Special Issue on public sector enhancement in Pacific Island states

Abstract

This editorial introduction sets the scene for the analyses in the following research articles. It identifies several significant challenges facing the public sectors of Pacific Island states. The challenges are universal, while being especially pressing in Island countries with limited resource bases and circumstances mostly of geographical smallness and spread which affect administrative capacities for fostering essential socio-economic development. The states whose public sector arrangements are addressed in the articles are the Cook Islands, Papua New Guinea, Vanuatu, the Solomon Islands, and Samoa.

Keywords:

• public sectors
• governance
• public sector enhancement
• public sector reform
• performance management
• Pacific Island states

Introduction

This Special Issue comprises edited versions of papers presented by scholars and practitioners at a symposium on the development of public sectors in Pacific Island states held at Victoria University in Wellington, New Zealand, in August 2018. The symposium focused on several of the most significant challenges confronting public sectors in the region, including the determination of an appropriate size, scope and form; the capacity to design, implement and evaluate public policy; the ability to coordinate organisations within government, vertically and horizontally; the relations between ministers and senior public servants as the political-administrative interface; the management of information and knowledge in the digital era of e-government and e-governance; the management of performance and the role of oversight bodies concerning efficiency, effectiveness, integrity and accountability; and the engagement with regional and global public policy networks comprising inter-governmental and international organisations. The underlying presumption was, and remains, that comprehensive responses to the issues and concerns inherent in these challenges will result in improved public sector performance in the design and delivery of essential goods and services for the citizens of Pacific Island countries.

The challenges have universal significance, as testified by public sector reform developments in other parts of the world (Pal & Ireland, 2009). Farazmand (2007), for example, categorises late-twentieth century developments as having been from bureaucratisation to de-bureaucratisation, from centralisation to de-centralisation, and from nationalisation to privatisation. Such developments are partly evident in Pacific Island states, but have not been researched and analysed in depth. As Gulrajani and Moloney (2011, p. 78) argue, “Administrative studies of the global South have fractured into a small-scale, disparate, noncumulative, descriptive, and non-comparative field dominated by researchers with Northern institutional affiliations.”

In response, most of the articles in this Special Issue are authored by Pacific Island practitioners and scholars, including former members of parliament and government, and senior public servants. All are acutely aware of the socio-economic development challenges facing their countries and, accordingly, share their critiques freely and frankly as much-needed contributions to the scarce literature on the public sectors of Pacific Island countries.

Challenges in perspective

Concern for the size and capability of the public sector in Pacific Island countries is not new. A workshop on Making government more effective: public sector reform in the South Pacific held in Fiji in 1993 concluded that reform required a clear purpose, effective communication, planning and management, adequate training and staff development, successful implementation, and effective evaluation (World Bank & Institute of Social and Administrative Studies, 1993, pp. viii-ix). In 2000, and again in 2003, the United Nations and partners hosted regional conferences on governance in the Pacific. These events have since been complemented by other forums and assessments, such as the periodic meetings of the Pacific Public Services Commissioners Conference, the work of the Pacific Islands Centre of Public Administration (PICPA) at the University of the South Pacific in Fiji, the regular Forum Economic Ministers Meetings sponsored by the Pacific Islands Forum, and the activities of the Asian Development Bank (ADB, 2009, 2010a, 2010b, 2010c, 2015). All have generated valuable discussion and debate about issues and challenges of governance and reform, but often with only limited follow-through in terms of action.

The ADB (2009) has been critical of the capacity of Pacific Island governments to manage reforms in an ongoing, systematic manner while, at the same time, pushing them to downsize the administrative machinery on which they are dependent for advice and support. By contrast, the World Bank (2014) has emphasised public sector quality rather than quantity. It realises that, although large public sectors are often a source of concern, the constraints of geography genuinely limit the scope for private sector-led employment creation. Accordingly, since public sectors will most likely continue to be the largest employers for the foreseeable future, it believes that it is more useful to focus on their productivity rather than on seeking to reduce the number of public sector jobs. The important issue is not whether public sectors are too big and crowding out the private sector, but whether they are working efficiently and improving the quality of services being delivered to citizens (World Bank, 2014).

Ideas about what constitutes public policy, along with the capacities and practices required, differ from one Pacific Island state to another. Most government departments need a policy unit capable of policy research, analysis, communication and evaluation. They also need facilities to store policy knowledge and retrieve it as required, thus linking policy capability with ICT capability, knowledge management, and the development of institutional memories. Once adequate policy processes are in place, results-oriented performance can inform innovation and improvement. Without the domestic ability to generate policy position,, policies have been more influenced by international development partners and agendas than by domestic governments and their officials (Aiafi, 2015).

Approaches to policy design, implementation and evaluation require coordination, vertically within public sector agencies and horizontally across them. This makes it particularly important to have effective central agencies with coordinative responsibilities and authority to drive the necessary communication and cooperation. Command and control processes usually need to be complemented by network-based modes of coordination and collaboration involving all types of public sector agencies to avoid duplication in the fostering of policy and strategic directions in government.

While public service commissions have been established to serve the human resource needs of governments, they also need a measure of independence from them and their day-to-day political commitments. The details of this complex relationship have to be worked out in each country to suit its particular circumstances. Institutional failures in this regard generally commence at the political level, with parliaments often paying less attention than necessary to ensuring that the commissions are able to maintain appropriate degrees of operational autonomy in government.

