There couldn’t have been better time to organize a symposium on public private partnership in October 2008 in Nepal. While the bastions of free market capitalism are under pressure to inject public money into the private banks, Maoists are hell bent on strategically repositioning themselves in the middle path. None disagrees to the apparent benefits of public private partnership. Be it a tool for bureaucratic reforms, expediting private led growth or keeping control of vote banks. Prachanda who once favored businessmen, spared rather, as long as they paid his party the ransom his cadres demanded ‘voluntarily’ was gung ho about making public private partnerships successful under his premiership. So were the paper presenters, moderators, organizers and curious participants. A perfect marketing success to avail the highest level of political as well as administrative support!
But the people often have sort memories. Taking a cue from the past experiences is vital to keep the success alive. A shuffle in the bureaucracy or the cabinet will wipe out the achievements almost instantly. While the participants largely remain the same, re-educating the new set of top guns would require same effort, energy and resources. Therefore, keeping the dialogue momentum alive is the key to reap the benefits of the symposium. Else such initiatives face danger of becoming ‘talk shops’ in which key stakeholders will lose interest- a reverse gear to PPP development.
While keeping the dialogue going is the key, who does this and how it is done is equally important. There are benefits and risks of taking charge. Both the public and private sector are ill equipped to take this forward by themselves, as none have the required institutional set up nor the expertise and resources. While the donors are best suited to handhold in terms of resources and skill transfer for few years, a donor itself running the project is least likely to be effective. Not because donor’s capabilities are questionable but as the experience has the stakeholders usually take donor run programs as their agenda than recipient’s. Much energy is lost in exposure visits for the focal points. Performing under political correctness takes its toll.
Private sector associations might contend to take the agenda forward but they tend to be mistrusted by their own employee unions. As a result, it calls for an independent institution managed by expert facilitators, who has expertise in brokering partnership ideas amongst diverse groups ranging from public sector, business associations, civil society as well as enterprises. In addition to these fundamental capabilities, the institution that works around economic issues and promoting private led economic growth is a better choice.
Initial phase of partnership is going to be advocacy and consensus building to create necessary enabling environment leading to legislative, institutional changes so that next phase of implementation is made possible. Advocacy and consensus building are more effective if there is a clear understanding among the stakeholders why such things are needed in the first place. To make public private partnership a vehicle for fast track economic development it needs to be considered in a whole package than in pieces. Any policy changes proposed or made in this phase will have far reaching implications. Therefore, it is important that the dialogue should be as inclusive as possible. For example, if labor laws are proposed to be changed it is not only industrialists that need to be consulted but the labor unions and their respective political affiliations should also be heard.
सिध्द विचार 