Libre Magazine

In order to achieve effective results, that is turn ideological aims, goals and concepts into effective practice, policy makers need better vocabulary, similar to business managers, who need better vocabulary to effectively manage and derive optimal results from their team members.

The idea stems from an interesting piece written by Nadeem Chauhan of Navitus Consultancy, who argues that managers need to use better vocabulary to excite, energize and bring out the best from their team members. For instance, while drawing a list of monthly assignments and projects for a team, a manager may use the phrase ‘a must do’ on each project, in his preach to advance the monthly objectives to be attained. However, in practice only some of the projects are really categorized as ‘a must do’ and others as ‘probable’s’. Therefore, if the manager is unable to effectively communicate this distinction, his team may not be able to differentiate between a specific ‘must’ based assignment relative to the ‘probable’, hence will not be able to effectively allot it’s energy, time, resources, mental and physical wealth to each project relative to priority, leading to sub-optimal results.

Let me consider the case of governance to illustrate the point further. The concept of accountability is excessively used in governance practice. However, the definition is overtly vague. What is a leader accountable for? A set of scientific or quantifiable objectives and goals which can be measured such as growth rates etc? or a set of moral objectives such as no cheating, allocative efficiency, equal opportunities etc? which although measurably, are an under-rated subset of the broader definition. Although most will argue for both, it is important to note, that one can be achieved at the expense of the other, hazing the true stance of accountability- its interpretation and subsequent policy action. For instance, productive efficiency (production of a quantity at the lowest cost possible- given the current structure of activity) which may be vital for growth can be achieved at the expense of allocative efficiency (producing with respect to the needs of the people). On the other hand, allocative efficiency may enhance accountability from a moral portfolio, but may undermine growth rates, that is, for example, if the need is health care for the elderly, hence may not have a positive impact on economic growth. However, the pursuit of one instead of the other will fulfil one objective (growth vs allocative efficiency or even both) at the expense of the other, therefore on the whole, how is one doing in the overall level of accountability to responsibility. Confused?

Assume that the year-end objective of a minister is to attain growth (where sustainable growth is a secondary objective- due to various political reasons), based on grounds of economic efficiency, which may subsequently have a positive impact on reducing poverty- hence equity aswell, as shown by some empirical literature in the field (between economic growth and poverty).

In such a case, a regime although low on scores of accountability to responsibility (measured through the moral definition) can still have a positive accountability evaluation based on quantifiable objectives. For instance, Vietnam lacks the existence of an appropriate judicial system, however, it continues to bag unprecedented rates of economic growth (Dani Rodrik, 2008). Similarly, as shown by evidence from India, Cambodia, China and Pakistan, governments have attained high level of economic growth under severe periods of low morally defined accountability-corruption (Anjum Altaf, 2005). Therefore, although our hindsight focuses on moral factors associated with accountability, policy in practice addresses (increasingly) accountability against a set of scientifically quantified and set objectives.

For instance, it is argued that devolved tiers of governments will be captured by the local elites; hence may lack accountability, and resources would be unevenly distributed, subsequently leading to lower levels of economic efficiency and growth (Pudhomme, 1995). However, this may not neccessarily be the case, as local governments, even if allocatively inefficient, can be productively efficient (based on existing structure and fragmentation of resources), hence greater economic growth. This is because, even if resources may be un-equally distributed among the population and may not serve the interest of the larger population, in other words be captured by the few elite, positive growth rates can be attained. For instance, assume that the elite is an industrialist ‘lot’, interested in doubling and tripling it’s income, as argued by Max Weber, who drew the link between the protestant church and industrialisation driven by their core belief of accumulating greater wealth to secure a place in heaven, hence such underlying incentives will lead to a lack of allocative efficiency but greater productive efficiency hence subsequent economic growth. Therefore, although a government may have low levels of accountability from the allocative and moral definition of term, it can still lead to economic growth measured through scientific data, fulfilling the other half of the terminology. Hence, what is the true basis of accountability- a broadly defined term, with competing objectives?

Until and unless moral factors are given quantification through scientific measures, or a distinguishing term in economic analysis, rather than taped under the broad breed of accountability and ‘justice’ driven policy (as generally used on the floor- exceptions apart in some academic debates), the policy apparatus will not precisely hit the ‘nail on the head’. This is due to the vagueness in measurement and globalising nature of our surroundings, leading to the rising importance of growth rates in the international arena rather than effective domestic distributional arrangements and optimising the target population welfare especially in the lagging and striding countries where such disparity is optimised.

Although moral and scientific measures of accountability together are vital for sustainable growth, as it needs to be based on set of generative and evolving institutional incentives (for a later date), growth in it-self can be based on the presence of either one. Therefore, given the hype to attain growth and achieve short term dividends in the foreseeable future, morally defined objectives may be noted as a second-best priority in the umbrella of accountability for developing country leaders, especially as we are re-visiting the age of cross border networks, competitive mentality and knowledge driven bonding- therefore the hype to succeed and be counted given the high stakes.

Therefore, until we disaggregate the definition through effective and precise vocabulary, drawing independence and subsequent respect for the objective and term (sounds extremely sensationalized- I know), there will be a wedge between our hindsight and what our policy sets out to achieve. Hence, the real problem will remain unsolved. In other words, language and vocabulary are one of the most under-rated, yet key ingredients to attaining optimal results, drawing clarity in understanding which is vital for subsequent remedy, which in the current age of globalisation are being exposed to their prime where language harmonization yet differentiation is at competing crosswords (given the rising importance of English as a language, yet its underdeveloped form of practice, understanding and interpretation world over), leading to the development of a bridge between ideology and practice.

The discussion drew from a class room debate of what is a government really accountable for? And what if, one branch comes at the expense of the other?