Despite the existence of cabinet manuals in some systems specifying the respective roles, responsibilities and privileges of ministers and public servants, there are still situations in which political-administrative relationships remain unclear. This is an important reason why the strengthening of public sector institutions must commence with the articulation of rules clarifying the roles of political leaders and senior public sector officials. Devoid of appropriate forms of independence, public services can quickly become instruments of politics and patronage rather than of good government and, in doing so, put the reputation of the entire public sector at risk. Issues requiring attention include the methods by which senior officials are appointed, their tenure in office, and the bases of their re-appointment or removal.

Most of the challenges addressed increasingly depend on the use of ICT in the operation of government (Cullen & Hassall, 2017). Digital government, when properly planned, can deliver improved public services and help overcome inequalities in access. In general, Island states have focused thus far on hardware and connectivity, and are yet to clarify their ICT goals or establish whole-of-government machinery, let alone articulate a vision for e-government. While responses vary between states, many government organisations are cautious in sharing information among themselves, and are even less ready to share it with the public, such that many reviews of organisational programmes and projects remain internal documents. One of the results of withholding information can be mistrust and misunderstanding between government and non-government actors. If access-for-all frameworks could be adopted, new technologies will expand the flow of information, with digital government holding promise of greater transparency and accountability for government actions and a wider distribution of services to stakeholders, whether in government, business, or the community

When Pacific Island governments refer to performance management, a range of purposes can be intended. There can be emphasis on the performance of organisations as a whole, of particular organisations, or of individuals. Responsibility for the assessment of performance has to be assigned, and a set of incentives and disincentives established and communicated. Performance is audited not only by organisations themselves, but also by such accountability institutions and agencies as parliaments, auditors-general and ombudsmen, as well as by the media, civil society, and development partners. If performance is not monitored, assessed and responded to accordingly, perverse incentives can creep into the public sector culture. Political leaders need to understand that the operation of oversight institutions act as a protection for themselves, for those who work in the public sector, and for the public interest.

The steady rise in the number and capacity of regional inter-governmental organisations has increased the focus on issues of public sector integrity and values. Agencies of the Council of Regional Agencies of the Pacific have articulated governance values for the region. In 2003, for example, the Pacific Islands Forum produced the Forum Principles of Accountability, which drew on standards developed by the International Monetary Fund to develop a biennial stock-take of the implementation of leadership codes and principles of accountability presented to the biennial Forum Economic Ministers Meeting (FEMM) (Pacific Islands Forum Secretariat, 2014). Included are standards and procedures for budget processes and the preparation of accounts of government departments and statutory bodies; for loan agreements and contract tendering; for financial reporting; and for the operation of public accounts committees, auditors-general, ombudsmen, and central banks.

The current Framework for Pacific Regionalism (Pacific Islands Forum Secretariat, 2014) defines Pacific regionalism as “The expression of a common sense of identity and purpose, leading progressively to the sharing of institutions, resources, and markets, with the purpose of complementing national efforts, overcoming common constraints, and enhancing sustainable and inclusive development within Pacific countries and territories and for the Pacific region as a whole”. The framework seeks to set out “a robust process through which regional priorities will be identified and implemented.”

In addition to the articulation of public sector values at the regional level, Pacific Island governments are making increasingly significant global commitments through engagement with global governance agencies and policy and diplomatic networks. Trans-national policy engagement on an array of matters – trade, health, customs, security, finance and banking, environment and climate change, transport and communications, science, technology and agriculture, education, and anticorruption – requires ever-growing expectations around preparation, monitoring for compliance, and reporting. Examples include commitments to adaptation measures under the UNFCCC climate change commitments; the implementation of multi-partner platforms developed through the UN’s Small Island Development States (SIDS) initiative; and the even more expansive Global Partnership for Sustainable Development comprising the 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Of particular relevance is SDG Goal 16, “Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions”, the targets for which relate directly to public sector functioning and performance, They include promoting the rule of law at the national and international levels; substantially reducing corruption and bribery in all their forms; developing effective, accountable and transparent institutions at all levels; providing legal identity for all; and ensuring public access to information (UNGA, 2015).

In 2017, the Commonwealth Secretariat presented Pacific leaders with a report entitled A Sustainable Future for Small States that included policy advice (directed at the Commonwealth-aligned states but with relevance also to non-Commonwealth states) concerning the SDGs, political governance, development effectiveness and coordination, ocean governance, ICT, migration and climate change, and sustainable energy (Katafono, 2017). The importance of cultivating public sector capacity to deliver enhanced results in each of these areas of activity cannot be overstated. Status quo performance is not generating sufficient economic growth, nor an improvement in human development indicators. A deterioration in government performance is not desirable, but remains a possibility. The option of transformation is normatively preferable, but difficult to operationalise. The phrase “small but smart” (Prasad, 2009) is particularly apt. Being smart implies applying ICT to the production of information and knowledge societies. Being sustainable implies adapting the cost of government to the resources available (Hassall, 2017, pp. 108–109).

Analyses ahead

The articles that follow address important approaches to public sector enhancement in the Cook Islands, Papua New Guinea, Vanuatu, the Solomon Islands, and Samoa. The governments in all of these states have sought pathways towards improved public sector responses to the persistent challenges of public governance, management and administration in small Island states of the Pacific. Reform has been a common theme, comprising a variety of measures and emphases. There has been a keen appreciation of the importance of performance management and assessment, and of the associated need for greater policy and administrative coordination in government. While the results have not always accorded with expectations, the political and administrative will to succeed has normally existed, coupled with a clear acknowledgement of the considerable challenges still to be embraced and met by all involved.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.