सिध्द विचार

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.

“Anything that pays stays” is a quite thought provoking statement. It assigns a price tag to things that are often taken for granted. Price is usually worth its utility, which changes over time to balance the demand supply equilibrium. In a similar analogy a government stays longer if it fulfils the aspiration of people, majority of them, over time. Singapore is one such country to emulate from. This isn’t an impossible proposition in Nepal but only if the government comes clean and committed.

Whatever said and done, Maoists made it to where they are today by selling hopes. The time for reality check has begun. People pleasing cosmetic changes in short term with poor foundation cannot stand their own weight in the long run therefore fail to stay longer. A party with regimented approach has better chance of delivering promises than argumentative and principle based. A trained architect, a Maoist ideologue, who is known so far for designing armed battles than modern cities, is on the helm of Nepal’s economy. Can he transform this south Asian laggard having abundant resources and location advantage? Sure he can if has right strategy and will to act upon.

Government alone cannot deliver is no more a secret. There is no better option than to mobilize the private resources and expertise. All you need to do is to ensure security of investment and sell your economic dreams in the marketplace of rich just as you sold the hopes to your followers from the poverty trap. Do not only make the natural resources a political issue but see them through the economic lens. Water from Himalayas has been flowing since ages but Nepali’s have barely shared its benefits. Nepal is shortest land link between two population billionaires but she neither has good roads nor efficient border access. Visit Raxual in South and Tatopani in North to find out there cannot be more difficult conditions for trade between the countries.

The incumbent finance minister has time and again repeated that public private partnership [PPP] is the basis of his economic policy. Kudos he is on a right track. But whether Nepalese economy will crawl or leapfrog will depend on how PPPs will be implemented. Remember the failures in the past were not lack of policies but poor implementation. Also that PPP is not panacea for all the ills but a tool for improving service delivery, enterprise development and infrastructure building. Furthermore, partnering is as much a science as it is an art. Success depends on how a partnership is structured among the partners and what is the objective of partnering.

Although PPP appears to be a handy tool for development and also sends out private sector friendly signals one wrong move will jeopardize the trust in the government policy and its capabilities. Success of PPPs will also depend on the ability of the government to generate interest from the private sector. This depends on how quickly the government will make decisions having financial and economic implications. In Nepal, so far, such decisions are sole discretion of the ministry of finance. Therefore, to begin with all ministries should have a PPP desk while the finance ministry should establish a high level PPP cell coordinated by a senior ranking official and PPP advisor reporting directly to the minister.