“We got [the ban on land-mines] to be a competition ... a campaigner would go to their government and say 'this was done here, this was done there ... what are you going to do?'”
Jody Williams
Washington Post
World Bank President Jim Yong Kim has said the world can end extreme poverty in 17 years. But do the numbers add up?
Many outcomes require a number of government agencies to work together toward a common goal. This is notoriously difficult to pull off in a world of silos, disparate agendas, and competition for funding. Governments typically respond by setting up committees or task forces that tend to represent their own interests. Little progress is made in meetings, and even less between them. What can be done?
We live in the age of the hyperefficient supply chain. Using advanced technology and worldwide logistical networks, multinational companies have perfected the art of shipping parts and finished products to all corners of the globe, quickly and profitably. So why does the social sector still suffer from a delivery problem?
While in office I quickly learned that if my government was going to deliver, I first had to change the system of government itself. This is why I set up the Prime Minister’s Delivery Unit (PMDU) to coordinate, manage, and monitor activity on our priorities across government.
The hallmark of delivery excellence is consistency. Companies achieve this through a relentless focus on the details of execution, along with a capacity to adapt as conditions change. Development agencies need to learn from the seriousness with which the most successful private companies have tackled delivery.
For instance, in Ethiopia, the government collaborated with the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation to identify bottlenecks in the agriculture system, from seeds to farmers to manufacturing to market to consumers. They worked together with international-development partners and local agencies to revamp priorities and investments, leading to a revised slate of initiatives they have agreed to pursue jointly.
What is a successful country? This is an age-old problem that social scientists and economists have long grappled with, even long before Adam Smith wrote The Wealth of Nations nearly 250 years ago. In recent decades a broad consensus has emerged – within the worlds of politics and the media – that economic growth, measured as GDP, is the measure of success that really matters. But that consensus is breaking down.
What is a successful country? This is an age-old problem that social scientists and economists have long grappled with, even long before Adam Smith wrote The Wealth of Nations nearly 250 years ago. In recent decades a broad consensus has emerged – within the worlds of politics and the media – that economic growth, measured as GDP, is the measure of success that really matters. But that consensus is breaking down.
Over the last few years we have seen the climate of fiscal austerity in state and local governments lead to the cut back or elimination of vital services – especially prevention-oriented services. The downturn in the economy reduced tax revenues, and forced government leaders to curtail vital social spending.
If you live in a rural community in India and someone in your family is dying, you might sell your buffalo and travel two thousand kilometers to save that person’s life. But when it comes to basic health services, unless those services are available in your village, you may never receive preventative care.