What are some of the specific short term and long term actions needed to shake our economy out of the negative to 2 per cent growth rut in which it has been for much of the past decade and propel it towards the 6-8 per cent growth per annum target?

First, we need to work within the guidelines and constraints previously raised: Defining what the government should or should not do, and being realistic about those aims and objectives, especially where government capacity and resource limitations are concerned. To do otherwise would consign the whole exercise to an ignoble failure. 

This obviously has to be done in conjunction with improving government’s ability to be more productive about what it is to deliver. This, in turn, will involve massive retraining and refocusing, as well as retrenchment. All are medium term exercises and will take time to show positive results.

Secondly, we must be very clear, to the extent of being obsessive, about what actions and areas on which we need to concentrate. We should be like the prudent consumer who goes into the supermarket with a shopping list of essentials and priorities and comes out with them, and nothing more. We should not be hijacked by the lures and charms of the relevant sales techniques and come out with items we did not go in for or that we do not really need.

There is one nagging worry about the current structure of government that needs to be addressed right at the beginning. It is to do with the inevitable tussle and frequent conflict between the relevant ministry and the Ministry of Finance. In theory the relevant ministry is there to represent and pursue the interests, budgetary included, of the domain for which it is responsible. Whereas the Ministry of Finance is ostensibly the guardian of the government’s finances and in so being should have a strong bent for monetary and fiscal stability and overall accountability for the funds it disburses. Who, where, should draw up the priorities for action and or more important ensure they are carried out? Leaving it to the present structure will ensure many priorities get shot down in ministerial and departmental turf wars. There is a strong argument for having an overriding Ministry, possibly within a Prime Minister’s office, responsible for economic priorities. This is not a new phenomenon. It has been successfully used in countries such as Japan and South Korea.

If we then turn to the priority areas, especially in agriculture, tourism, infrastructure and certain services, we need to be clear what to attempt. The guiding principles should be what are the key areas of the economy where we have comparative advantages and massive potential but which are both under-performing. For example:-

We have some of the best rain-fed sugar-growing areas in the world yet we do not produce enough of it to satisfy local demand and what we do produce is expensive by most world comparisons. We attract around half a million tourists a year whereas countries with many less attractions and resources attract millions. 

With infrastructure we only have to look at the meteoric rise of the mobile phone ownership and use in such a short time to see what pent up demand was being unleashed. And remember many of those people are prepared to pay a high price in terms of mobile phone charges for this additional infrastructure. Apply this comparison, including the high cost and the potential demand to virtually every aspect of our infrastructure and one finds a yawning gap between what is offered and what is needed.

When looking at services and their potential, particularly from a geographical aspect, one only has to look at the success Kenya Airways has had in making Nairobi’s Jomo International Airport a hub for much of the air traffic in East and Central Africa. But again pit this achievement against often shabby and wanting facilities of this airport offered by the Kenya Airports Authority! One can take this even further and wonder what the extent of the success could be if we were to take a leaf out of the way the government of Dubai has successfully approached such issues.

It is necessary to emphasize the point made last week that none of these things can be done in a one off manner and in isolation. Indeed, the secret to any success is the opposite. Many are inter-related and dependent on each other and in the case of the sub-sectors they must be tackled in unison. For example one cannot seriously talk about reviving agriculture’s fortunes without improving the infrastructure.

The other point to emphasise is the symbiotic relationship between the economy and the rule of law and security. To concentrate on one without the other is like building a house without a roof. The recent survey by the East Africa Association (EAA) of its members showed that 66.3 per cent of those who replied said that corruption increased their costs of operation, 72.84 per cent said they had experienced operational delays as a result of corruption and 77.4 per cent said they had experienced unfair competition as a result of corrupt practices. Couple that with the shortfalls in the judicial system whether they be delays or questions of independence. The EAA survey also showed that security was the second greatest concern and investment impediment in Kenya after telecommunications. 

Before looking at what needs to be done on a sectored basis it is useful to look at what should be not be done. History is likely to view the performance of the so called 'Dream Team' as a mixed one with some of the more lasting achievements being in infrastructure and the largest window of lost opportunity being agriculture.

Incidentally, Prof Shem Migot Adolla is the only 'Dream Team' member who has remained in his original position as Permanent Secretary in the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development. Attempts to reform or streamline some sub sectors have been notable in the highhanded and bungled way they were done. The Sugar Act, which came into effect on April 1, is a good example. Within the same month of its implementation, the Government has introduced the Sugar (Amendment) Act in order to make some aspects of it more operable and less confusing. It is fair comment to say that whatever its positives the Sugar Act has done more to impede, than improve, the chances of the sector being put on a sounder footing.

Talking of the Dream Team, could the donors who are still contributing to what remains of this venture explain to the Kenyan public on what criteria did they decide to continue paying the salaries of those who remain and whether this included a performance assessment. 

Of course, it is the donor’s money but in the interests of accountability and bearing in mind these people are Kenyan public servants they owe us an explanation.