Syndicate content

Add new comment

Submitted by Ray Shostak on
Thanks for the opportunity to comment on the consultation draft. It is an excellent piece of work and clearly has raised the debate. I'd like to test my reading of the document and see if others think the same. Firstly, I like the framing of the approach by explicitly outlining the banks interest in both what central government does and also the impact on frontline services. In my view what matters is the outcomes of the interface between services and citizens (after all that is what public services are about) and all upstream actions should serve the improvement of that contact. Good government is about improving the lives of citizens and is not an end in itself. The more 'systems' approach seems to me to be right. Secondly, I like the focus on 'changing behaviours' and it looks to me as if the new approach is underpinned by a set of principles like taking a can do/action focused attitude, putting advice in context, focusing on outcome and changed behaviours, function following form, developing long term not a short term relationships and looking at the system as a whole. If my reading is right then this looks good, is it? Thirdly, I like the four roles but think you are over reacting to concerns about best practice (which I recognise). Why not move to developing an approach based on 'good practice' which provides options for clients and enables decisions to contextually based. Fourthly, if you are going to play more of a role as 'knowledge generator' and 'integrator' why not do it in a strategic alliance/coalition with other like IMF, OECD.....and combine our learning. And finally, a couple of questions/omissions - a) why don't you make the link between the improvement of public service outcomes and the economy? Many public service outcomes are drivers of economic growth - and it matters. b) shouldn't you link what you do on financial management more closely to accountability, building capacity and securing outcomes?; and c) where is the point of greatest leverage in improving systems from previous work of the bank? d)why is the section on ensuring progress so weak - I'd be interested in what others think about how the bank can best judge its success?