Prajapati Trivedi

Even before the policymakers have fully grasped the groundbreaking and innovative ideas of “new public management,” “re-inventing the government,” “agile government,” “data-driven government,” “citizen-centric government,” “connected government,” “e-government” and “smart government,” they find themselves debating the possibilities of “AI in government.” These are, no doubt, all good ideas and initiatives, but the deluge of these ideas on making the government work better, faster and cheaper has left the real-world policymakers and the experts confused and intellectually paralyzed.

Governments are complex, multi-layered organizations and, not surprisingly, government effectiveness and efficiency have many dimensions. As such, we clearly need a multidimensional approach if we wish to create a government that works better, faster and more cheaply. Our approach should also be comprehensive, covering all aspects of government performance – static, dynamic, quantitative and qualitative.

However, the diversity that exists among nations and their governments tends to obscure three key facts.

However, the diversity that exists among nations and their governments tends to obscure three key facts. First, many of the problems involved in managing government are a result of a few underlying causes. Second, the underlying causes of poor government performance are similar in nature across a diverse set of countries. Third, countries have successfully dealt with these (few) underlying causes using remarkably similar approaches. Viewed in this light, the challenge of government performance management appears more manageable.

Often leaders assume that if they create a good performance management system it will be recognized and appreciated by voters for what it is worth and their popularity will go up. Alas, the causal relationship between the creation of a performance management system in the government and perceptions about the performance of the government is not as straightforward as it may seem.

Measuring the Gap between Perception and Reality

First, as argued in an earlier column, there is a big difference between comprehensive, whole-of-government approaches (budgeting, performance budgeting, outcome-budgeting and performance agreements) and partial approaches to performance improvement (ISO 9000, Lean Sigma, etc.). Partial approaches are akin to arranging chairs on the deck of Titanic. In a dysfunctional system, looking for pockets of excellence is a futile exercise.

In a three-part blog series, I will outline a path that I proposed at a UN-sponsored meeting in Switzerland this past April. This first blog deals with the imperative of converting SDG vision into action and highlights the conspicuous absence of implementation mechanisms in the SDG discussions.

This is the second in a series of blogs that outline a path that I proposed at a UN-sponsored meeting in Switzerland this past April. 

This is the third and last in a series of blogs (read the first and second blogs) that outline a path that I proposed at a UN-sponsored meeting in Switzerland this past April.

How Can Countries Make and Document Progress Toward Multi-National Sustainable Development Goals?