𝟏. The PRB award is supposed to be a combination of compensation for the loss of purchasing power and for the improvement in the productivity of the public sector worker.
Despite the introduction of the Programme Based Budget (PBB) framework which focusses on organisational performance and a performance management system (PMS) focussing on individual performance, PRB awards are not based on performance, on the increase in the productivity of workers. Why ?
Because the link between PBB and the civil service PMS has remained weak, and the civil service has resisted the implementation of a PMS that would hold them responsible and accountable for performance.
A PBB, when properly implemented with an effective monitoring and evaluation process, does confer greater accountability and transparency to fiscal management and helps us to build a more performance-oriented civil service. It would have meant a shift in the whole public sector 𝙛𝙧𝙤𝙢 𝙖 𝙘𝙪𝙡𝙩𝙪𝙧𝙚 𝙤𝙛 𝙖𝙙𝙢𝙞𝙣𝙞𝙨𝙩𝙧𝙖𝙩𝙞𝙤𝙣 𝙩𝙤 𝙖 𝙘𝙪𝙡𝙩𝙪𝙧𝙚 𝙤𝙛 𝙧𝙚𝙨𝙪𝙡𝙩𝙨.
A real PBB and PMS would thus have provided a basis to justify the PRB awards relative to the service delivery / productivity of government workers. Ministers would have been held equally answerable before Parliament and the general public for the achievement of the PBB strategic objectives.
PBB execution difficulties should not be underestimated. It takes years to change the budgetary process to make PBB effective, including the overall public service culture. PBB has already failed once.
We do not expect much from the newly formulated (see Chp 7 of the PRB report Vol 1) Integrated Performance Management Framework (IPMF) for the implementation of a Results-Oriented Performance Management System (ROPMS) in the Public Sector, through an integrated approach by synergising the Performance-Based Budgeting and the Performance Management System. It is just a renaming process ; it is likely to suffer the same fate as the earlier PMS.
𝑶𝒖𝒓 𝑪𝒊𝒗𝒊𝒍 𝒔𝒆𝒓𝒗𝒊𝒄𝒆 𝒉𝒂𝒔 𝒂 𝒔𝒕𝒓𝒐𝒏𝒈, 𝒆𝒔𝒕𝒂𝒃𝒍𝒊𝒔𝒉𝒆𝒅 𝒄𝒖𝒍𝒕𝒖𝒓𝒆 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝒃𝒖𝒓𝒆𝒂𝒖𝒄𝒓𝒂𝒕𝒊𝒄 𝒊𝒏𝒆𝒓𝒕𝒊𝒂, 𝒘𝒉𝒊𝒄𝒉 𝒉𝒂𝒔 𝒍𝒆𝒂𝒅 𝒕𝒐 𝒔𝒊𝒈𝒏𝒊𝒇𝒊𝒄𝒂𝒏𝒕 𝒓𝒆𝒔𝒊𝒔𝒕𝒂𝒏𝒄𝒆 𝒇𝒓𝒐𝒎 𝒔𝒕𝒂𝒇𝒇 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝒎𝒂𝒏𝒂𝒈𝒆𝒎𝒆𝒏𝒕 𝒘𝒉𝒆𝒏 𝒕𝒓𝒂𝒏𝒔𝒊𝒕𝒊𝒐𝒏𝒊𝒏𝒈 𝒇𝒓𝒐𝒎 𝒕𝒓𝒂𝒅𝒊𝒕𝒊𝒐𝒏𝒂𝒍 𝒃𝒖𝒅𝒈𝒆𝒕𝒊𝒏𝒈 𝒑𝒓𝒂𝒄𝒕𝒊𝒄𝒆𝒔 𝒕𝒐 𝑷𝑩𝑩.
Do you expect our politicians with their SCEs and PSs voluntarily implementing policies or take actions that are self-disadvantageous or damaging to their own careers or interests?
That’s why we have been arguing that reviving the PBB without the assistance of international and experienced professional consultants would be a futile endeavour.
𝟐. The PRB is an outdated institution. The country needs a more up-to-date National Resource Commission or Council (NRC). An NRC could intervene to re-allocate our resources, giving a new orientation towards our vision of a Mts realising its different hubs- services-based knowledge hubs, Fintech , AI driven hubs or any other hubs that are more fashionable these days. This means that we should be privileging first of all our STEM graduates, researchers, innovators, IT , AI specialists and the science-oriented professions, the new skills over administrators – FS, PSs & SCEs.
The more crucial the jobs for our new horizons of Vision 2050 , the higher the salaries or the allowances and the greater the need for innovation and creativity needed for a job, the higher the pay packet- IT programmers, lecturers, scientific officers and researchers etc. In specialised fields, we need to offer substantial pay packages to address the shortage of AI experts, neurosurgeons, geriatricians and others.
𝑰𝒇 𝒘𝒆 𝒘𝒂𝒏𝒕 𝒕𝒐 𝒍𝒆𝒂𝒑-𝒇𝒓𝒐𝒈 𝒕𝒐 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝒏𝒆𝒘 𝒉𝒐𝒓𝒊𝒛𝒐𝒏𝒔 𝒃𝒆𝒊𝒏𝒈 𝒖𝒏𝒓𝒂𝒗𝒆𝒍𝒆𝒅 𝒃𝒚 𝑽𝒊𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 2050, 𝒘𝒆 𝒎𝒖𝒔𝒕 𝒃𝒖𝒊𝒍𝒅 𝒖𝒑 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝒓𝒊𝒈𝒉𝒕 𝒊𝒏𝒔𝒕𝒊𝒕𝒖𝒕𝒊𝒐𝒏𝒔 now 𝒕𝒐 allocate 𝒂𝒏𝒅 direct 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝒓𝒆𝒔𝒐𝒖𝒓𝒄𝒆𝒔 𝒕𝒐𝒘𝒂𝒓𝒅𝒔 𝒕𝒉𝒆𝒔𝒆 𝒉𝒐𝒓𝒊𝒛𝒐𝒏𝒔.
