CFED
Stay Informed!
Ideas in Development
Moving Beyond the Program
By Bill Schweke on 07/27/2011 @ 03:15 PM
EDITOR’S NOTE: Elements of this article were drafted with Doug Ross and Rick Carlisle.
The world of economic development has changed dramatically in the past few decades. After being virtually synonymous with the practice of “smokestack chasing,” the field has broadened to include small business development, technology transfer, business retention, manufacturing modernization, applied research development and even education reform. Scores of new program efforts have been adopted by states ranging from Maine to Hawaii.
At the same time, an almost opposite judgment could also be reached – that nothing big has changed and that the more things change, the more they stay the same.
Examples abound. The costs of subsidy packages that attract businesses are constantly in flux. Meanwhile, the attachment to the traditional view of what constitutes a good business climate – low taxes, no unions, weak environmental regulations and low wages – emphasizes costs, rather than quality of the goods or services.
The real business climate challenge, then, is figuring out how our communities, regions and states cope and even flourish in the new global, informational service economy.
More specifically, in your community, do you have a business climate conducive to cultivating new firms in the fastest growing sectors? Do you have an entrepreneurial economy where firms are seeking to shift their resources from lower to higher uses? Are you developing those talents, traits and attitudes that are, after all, uniquely American – flexibility, resourcefulness and optimism?
Just as these new initiatives have spread across the nation and begun to sink deeper institutional roots, many policymakers have started to ask tough questions about their performance. It appears that more and more states are “doing the right thing.” Can programs that states can actually afford assist enterprises across the state with an adequate level of service? Do their efforts really make a difference?
Increasingly, discussion about the gap between promise and performance rests on the nature of today’s “public technologies” and not just their level of funding (the usual culprit)?
Perhaps, government policymakers, managers, critics and advocates are focusing mainly on the “soft” technologies, such as the “machinery” of management, monitoring, accountability, service delivery, staff training, evaluation and data collection.
In some respects, these developments could be regarded as the private sector management strategies being adapted to the public (and nonprofit) sectors, as well as partnerships between all three –approaches like TQM, Six Sigma, re-engineering and others. Treating employees as assets rather than cost centers, along with moving toward product customization, value chains and balanced scorecards are the rage.
Moreover, during our lifetime, government has chiefly responded to development and employment challenges by creating a “program.” Rules are written, eligibility is established, budgets are approved and departments are created. After all these changes, programs are left alone to fix the problem, but whether or not these problems enjoy solutions depends.
Depends on what? First, there is no decent mechanism for customer feedback. Second, too little monitoring of the right kind of data takes place. Third, few incentives to producing quality services are in place. Fourth, there are insufficient rewards for producing quality services. Finally, failure to mobilize constituents creates larger problem solving challenges.
The result all too often is an inflexible bureaucracy, which is equipped to deliver standardized programs that change little over time (social security checks). Programs are Balkanized and often isolated from their customers. At the same time, growing needs for better referrals and brokers of aid from other institutions emerge. This type of organization is the least likely to perform well in a rapidly changing world.
What we need is to find ways to inject elements of markets, competition, adaptability and self-governing while rationing capital to those that perform better.
This transformation is described in many varied ways – the New Governance, integrated program delivery and the Third Wave are just a few examples.
It’s all about having the know-how and not just the know-what. At the same time, an almost opposite judgment could also be reached – that nothing big has changed and that the more things change, the more they stay the same.
Examples abound. The costs of subsidy packages that attract businesses are constantly in flux. Meanwhile, the attachment to the traditional view of what constitutes a good business climate – low taxes, no unions, weak environmental regulations and low wages – emphasizes costs, rather than quality of the goods or services.
The real business climate challenge, then, is figuring out how our communities, regions and states cope and even flourish in the new global, informational service economy.
More specifically, in your community, do you have a business climate conducive to cultivating new firms in the fastest growing sectors? Do you have an entrepreneurial economy where firms are seeking to shift their resources from lower to higher uses? Are you developing those talents, traits and attitudes that are, after all, uniquely American – flexibility, resourcefulness and optimism?
Just as these new initiatives have spread across the nation and begun to sink deeper institutional roots, many policymakers have started to ask tough questions about their performance. It appears that more and more states are “doing the right thing.” Can programs that states can actually afford assist enterprises across the state with an adequate level of service? Do their efforts really make a difference?
Increasingly, discussion about the gap between promise and performance rests on the nature of today’s “public technologies” and not just their level of funding (the usual culprit)?
Perhaps, government policymakers, managers, critics and advocates are focusing mainly on the “soft” technologies, such as the “machinery” of management, monitoring, accountability, service delivery, staff training, evaluation and data collection.
In some respects, these developments could be regarded as the private sector management strategies being adapted to the public (and nonprofit) sectors, as well as partnerships between all three –approaches like TQM, Six Sigma, re-engineering and others. Treating employees as assets rather than cost centers, along with moving toward product customization, value chains and balanced scorecards are the rage.
Moreover, during our lifetime, government has chiefly responded to development and employment challenges by creating a “program.” Rules are written, eligibility is established, budgets are approved and departments are created. After all these changes, programs are left alone to fix the problem, but whether or not these problems enjoy solutions depends.
Depends on what? First, there is no decent mechanism for customer feedback. Second, too little monitoring of the right kind of data takes place. Third, few incentives to producing quality services are in place. Fourth, there are insufficient rewards for producing quality services. Finally, failure to mobilize constituents creates larger problem solving challenges.
The result all too often is an inflexible bureaucracy, which is equipped to deliver standardized programs that change little over time (social security checks). Programs are Balkanized and often isolated from their customers. At the same time, growing needs for better referrals and brokers of aid from other institutions emerge. This type of organization is the least likely to perform well in a rapidly changing world.
What we need is to find ways to inject elements of markets, competition, adaptability and self-governing while rationing capital to those that perform better.
This transformation is described in many varied ways – the New Governance, integrated program delivery and the Third Wave are just a few examples.
It’s all about having the know-how and not just the know-what.
Copyright © 2012 CFED – Corporation for Enterprise Development 
1200 G Street, NW Suite 400 Washington, DC 20005 202.408.9788
Powered by ARCOS | Design by Plus Three
Comments
Leave a Comment