Over the past weeks, there has been public discussion about the need to reduce the size of the public sector. This 'debate' usually emerges when there is a challenge in the financing of the national Budget. Given the recurring fiscal crisis, it would seem reasonable to conclude that it is an annual debate occurring about this time each year. Not so. Usually, it is episodic and a little disjointed with more protagonists for the moot 'Cut the public sector now' than those who oppose it.

Apart from the episodic nature, the debate usually reflects a preoccupation with numbers. Little is ever said about quality - the need for institutional enhancement, building a public sector that is able to lead, not merely react to the urgent demands of a developing society in an ever-changing environment. The implosion of the global economy over the last 12 months provides us with a lived experience of what is meant by unplanned and unpredictable change.

Prime Minister Bruce Golding, in his contribution to the Budget Debate, gave us some statistics on the size of the public sector. He indicated that there were 114,792 employees in the entire public sector, comprising 43,242 in central government, 24,544 teachers and 67,886 in the rest of the public sector - public companies, corporations, statutory entities, etc. This, of course, has significant implications for the nation's expenditure budget, with the public displaying little sympathy given the perception that the service is generally unresponsive, inefficient, ineffective and incapable of guiding the country towards development by delivering quality services and enhancing productivity.

Factors

All of this would, on the face of it, confirm the need to reduce the civil service. But this is just prima facie evidence. To make such an informed claim would require further and better particulars. For example, we would benefit from time-series data with the numbers employed in central government over the past 10 years - increases and declines, where growth has taken place, etc. Such comparative information would inform as to any changes in the profile of the public sector - not just central government - this, against the background of several reform interventions that have taken place since the 1980s with the creation of policy ministries, the introduction of citizens' charters, and institutional mechanisms to increase managerial accountability and the devolution of authority.

With liberalisation and globalisation, governments all over the world have assumed more extensive regulatory roles. Jamaica is no different in this regard, with the advent of agencies such as the OUR, the FCC, a raft of anti-corruption entities, financial regulatory agencies, etc. The point is: To what extent have these institutional innovations contributed to a change in the size of the public sector?

We should also be aware that if the international discussions about the learning that needs to take place to prevent the recurrence of the current global crisis are translated into policy action, then we can expect an increase - not a decrease - in regulatory agencies. All of these are important in determining if and how we reduce the public sector.

Another factor to be borne in mind is the need to provide specialist skill sets and competencies within the public sector. This ranges from the more than 570 identified by the prime minister for the health sector, to areas such as legal reform and legal drafting, and IT competencies, just to name a very few. Many of us who have operated at the level of the political directorate have noted the paucity of persons with rigorous and cutting-edge policy-analysis skills. This accounts for the low level of policy innovation and outcomes-oriented programme implementation.

In determining the 'size' of the public sector, all these factors must be taken into consideration.

The debate, therefore, should not be confined to the issue of 'size' of the public sector, but must be informed by an analytical agreement on the role and character of the public sector.

This brings into sharp relief the experiences of some countries that we often hold up as developmental models - most but not all of which are located in East Asia. The public-management genre that has come to characterise these countries, which include Korea and Singapore but also Botswana, Malaysia and Indonesia, has become known as the 'developmental state'. The inclusion of 'state' in this description is deliberate, because according to those who have closely studied the thrust for development in these countries, 'the state was at the core'. But this was not the state as we know it. It was a state led by high-level professionals - described as an elite bureaucracy - who won legitimacy by delivering steady improvement in the material and social well-being of citizens. As a consequence, all of these countries have experienced an average annual rate of growth of GNP per capita of four per cent. Incidentally, so far, most of these states have not suffered from the implosion that has characterised countries in Europe, for example, during this period of global economic downturn.

Stewards of public resources

The leaders of the public service in these countries have been characterised as being stewards or trustees of public resources. They are said to possess skills and competencies that allow them to be both integrative and managerial. They have an intimate relationship with the private sector and play a role that is not just regulatory but substantive. They are powerful policy leaders, able to drive development objectives. They have real power and authority to make policy and implementation decisions.

There are some downsides to these public officials and the institutional arrangements that give them power and authority. Perhaps this is best reflected in the weakness of their civil society and a tendency to a one-party dominant state. Further, while they rank highly on the Human Development Index, they tend to be at the bottom of the totem pole on the human-rights index.

We may recall a time in our own history when there was a programme for administrative cadets through which the best and brightest were recruited into the public service and then groomed, honed, apprenticed and trained to be top-level bureaucrats. The late Gloria Knight was one of the 'graduates' of this programme.

In taking the discussion forward on the public sector, we, therefore, should not only talk numbers, but quality and institutional framework. How can we attract some of the brightest and best into the public service and make them development entrepreneurs? We need to discuss criteria for recruitment, issues of training and competences, improving technologies, rationalising organisational forms and competencies. Reducing the size of the civil service is not a panacea; building a quality cohort of public servants must be given primacy.

We must agree with Mr Golding that the current expenditure for salaries for the public service is not sustainable, but the challenge must be to configure a public service that is development oriented and can lead the process of wealth creation.

Maxine Henry-Wilson is a former education minister. Feedback may be sent to columns@gleanerjm.com.