Public sector reforms
Education in Fiji – Part II
Last week, we started a brand-new series on education in Fiji with a focus on comparing what used to be and what we have now. The aim is to use the then-and-now framework to help identify shortcomings and propose improvements so that the quality of education and consequently the quality of graduates improves over time. We began the series by pointing out that researchers have linked this deterioration in quality of education, quality of graduates and the incursion of mediocrity throughout the education system on a range of factors that are linked to reforms that continue to be implemented in the education sector.
Then we went through a cursory overview of the whole public sector reform “program” of which education reforms is just a part. I said that these neo-liberal reforms were ill thought-out and non-contextualised leading to mixed results at best. Three significant developments took place in the education sector. One, education began to be viewed as a commodity. Two, students were now seen as customers. And three, the business model began to be used in the decisionmaking processes in the education sector. A number of readers have asked me to expand further on the particulars and peculiarities of the reform wave so that we are able to contextual the discussions better. So, here goes.
Public sector reforms – the background
REFORMS in how the public sector is managed has been primarily focused on structures, decisionmaking and performance. The passage to new public management-informed reforms from the late 1970s onwards is linked to policies adopted after World War II ended in 1945 and the subsequent alarm emanating from the burgeoning global debt crisis of the 1970s. Followers of history will recall that post-war reconstruction sucked up unprecedented amounts of funds. Most of this funding came from external sources. The Marshall Plan that helped kickoff the reconstruction of a devastated Europe was primarily funded by the US. The same happened in Asia. These reconstruction efforts had to be complemented with internal funds later.
There was another worldwide phenomenon that followed WWII – decolonisation. India was the first major British colony to wrest its freedom against a reluctant British aristocracy who wanted to maintain the British Raj no matter what the cost. The problem was that the colonial coffers had run dry because of the war and external (US) funding was desperately needed for reconstruction. After India, a wave of new nations arose in the 1950s and ‘60s as the decolonisation process speeded up. This was particularly pronounced in the African continent as hugely popular charismatic leaders led their countries to independence. Names like Kwame Nkrumah (Ghana), Julius Nyarere (Tanzania), Kenneth Kaunda (Zambia), Daniel Moi (Kenya), Seretse Khama (Botswana), Mobutu Sese Seko (Zaire), etc. dot the historical landscape of the independence movement in Africa.
With this emergence of new nations, establishing a new world order became a key concern. These new nations also had to be supported towards adopting, maintaining and supporting pro-Western democratic regimes. Aid, trade, foreign investment and strategic alliances became key cogs in the new model for international governance. These aid flows had to be complemented with the development of internal industries through considerable foreign investments. Internally generated revenues, however, often fell short in meeting the ever-increasing demands of the populace. The ruling regimes of newly independent states on the other hand, began to acquire a taste for the accoutrements of power. Thus, capitalist largesse and creeping corruption diverted much needed funds from societally focused national projects to wasteful escapades and opulent fancies for the ruling elite.
This put pressures on the ever-increasing needs of the general population as internally created wealth was not translating into individual and family wellbeing as expected. Thus, a parallel concern at the time became funding for affected citizens who were either homeless, jobless or both. This meant that considerable monies had to be channeled into social welfare programs. These programs grew as migration
to developed countries gained momentum in the aftermath of the war. This helped developing economies to some extent. On the other hand, governments’ immediate economic development concerns meant that major capital projects had to be prioritised as a key strategy for generating economic growth. This created an ever-increasing dependence on foreign capital that was to later spiral into the debt crisis of the 1970s.
Investment in domestic industries produced mixed results with foreign investment profits being repatriated seemingly unfairly. The bulk of these investments were flighty. Those that had some form of long-term presence were largely concentrated in agriculture and mining – tourism came later. Fiji experienced the same in gold and sugar. As economic development see-sawed in the “new” developing world, maintenance of political popularity for ruling regimes meant that governments had to assume a more assertive leading role in generating economic growth and creating employment. In academia, development economics ascended to a new pedestal. The end result was that government became the biggest employer, social welfare programs became a necessary part of governing and foreign aid became an integral part of the economic policy mix.
With policy focus on government-led growth, the government bureaucracy (public service) grew almost on its own volition as bureaucrats lobbied for ever-increasing shares of the national budget. The justification was primarily focused on meeting the growing needs of the public. The more successful bureaucrats were the ones who were most adept at attracting funds to their ministries. Over time, they acquired both an aura and reality of permanence. These public officials are referred to as ‘Mandarins” in the literature on public administration. The word comes from old China and is used to refer to “a powerful official or senior bureaucrat, especially one perceived as reactionary and secretive”. The public official indeed, operated out of the public eye and decisions made by the public bureaucracy was often considered final. The end result was an ever-growing bureaucracy on which the public invariably relied for important services.
In the meantime, mixed economic growth rates meant that employment creation was not adequate to meet the growing needs of graduates from training and educational institutions. The government bureaucracy was simply unable to meet the employment needs of the country without parallel growth in the private sector. I remember how the Alliance Government in Fiji followed this very same path and faced the very same problems. The situation became particularly acute as the world economy went through a prolonged recession in the 1980s as a follow-on from the debt crisis of the 1970s. Ratu Sir Kamisese Mara had to impose an unprecedented and unexpected wage freeze at the end of 1984 in order to curtail government expenditure as it became clear that the bloated public bureaucracy could not be financially sustained anymore.
In 1985, three important developments followed this drastic decision: the Fiji Labour Party was born; there were strikes by the unions; and there was a full-stop on the growth of the bureaucracy. This meant that the civil service was not going to take any more recruits unless absolutely necessary. I remember how graduate teachers from USP were devastated with the announcement that they were no longer guaranteed employment even though they had studied for 5-6 years under government scholarships. They were told to join a Volunteer Service Scheme at a fraction of the pay expected for teachers. Existing teachers walked off their jobs on February 28, 1985 amid frantic efforts to come to a deal. I, as a student leader, was part of a group that marched and went on hunger strike. This “student” strike broke/ended after government began to take them in slowly.
I have to end this article here because of space constraints. The key points made here are that economic growth imperatives, dependence on foreign aid, increasing demands of growing populations, the need for employment creation and unpredictable benefits from foreign investment meant that government-led growth became the policy instrument of choice. This, however, could not be sustained over time as the public service became bloated and foreign funding virtually dried up in relative terms. Thus, there was need for a drastic re-think on the role of government and the hitherto unrealised potential of the private sector. I will develop this further next week. A big thank you to those who wrote to me about the last article. Please continue to provide feedback and input so that we can improve the quality of these writings. Sa moce mada.