Public – Private Dialogue in developing countries

1. Public – Private Dialogue in developing countries Beyond mottos and mantras– Some introductory considerations Nicolas Pinaud, OECD Development Centre

2. Introduction • Public - Private Dialogue (PPD): a definition • PPD: What for? • Potential risks of PPD: make the case for a cautious approach

3. Public - Private Dialogue : a definition • Actors: “Public” / “Private” • Setting: uneven degree of institutionalisation • Outcome: exchange of views to common-agreed decisions; Common component: ‘policy making’ understood in a broad sense;

4. What for? For the public sector: • Learn from the private sector • Legitimize public strategies • Leverage the impact of public policies

5. What for? For the private sector: • Influence the rules of the game • Improve the business environment and State interventions • Identify the optimal mix of market and government activities

6. Just do it? • « There are no real secrets to participation, just a whole lot of work », USAID (1994) • Is it true? Risks, historical legacies, institutional specificities, strong prerequisites, etc.  Complex issues: necessity to go beyond mottos and mantras

7. Just do it? • PPD as a problematic “transaction” • Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? The State as a problematic interlocutor • PPD as a “smokescreen” for capture and predatory behaviours

8. Just do it? Prerequisite 1 : a developmental State 1) “Weberian bureaucracy”, i.e. autonomy / private interests  South-East Asia AND 2) proximity with the private sector (shared networks, similar background, ethnic proximity etc.) 3) Commitment and reliability: deeds must meet words Gradual process of credibility building

9. Just do it? Prerequisite 2: an “appropriate” private sector . Strong and well organized private sector Paradoxes of collective action (Olson, 1962), “trap of inorganization” . “Good” vs “Bad” Private sector  Political economy of sectoral interests

10. Just do it? Prerequisite 3: dictatorship vs. democracy? No clear evidence • Chile & South-East Asia / Mauritius / Zambia; • Dictatorship may be supportive of the emergence of a “Weberian bureaucracy”(Geddes, 1990)… • But may also end up in pervasive corruption and haziness : cf. South Korean authoritarian regime and chaebols (Woo-Cummings, 2001) Rule of law might be key.

11. Just give it up? Sub-Saharan Africa: a worst-case scenario? • State in Africa is not developmental ”patrimonial state” vs weberian state • Weak and hardly structured private sector: ‘missing middle’  no incentive for the state to embark on a complex PPPD • « Democracy » in Africa does not mean « rule of law » • Legacy of distrust (central planning, populist or/and socialist ideology, top-down policy-making process, etc.) ”credibility trap”

12. There is room for action • Room for a hands-on approach to PPD • educating local authorities • identifying “policy champions” and “pocket of efficiencies” • providing organizational, material and analytical support • Failure can have durable negative consequences • Risks make the case for a cautious approach Corner stone is ownership from local actors in due course • Need for a “toolkit”?

13. PPD in developing countries:Follow-up DFID - World Bank Group – OECD conference early February in Paris (Postcards at your disposal) Review of country experiments Charter of best practices Design of an evaluation and monitoring framework Thank you!