The management of change

Changes in public policies must have options during the teething period, for acclimatisation (both sides, the public and the government), adjustment, re-adjustment, and fine-tuning. Therefore, the first phase of the planning is rather open-ended than closed systems.

Have a look at some examples: the banning of some categories of motorised vehicles; the banning of shopping polybags, and the road restrictions of cycle rickshaws in Dhaka. Substitutes or alternative solutions fell short of demand and expectation (shortage of CNG filling stations, immediate availability of cheap approved shopping bags, and the numerous problems of the rickshaw passengers who comprise a large percentage of the middle class travellers).

Both sides have to be trained. On the one side are the regulators, the monitors, and the prosecuting agencies; on the other side are the public users at different levels and backgrounds.

Under operations, the three basic areas are the inputs, the processing, and the outputs. If the first two are inadequate, the output, namely the performance will suffer, and come under criticism. Therefore the R & D (research and development) cell attached to the project has to act fast, with a minimum time-lag, and come up with pragmatic solutions.

The anatomy of resistance have to be carefully studied and analysed. This is an old trend, mostly human. Awareness campaign is not enough--those affected by the change have to be won over. Mass psychology has to be applied indirectly, and only local experts can do it.

Feedback systems are weak, slow and inefficient in the less developing countries, due to weaknesses in the national infrastructure. It is a culture that takes a long time to develop and come to a routine level. Discipline is inversely proportional to the illiteracy level, hence some wastage (systems loss) has to be allowed. The usual pattern which recurs is that the bureaucracy moves slowly (flywheel effect), and political nepotism comes in. The public are irritated, and the government image is shadowed. It is a competition between closed and open minds.

That is why the prescriptions of the international agencies (UN/WB, international and foreign donors) fall sort during local applications. The accumulated wisdom in aid business is not very heartening. For example, the developed countries lie mostly in the temperate cold zones, while those in the tropical zone have different problems and solutions. The law minds can, for example, appreciate it in, say, architectural designs; while the economic and financial implications are too complex and need the highest level of expertise and experience. Therefore, the local consultants have to be associated with the foreigners for integrated benefits.

The UN system has about half a century of experience, and it is controlled by the industrial members with veto rights. Now, when the First World is facing long-term problems, the UN has been side-tracked (save one's one life first). The Third World growth rate will slow down, as aid components erode. The finance ministers have tough and unpleasant assignments in their home countries. Not that they do not know what is to be done, but how to do it, surrounded with constraints, internal and external, is the question. Political consensus is a ghost component of the whole show.