achieve policy objectives more effectively.
Unfortunately the new MOFED has failed to deliver , either because the ones at its helm for the past five years did not have the competence and/or they have been too preoccupied with short-termism to allow the economists to generate a more long term view of sectoral and national issues. Mr Mahmood Cheeroois the latest among the increasing long list of our intellectual elite and corporate leaders (comprising Governor R. Bheenick, Mohamad Vayid,Kadress Pillay, Nita Deerpalsing, Professor C Junglee of UOM, Dr Ashok Kumar Aubeeluck, ex-director of the Budget at MOF, Nikhil Treebhoohun ex-CEO of the NPCC, the economistsPhilip Lam, G.Cheung and KC Li Kwong Wing , Malenn Oodiah, Tim Taylor and the World Bank) who have been advocating a more medium tolong term approach- … ». » Depuis plusieurs années, nous avons souligné que le développement futur ne pourra être assuré que si le triangle eau-énergie-production alimentaire repose sur un socle solide. Et pour construire sur ce socle, il faut une vision à long terme qui puisse nous faire naviguer dans les eaux changeantes de la conjoncture. Et c’est cela qui s’appelle «résilience». Non pas des recettes du jour qui font miroiter des emplois, des hausses des salaires, des investissements… ». The World Bank had noted in its August 2011 report -“Draft Technical Overview Note -From Program Based Budgeting to Delivering Results: Improving the Performance of the Civil Service in Mauritius .”- that “The merger of the Ministry of Economic Planning and Development, which used to develop the National Strategic Plan for 5 years, with the Ministry of Finance in 2003 resulted in a loss of strategic planning capacity within the Government at the national level. This has created a challenge for Ministries in developing their strategic plans – as the link between sectoral and national objectives is not explicit. Sector planning capacity needs to be developed in order for the proper costing and evaluation of policy options to occur. ”
Another reason thatis being put forward to explain why MOFED continues to play truant on national policy debates and stick to their numbers crunching is that the merger has lamentably failed to carve out the appropriate structure for the three cadres to express their capability and core competencies. The driving force underpinning the merger was to reconcile planning with budgeting, whilst simultaneously allowing each entity to operate in its own orbit of competencies and specialisation. But the merger of the three cadres in a single structure has not produced the desired outcome. The Economist cadre, for example, has to operate within a new culture alien to their core skills. They were trained to being sector specialists/policy analysts/ researchers / thinkers/ strategists/ pace setters and exposed to a multitude of national and international issues of high complexities ; they havebeenreduced to mere “mathematico-accounting” instruments and number crunchers.
Industrial relations have been strained for quite some time with the Union of Government Economists contesting the Scheme of Service on the grounds that it is inconsistent and unfair and seriously undermines their legitimate expectations , their ability to excel in their core competencies and their career advancement prospects. This has led to a deadlock and since 2007 there has not been any promotion or filling of vacancies in the Ministry. The frustration and discontents were contained by doling out generous budget and responsibility allowances that were mere administrative arrangements and in some cases these were supplemented by lucrative missions abroad. There was however a pervading mistrust between the three cadres with a climat de mefiance where everyone was trying to negotiate the best deal for personal gains and advantage. It was not a healthy and sound working environment.
Re-establishment of the planning function: The absence of strategic planning has left an important vacuum unfilled for too long. The need forproper planning to achieve a proper cohesion in our vision, strategies and implementation capacities is being felt. Today, most of the sectors suffer from the absence ofproper and efficient planning. Even the Prime Minister, referring to the water sector, stated that we are not planning properly. Therefore, in compliance with PRB 2008 Report, the planning function should be reinstated and manned by ex Economists of MED. A country needs vision, strategic thinking and research to support its future development. Most of the economists are now convinced that there is a case to demerge from MOFED and set up a Planning Commission, preferably under the Prime Minister’s Office.
