The half-built capacity of bureaucracy

In the post-budget presser, the person who appeared the most clueless was the Finance Secretary

In the post-budget presser held by the Adviser on Finance, the person who appeared the most clueless was the Finance Secretary. This was surprising because donors assisting Pakistan’s development ensured from the very beginning that their counterparts learned some “Developmentalese” — the art of repeating what was known rather than absorbing knowledge to adapt and innovate in the desi context. Of course, the counterparts, the elite civil service group entitled to occupy the positions of secretaries, loved it, having already passed the toughest examination in the country. A start was made with specialised short courses, but the desire to outdo professionals led to quick-fix degree programmes encouraged by capacity building support from donors. Universities, including some prestigious ones, accepted these programmes as revenue spinners, but were kept distinct from their mainstream degree programmes. Around mid-1970s, Gustave Papanek, the head of the Harvard Advisory Group in Pakistan during the Ayub Khan era, started a development programme at Boston University. He personally undertook a marketing visit to various economic ministries and provinces in Pakistan. The most important ones among the present economic team are from that programme. I was present in one such meeting in the office of late Hasan Zaheer in the Economic Adviser Wing of the Ministry of Finance. He thought I might be interested, not knowing my disposition. He had just returned from India where he was a prisoner of war (POW). In 1980, I joined the Economics Department of the University of Colorado at Boulder, and wanted to take just one course in development. There was none. However, there was a separate development programme of the Papanek variety for students from Latin America, easy to get in and out. There is now some import substitution as well in developing the culture of “lemons” degree programmes. For instance, I have an MSc in Defence and Strategic Studies just because I spent a few months at the National Defence College as a requirement for promotion to the next grade. As a friend put it, “In the tussle between Social Sciences and Policy Sciences, the latter appears to have an upper hand.” This answers the question Nadeemul Haque keeps asking: “How come so many bureaucrats have foreign degrees, yet capacity seems to decline?”

The capacity also declines when it is not used. Another friend from the elite service did serious doctoral work in agricultural economics abroad. When he returned, unlike some others who chose not to, he wanted to be in a position relevant to his newly developed capacity. His effort to head the provincial agriculture department failed. His wish to be the federal secretary of food security was never granted. So much so that when he offered himself as a member in charge of agriculture in the planning commission, he was not selected. Postings and transfers, instead of being the instrument of effective deployment of human resource, reflect the whims of authority.

Miram al Masri, the well-known Syrian-French writer, hit the nail on the head in an address to the Association of Mozambican Economists in 2003: “The problem with Developmentalese is that it only invites one to think about what has already been thought by others. We are consumers rather than producers of thought. But it wasn’t just a language we invented: a whole army of specialists was created, some of them with curious names.” Back to the Finance Secretary. According to the official website, he holds an MSc in Social Policy and Planning in Developing Countries from the London School of Economics, a curious expertise. His best fit would be the Ehsaas Programme or Poverty Alleviation and Social Safety Division.

Published in The Express Tribune, June 19^th, 2020.

Like Opinion & Editorial on Facebook, follow @ETOpEd on Twitter to receive all updates on all our daily pieces.