WARNING: This is Version 1 of my old archive, so Photos will NOT work and many links will NOT work. But you can find articles by searching on the Titles. There is a lot of information in this archive. Use the SEARCH BAR at the top right. Prior to December 2012; I was a pro-Christian type of Conservative. I was unaware of the mass of Jewish lies in history, especially the lies regarding WW2 and Hitler. So in here you will find pro-Jewish and pro-Israel material. I was definitely WRONG about the Boeremag and Janusz Walus. They were for real.
Original Post Date: 2010-11-30 Time: 16:00:04 Posted By: News Poster
By Sindiso Ngwenya
IN reviewing the role of think-tanks and other institutions, it is advisable that the issue is examined from two angles – – the nation state level and the regional level.
Anecdotal comparisons of the practice of developed and other developing economies with the African countries enable me to draw some lessons on why perhaps Africa is devoid of innovations in public policy.
Africa is a receptacle, not a generator, of philosophical and development paradigms that may not be relevant or appropriate to the subjective and objective conditions of the Comesa region in particular and Africa in general.
In most countries, think tanks, research institutions and universities do not contribute to the formulation of public policy. This is because of the lack of appreciation by policy makers of the contribution that these institutions can make to objective and holistic public policy; seeing these institutions as academic only and so are not directly linked to national development; and perceiving them to be antagonistic to national governments when they critique public policy.
This explains why national governments may not contract these institutions to review public policies and make recommendations.
As a result of these attitudes, foreign think tanks and institutions have a preponderant influence on public policy in Africa. This may explain why Africa has more foreign consultants working with and in public institutions in the twenty-first century than at the time of independence.
The lack of government support to national think tanks and comparable institutions shows a lacunae in good governance. The post independent nation state has a feeling of insecurity that independent think tanks may undermine its attempts in nation building.
The result is that the only voices to be heard are those that sing praises to government public policy even if it is unable to realise the policy objectives. This unfortunate situation is compounded by the preference of some governments to seek advice from foreign experts.
The “I know all attitude” by experts from multilateral and regional financial institutions and donors with financial muscle has resulted in most governments being accountable to those who provide funding rather than their electorate.
This has given rise to the formulation and implementation of public policies that do not address the objective conditions that are specific and unique to each country. Hence, Africa has been in “crisis mode” for the last few decades.
A typical case was the imposition of structural adjustment programmes, enhanced structural adjustment programmes and the poverty reduction strategy programmes on African developing and least-developed countries by the Bretton Woods institutions in the 1980s and 1990s.
The very fact that the descriptions of the programmes keep on changing constitutes an admission that the programmes have not achieved the intended results.
The remark made during the European development days by Mr Dominique Strauss Kahn in Stockholm in 2009 that when he took over the International Monetary Fund he found conditionalities that had nothing to do with solving the identified programme is both refreshing and revealing. In his words, these conditionalities had the perverse effect of unintentionally compounding the problem to be solved.
In most, if not all developed countries and successful developing countries, think-tanks, research institutions and universities play an important role not only in contributing to public policy but as incubators for new scientific applications and innovation as well.
Universities in developed and successful developing countries are not only involved in teaching but have direct links with industry and hold industrial and commercial patents from which they derive royalties.
The students thus have both academic training and practical industry skills and experience. The same think-tanks are involved in medium and long perspective studies which inform policy makers on the basis of scenario analysis and futurism which is based on informed realities and takes multi-dimensional perspectives.
The activities of these think-tanks are not confined to the countries in which they are based but include the global political economy including security issues. In the developed and emerging economies, government and private foundations support think tanks because they have the capacity, in a world of uncertainty, to provide perspectives which can be used for both public policy and for the adoption of strategies and policies by the private sector.
Without exception, think tanks, research institutions and universities in Africa have not been involved in contributing to the discourse of regional integration.
A cursory examination of the treaties establishing regional economic communities reveals that the role of think-tanks was not envisaged by the founding fathers.
This is not accidental in view of the fact at the national level, there is no explicit incorporation of these institutions into policymaking.
Even in cases where think-tanks exist, they are often not funded by their own national governments but by foreign benefactors.
The upshot of this is that the intellectual poverty that characterises public policy at the national level is replicated at the regional level.
This explains the “slavish” adoption and practice of models of economic integration derived from mature market economies. It is an undeniable fact that the challenges facing Comes economies are fundamentally different from those of developed countries socially, economically, structurally and institutionally.
