By Karen Iron Msiska:
In development circles, what stands out as a critical game changer is the developmental state model. Scholars highlight it as one that helped countries such as Taiwan, Japan and South Korea to quickly transition from being agriculture-based to highly developed countries anchored to industry-based economies.
First conceptualised by Chalmers Johnson in his studies on post-war Japan, the model entails a governing framework where the state actively guides economic growth by developing long-term development policies implemented by a skilled bureaucracy in partnership with the private sector.
This article argues that Malawi has positioned itself to follow the model; however, success is lacking because bureaucrats have failed to implement the policies.
From Vision 2020 to the Mtwara Development Corridor, and from the nationwide mineral mapping programme supported by the United Kingdom (UK) to the Malawi Vision 2063, every policy comes with optimism.
However, the country remains underdeveloped. Recently, the African Development Bank ranked it fourth poorest in Africa alongside Mozambique, South Sudan and Democratic Republic of Congo. Of the four, Malawi is the only country enjoying absolute peace.
Given the well-prepared development blueprints, the question for Malawi’s underdevelopment should lie in the lack of implementation. This points more to the technocratic machinery: those translating policy into actual change.
Why the technocrat matters
When it comes to the art of development policy design, Malawi may have very few matches. However, building capable institutions to oversee implementation is an issue. Development policies become an expenditure without return.
Anyone seeking evidence should look no further than the Vision 2020 experiences, commitments in the Mtwara Development Corridor against what has been delivered, and the UK-supported mineral mapping programme.
The developmental state model argues that for economic transformation to thrive there must be a capable and highly professional bureaucracy able to effectively implement long-term government policies. This ensures continuity in the face of changing political leadership.
In South Korea, the bureaucrats coordinated industrial policy, attracted investment, monitored performance and disciplined laggards. Consequently, there was rapid growth in the steel industry and technology.
Vision 2020: A dream that never hatched
The Vision 2020 was launched in 1998, seeking to transform Malawi into a technology-driven, middle-income country by 2020. Its proponents envisioned sustainable economic growth anchored to growth in industries.
However, instead of achieving economic development, the country’s economy went on a downturn. Industries that drove the economy collapsed under privatisation. Changing control also changed interests and unemployment scaled up.
Implementation failed because the bureaucrats failed to coordinate strategic objectives and translate them into measurable action. There lacked a proper monitoring framework that could have focused on performance.
With changing political administrations, the bureaucrats failed to hold on to the framework. They allowed commencement of new programmes instead of modifying or completing ongoing ones. Coordination among the ministries involved lacked.
Vision 2020 required a legally-binding implementation framework instead of merely being a guiding light. There should have been a delivery unit to account for progress monitoring and evaluation.
Mtwara Corridor: Integration without local action?
The past few days have experienced debate on a long-forgotten development agenda that sought to shorten transportation of goods from the Indian Ocean. The source of the debate are images of construction works for a port at Mbamba Bay on the Tanzanian coast of Lake Malawi.
Signed in Lilongwe in 2004, the Mtwara Development Corridor is designed to link southern Tanzania, Malawi, Zambia and Mozambique. It promises to cut the cost of transporting goods from the Indian Ocean to Malawi, Zambia and Mozambique.
Tanzania would construct a railway from Mtwara port on the Indian Ocean to Mbamba Bay and a port at Mbamba Bay. Malawi would construct a port at Nkhata Bay and a west-east road network to connect to Zambia. Zambia would construct a road network connecting Malawi to its border areas with Mozambique.
Goods would be transported by train from Mtwara to Mbamba Bay, by ferry across Lake Malawi to Nkhata Bay and by road to Zambia and Mozambique.
As it appears, it is Tanzania that has taken major steps to actualise the dream. Malawi has done nothing. Port infrastructure at Nkhata Bay is archaic just as is the country’s water transport. There is no mention of the promised road network.
The technocrats should have developed integrated local implementation strategies to guide tactical actualisation plans for the dream. Malawi should have constructed port facilities to hold assorted cargo as well as roads.
Mineral mapping: Who benefitted?
The worst shortcomings for Malawian bureaucrats were probably exposed by the geological mapping and mineral assessment project conducted with UK support in 2016. The project sought to locate minerals which would ultimately help the country diversify exports.
While the majority saw the planes fly the country’s skies, few know the outcome except foreigners that invaded rural areas for minerals. Who told them where the minerals are? One may only suspect the bureaucrats.
The bureaucrats must have been provided with mineral locations; hence, should have designed extraction plans. However, the minerals were revealed to foreigners who smuggle them across borders to the detriment of the country’s economy.
Mining still contributes too little to the country’s gross domestic product and remains poorly coordinated. The bureaucrats have failed to design clear strategies for development of the industry. The exploration exercise should have been followed by long-term planning that would also have seen local processing of the mineral resources.
As demonstrated, the country does not lack development visions; it suffers from the lack of implementation. Vision 2020 beamed hope, but was not supported by the requisite institutional commitment. Despite promising numerous benefits the Mtwara Development Corridor is forgotten. The UK-supported mineral exploration project was hijacked to the detriment of the country.
Malawi can effectively utilise the developmental state model and develop any manner of long-term development policies. However, delivering tangible results rests with the bureaucrats tasked with implementing the policies. Unless the bureaucrats embrace integrity, discipline and consistency, beautiful development agendas will continue to fail.
The author is a communications and public relations expert with keen interest in development and social change
