Published by Mauritius Times 19 October 2018
Some recent press reports have highlighted the teething problems the Economic Development Board (EDB) is having to clearly define its role of strategic economic planning and economic policy formulation. Many countries have likewise set up EDBs to provide advice to their governments in the formulation of policies, programmes and projects for the country’s long-term development and economic transformation. The difference with the Mauritian EDB is that in these countries it is exclusively dedicated to supporting the country’s development strategy and policies, and is not a mixed bag of various agencies involved in all sorts of promotion and facilitation activities. In our previous writings we had raised the issue of our hotchpotch EDB saddled with too many objectives.
The EDB should have opted either for investment promotion and facilitation or for national economic strategy and policy advice. Our idea of a more viable EDB was that of a dedicated broad-based Strategic Policy Unit (SPU), under the aegis of the Prime Minister’s office to support an independent Economic Advisory Council and an independent Business Consultative Group. The role and scope of the SPU was to be an effective strategic think thank that would provide leadership in the formulation and implementation of structural reform policies and programmes. The role of the SPU in strategic policy making was to be further reinforced by (a) tapping economic expertise from a broad cross-section of economic experts in academia, the private sector, and other independent institutions like the Bank Mauritius, and (b) engaging in a consultative process and a fruitful dialogue with business and the private sector on major economic and social issues.
The setting up of an independent Economic Advisory Council to the Prime Minister could serve objective (a) above -tapping economic expertise from various sources while an independent Business Consultative Group could support objective (b) above –engaging in a consultative process. The SPU would provide the secretariat to both bodies. Over the longer term, the SPU would have relied on more in-depth policy research and analysis. A specialised and independent think tank, such as a Centre for Development Policy, was to be established later to undertake fundamental research and analysis of economic and policy issues, funded by Government, Bank of Mauritius, and other specialized international agencies. An Economic Committee of the Cabinet, chaired by the Prime Minister, comprising key ministries such as Finance, Industry and Commerce, Trade, with the SPU acting as its secretariat, was also proposed to help in proper policy coordination and alignment of sectoral policies with national strategic goals.
Another similar proposal was an Economic Affairs Unit (EAU)
The EAU was to be the “high-level think tank” of Government. It was expected to ensure horizontal policy coherence across Ministries/Departments and the private sector to achieve a nexus approach to development. The National Advisory Committee was to act as an independent consultative body with different stakeholders, including civil society. It would have served the objectives of tapping expertise from a broad cross-section of the Mauritian society by engaging in policy dialogues on current and emerging socio-economic-environmental issues.
The later proposal was aligned to the Singaporean model where national economic strategy plans are developed by special committees set up by the Prime Minister and chaired jointly by the Ministers of Finance and of Trade and Industry, with the participation of other ministers -- for instance, a Committee on the Future Economy convened in January 2016 to develop economic strategies for the next decade. Around 9000 stakeholders were consulted in this process. The Committee submitted its report to the PM in Feb 2017. National economic strategy and planning in Singapore is fully driven by government on the basis of broad public consultations.
Too bad that, since the time of the tandem Mansoor/ Sithanen, the Ministry of Finance has not succeeded in overcoming its allergy to the emergence of a rival ministry or agency manned by high calibre economists -- not accountants -- involved in the formulation and the monitoring of policies and programmes. Both proposals were torpedoed yet again.
