Date: 24 Nov 2009
Publication: Sunday Independent Business
Date: Sunday, November 22, 2009
Author: Pat Gibbons
Headline: SHORT VIEW
As the enormity of the budgetary challenge is realised and crystallises around the figure of 4bn Euro, anticipation of similar cuts in coming years has produced calls for significant public sector reform.
The McCarthy report identifies, in a forensic manner, potential reductions in spending across programmes. However, the scale of adjustments required in future years fundamental challenges many of the orthodoxies about the size, shape and role of “government”. Developing a strategy around public service delivery will require that government is clear about the choices and trade-offs it makes in the context of restoring competitiveness and ultimately, living standards.
One strategic lesson that the current crisis has taught us is that resolving choices with “both-and” solutions is more difficult and less sustainable than “either-or” solutions. The HSE was established both to ensure effectiveness and efficiency and to maintain employment levels at the pre-HSE level. Third-level fees were abolished both to improve access and (presumably) to maintain or improve academic achievement.
Thus, while discussions of reform focus on flexibility and the enhanced deployment of technology to provide efficiency, a more fundamental and challenging agenda around the nature of decision-making is critically required.
An earlier round of public sector reform introduced the strategic management initiative, which challenged public agencies to think through their missions and the relative efficacy of programmes’ contributions to mission achievement.
The requirement now is to question the fundamental roles of our government departments and public agencies as they relate to each other, and the imperative of developing a competitive, sustainable, and equitable society.
Patrick Gibbons is Professor of Strategic Management and Associate Dean at UCD Business School.