This partly explains why the process of economic integration in the region has not been able to serve as a catalyst for social and economic transformation of national economies.
These are characterised by heterogeneity as evidenced by the triple existence of different economies; namely, enclave economic structures that have elements that are found in developed countries; and informal economies that have been imploding in the past decade and agricultural subsistence economies.
Until and unless governments accept and appreciate that independent critiques from our own African and Comesa independent think tanks and academia is a prerequisite for good political and economic governance, public policy will fail to serve the interests of its citizens.
Those who have occupied the intellectual “high ground” have shaped the course of history.
Some of the policy prescriptions, which have no relevance to local developmental requirements of African countries have been driven by the egos of those who thought they had the right answers and solutions to the development challenges facing the continent.
A poignant reminder of this, is the heated debate between the Bretton Woods institutions and the United Nations Economic Commission for Africa in the 1980s, when the latter articulated an alternative to the structural adjustment programmes.
The same applied to the Uneca programme that was christened the United Nations Transport and Communi-cations Decade for Africa (UNCTADA 1 in 1980s and UNTCDA 2 IN 1990S).
This initiative was rejected by both multilateral financial development agencies and donors who described the infrastructure projects to interconnect African countries as unrealistic, economically unviable and politically driven.
Ironically, at the turn of the 21st century the development paradigm has undergone seismic shifts as evidenced by the European Union-Africa infrastructure programme that is a replica of the ill-fated UNCTADA 1 and 2.
Notwithstanding this new found “wisdom,” there is no guarantee that funds will be available for the development of the infrastructure networks that are desperately needed to interconnect African countries in order to support national development and foster regional integration.
Such challenges require think-tanks and academia to come up with alternative paradigms of development and regional integration.
Paradoxically, the unconventional methods of financing infrastructure development are not coming from Africa but from China in the form of using natural resources to fund infrastructure development.
This innovative method of financing infrastructure development has attracted intense debate from think tanks and academia from outside Africa, who have been joined by some African academics funded from outside the continent.
They have described the model by China as a form of “neo-colonialism.” The critics who belong to countries that have climbed up the development ladder, either suffer from selective amnesia or are ignorant in that they ignore empirical evidence from economic history that their countries used, at the time, unorthodox means to develop infrastructure.
The current preoccupation that infrastructure development within and between countries should be undertaken by the private sector ignores the grim realities in most African countries that the private sector is either weak or has no institutional capacity and capabilities to undertake these mega projects, even if financing was available.
Even the innovative methods of infrastructure provision by China is fundamentally flawed in that countries have not made it a requirement that the projects should be executed on the basis of joint ventures so that the capacity of indigenous contractors are built, and technology and skills transferred.
Rather than blaming development partners, it is high time that Africa accepted that this is due to public policy failure by African States. It is unimaginable that African Think Tanks and academia are silent on these issues.
In developed and emerging economies, think-tanks and academia play an important role in influencing public policy. In the United States, Europe, Latin America and Asia, governments provide generous funding to Think Tanks and take their policy recommendations seriously.
These think tanks and individuals are from time to time even called upon to appear before parliamentary committees.
Societies and economies that have developed have done so on the basis of their subjective and objective conditions, which have been mainstreamed with those aspects of culture from other societies.
It is, however unfortunate, that policy making in most African countries is invariably made by an elite in government with little or no consultation with stakeholders.
Perhaps, there is need to adopt a policy that requires that before a policy is promulgated, it should be published in the form of a “green paper” or discussion paper with invitations for comments and for interested parties to appear before special committees.
This would enable think tanks and other stakeholders to influence public policy. The absence of space for engagement means that there are serious deficiencies in the formulation and implementation of public policies.
Ultimately, the citizens feel short changed and do not have a sense of ownership of programmes that they are supposed to benefit from. This has resulted in the alienation of citizens from social and economic governance.
Africa needs to re-discover those good aspects of the social and cultural systems that can serve as a stimulus for creating “open societies.”
Those are a prerequisite to building coherent modern nation States that can craft public policies which promote sustainable and equitable development.
The author is the Secretary-General of the Common Market For Eastern And Southern Africa (Comesa).
Original Source: 
Published by the government of Zimbabwe
Original date published: 26 November 2010
Source: http://allafrica.com/stories/201011290009.html?viewall=1