The proposed Maurice Strategie as a public body will likely mean more waste of public resources, and a pointless exercise to strengthen Govt’s economic planning function.
As regards its research and analysis, Maurice Strategie will no doubt publish even more glowing economic reports and economic propaganda, in Mauritius Broadcasting Corporation style. Its economic reports are sharply at odds with the views of our most of independent economists, and contrast strongly with country assessments published by international financial institutions like the IMF or the World Bank. It has so far failed to impress Moody’s, the credit agency, to upgrade Mauritius from its demotion to close to junk grade status, for which this Govt’s reckless fiscal policies are responsible.
On the added economic planning objective, Maurice Strategie is also bound to fail, mainly for two reasons :
Firstly, because the evidence has shown that putting planning together with finance does not work. Planning requires a long-term perspective, which is often eclipsed by short term budgetary and other fiscal considerations. Planning and budgeting are two different activities. National planning is essentially about realizing a development vision for stronger economic growth and poverty reduction. It requires the coordination and implementation of appropriate policies to guide the allocation of resources towards long-term development goals. Budgeting and public financial management, which is the main function of a ministry of finance, focuses more on how effectively resources are used rather than their allocation. Separating planning from budgeting gives more needed weight to longer term considerations.
Secondly, Maurice Strategie as a research and planning bureau is inadequately structured and too weak to support proper and effective planning. Even the most well- conceived national development plan will deliver little development impact, if insufficient attention is paid to implementation, co-ordination, monitoring and evaluation. Implementing a national plan requires a focus on the alignment of sectoral policies, programmes and projects with the overall strategic objectives of the plan. This requires the planning body to be adequately structured to ensure overall coordination, monitoring and evaluation, and also conferred with the authority to ensure policy consistency across various ministries and Govt bodies. This is why, in South Africa, strategic planning was transferred from the Treasury to the Department of Planning, Monitoring and Evaluation, under the President’s office. Bostwana also has a similar National Strategy Office at the level of the President.
There have been several attempts in Mauritius to review the planning and strategy process for improved development impact. Govt embarked on national planning soon after independence, with proven results. The Labor- MMM Government also set up a National Policy Unit in 1995 under PM’s office, headed by Dr Milan Meetarbhan. Following the global spread of ideas in favour of economic liberalization and the emergence of the Washington consensus, the role of economic planning became less important, and a greater emphasis was placed on strengthening the functioning of markets. As a result, the economic planning ministry in many developing countries was either dissolved or merged with finance ministries. Mauritius also merged its economic planning and finance ministry in 2003.
However, the need for long term economic strategic planning continued to be strongly felt, and in 2014, a Strategic Policy Unit was set up in the Prime Minister’s Office to support national planning objectives. In 2015, the new Govt formulated a “Vision 2030 Blueprint” and set up a “Vision 2030 High Powered Committee” to give strategic direction and oversight, and facilitate collaboration for the elaboration and implementation of the Blueprint. A proposal for a Strategic Policy and Planning Department (SPPD) in the Prime Minister’s Office was put forward.
The SPPD would have been well structured to lead and implement a national strategy plan, but the proposal was abandoned in favour of entrusting strategic economic planning to the newly formed Economic Development Board in 2017. The EDB’s planning remained almost totally unfulfilled, except for setting up Maurice Strategie as an arm for Govt economic propaganda. And now this Bill is seemingly trying to revive the planning function by converting Maurice Strategie into a public body under the Ministry of Finance, Economic Planning and Development.
The Maurice Strategie Board is also being slightly enlarged to allow for broader public participation. It will include a representative of academia, and of the private sector, but remains largely composed of public officials connected to the Ministry of Finance. A Strategic Advisory Council is also proposed to provide expert guidance and advice to the Board and make recommendations in respect of long-term strategic plans. Its 9-member Board will also allow for broader participation, but the 6 non-official members will be appointed by the Minister of Finance, which hardly guarantees their independence. More positions for the boys!
There does not seem to be any value added in the changes brought by this Bill to Maurice Strategie private company. Its research output has not contributed to boost the credibility of Govt’s economic projections. Maybe Govt hopes, by these changes, to raise its profile and enhance its influence on the public and international view of economic performance. Putting Maurice Strategie under the Prime Minister’s office rather than a glorified public body under the thumbprint of the Ministry of Finance would have better achieved this objective. In any case, a revived future for planning in Mauritius will remain non-existent, despite this Bill.
It is indeed ironic that the Ministry of Finance is seeking to enhance its planning role, while it has failed miserably in ensuring a more efficient allocation of budgetary resources. Program based budgeting was introduced by a Labour Government precisely for this purpose in 2007/8, and Mauritius was regarded as and a model of efficient public financial management for other African countries. In 2015, the new MSM regime abolished program based budgeting without reason and justification. No wonder that the country has since witnessed such a wide misuse and inefficient allocation of public funds. Good planning goes hand in hand with a good use of public money. Reviving planning is complementary to efficient budgeting.
Another reprehensible and equally retrograde measure was the abolition of the National and Economic Council, which only reflects the lack of this Govt’s consideration for the participation of the private sector, trade unions, and civil society in national decision making and strategic thinking. The NESDC produced some excellent papers. Ministers were invited to put across their policies and cross examined. Of course there was no obligation but it was good to appear before the NESDC. It did not pay lip service to the Government of the day.
More recently, there has been a global shift in the assessment of the Washington consensus and a resurging importance of national economic planning, under the name of Industrial Policy. Among the reasons for a renewed focus on planning is the obvious need to address market failure on climate issues. Govt need to steer structural transformation towards sustainable energy production. The global trading system is being undermined by new geopolitical and national security issues. Mauritius like many other countries need to review their import dependence, especially for critical goods and services, including food and vaccines. While fully supporting markets to thrive as a facilitating role, Govt must also act as a mover, shaper, and enabler.
This Bill does little to enhance the role of strategy and planning in furthering our development.
