ISPE EAG
INTERATIONAL
SOCIETY FOR POVERTY ELIMINATION ECONOMIC
ALLIANCE GROUP
Achieving AAAA, SDG and COP21 Outcome Document Vision and Words with
Action Agenda by 2030 in 306/193 Member States – Part 16
Commentary on National Bureau of Economic Research, NBER Working Paper
Series – Management as a Technology? And A New Approach to an Age-Old Problem:
Solving Externalities by Incenting Workers Directly, June 2016
The National Bureau of Economic Research, NBER is
a private, non profit organization established almost 100 years ago. NBER
provides information that is comprehensive, accurate and current to anyone
seriously interested in economic and business affairs. The kinds of economic intelligence
NBER provides involves concepts that had to be formulated and clarified. To be
most useful, the measurable facts had to be quantified. To be able to reason
from the facts, one had to explore their relationship to one another. Because no
facts or relationships among facts can ever be more than approximate, margins
of error had to be assessed. And the need for care in inferring the portent of
even the most rigorous analysis of available facts had to be conveyed to their
users. The NBER had over the years to date effectively played its role in
shouldering these tasks and drawing others into the cooperative ventures to
carry them out. Five precepts were formulated to guide the NBER when it was
established in 1920:-
1.
Its
research should concentrate on facts and the connections among facts that are
important in dealing with major problems of economic policy.
2.
The
knowledge sought should be quantitative in character, wherever possible
3.
The
research should be in accordance with scientific principles
4.
The
research should be done and findings made known under auspices and with
safeguards that would assure the public of their impartiality
5.
To this
end and in particular the Bureau should carefully abstain from making
recommendations on policy.
A Tall Order indeed - Then as now, opinions on
what to do about community, country and global economic problems – not only in
the US but also in every UN Member State, were / are difficult to keep to
oneself. While the founders of the
Bureau differed strongly among themselves about what economic policy should be,
they all believed that, wherever possible, social programs should rest on
objective knowledge of fact and not on subjective impressions and that the
range of such possibilities could be enlarged by scientific knowledge. They
knew well enough that facts alone, however firm, could not settle all their own
differences on policy or the many differences of others. But at least the
differences might be narrowed; thinking in public discussions might be clearer
and the discussions might take place on a “higher level”. NBER as the “bold experiment
on uncertain issue” has indeed been worth the gamble.
As 3rd quarter 2016 Year of
Implementation race to end, it is worrisome that fundamental issues that ought
to have been resolved by end 1st quarter 2015 Year of Decision are
still outstanding and may remain outstanding beyond 2016 if Policy Makers,
Decision Makers and Senior Management do not jointly face new direction and
adopt new priorities. It is clear that the NBER founding precepts have central
role to play if Policy Makers, Decision Makers, Senior Management and relevant
Partners are to pick up the gauntlet and grapple effectively with challenges
and crises of World Sustainable development.
It is clear that the 17 Goals of the SDGs are
indivisible; that the SDGs involve both Developed and Developing Countries;
that the SDG is the most all inclusive, all embracing and ambitious Overarching
World Sustainable Development Agenda; that there are huge research and
knowledge gaps that need to be filled as without further delay and that
Community to Global Stakeholders continuing to deploy multiple approaches
rather than adopt One Worldwide Approach (not one cap fit all) is counterproductive.
It is against this background that we wish to
comment on two NBER Working Papers:
Management as a Technology
The Paper identifies 3 Management Models –
Management as a Technology; Management as Design and Management as Capital. Our
study finding is that the 3 Models are not mutually exclusive and could in
reality be integrated into a single 3 in 1 Model, that is, Management as a
Technology, Design and Capital Model.
In the work towards achieving increasing
convergence between Global Goals – AAAA, SDG, COP21 and Agenda 21 aligned and
harmonized with Community Development Plans and Country Development Plans in
each of 306/193 UN Member States and by 2030 target date; there is urgent need
to effectively tackle failure of Diplomacy linked to failure of Development,
Defense, Democracy and Elections and this would involve deploying several
Master Keys – one of which is Management as a Technology, Design and Capital
Model.
Yes, we agree that the culture of an Institution
or Country affects the Productivity and Quality of its Management. However, if
the High Level Political Will is there, there is no reason why any Institution
or Country with Bad Culture and therefore bad Management Productivity and
Quality cannot change for best to institutionalize Good Culture that now
deliver Good Management Productivity and Quality. This is not just a Developing
Countries problem, it is also a Developed Countries problem and this includes
the US that is grappling with challenges of bankrupt Local Governments, State
Governments and even the National Government should the US$ be uncoupled from
the World $.
The point we are making is that changing from Bad
to Good Culture is a Competences issue – Hard Competences: Learning and Skills
and Soft Competences: Character, Courage and Mindset within a Changing Attitude
and Behaviour at Scale Policy, Program, Project Intervention, 3PI and 3PI
Training as One Intervention. It is not just a Developing Countries problem,
its problem that is context specific in Developed Countries, Developing
Countries , National Institutions and International Institutions.
A New Approach to an Age-Old
Problem: Solving Externalities by Incenting Workers Directly
This Paper is a study report on a field experiment carried
out at Virgin Atlantic Airways to explore how information and incentives affect
Captains’ performance. The authors found that their set of improvements which
included performance information, personal targets and prosocial incentives – induced
captains to improve efficiency in all three areas – pre flight, in flight and
post flight. The cost of running the experiments were very low US$ 3,000 to
send out a couple of letters (this is not the total cost of the experiment) and
the cost savings estimated at US$250 per metric tonne of CO2 abatement – that saved
6,828 tons of fuel for Virgin Atlantic Airways worth GB Pounds 3.3 million (pre
Brexit value much higher) and prevented emission of 21,507 tons of CO2 to the
atmosphere delivers significant value for money and fitness for purpose – even when
the total cost of the experiment was factored in.
In negotiating the experiment Model with the Union and other
Stakeholders, it was agreed that the experiment would focus exclusively on
behavioural incentives and not financial incentives. With this encouraging
result, stakeholders should have courage to upgrade the experiment Model to
focus on integrated behavioural incentives, financial incentives, deterrent
incentives and sanctions incentive. This is not as difficult as it sounds once
fundamental issues of ownership, accountability, alignment, harmony etc are
addressed at the onset within well designed and delivered Changing Attitude and
Behaviour at Scale Policy, Program, Project Intervention, 3PI and 3PI Training
as One Intervention.
Conclusion
The reality of Brexit is that Policy
Makers and Decision Makers on UN Member States; UN System – UNO, WBG and IMF;
CSOs’/NGOs and Partners sides need to more seriously consider how to deploy
Globalization as Force for Good; Lobbying as Force for Good and Multi
Stakeholder Platforms, MSPs as Force for Good, if our World is to avoid Global
Recession that make that of 1930s’ child’s play. In 2008 World Leaders came up
with Fire Brigade solutions that postponed such Global Recessions though
addressing Symptoms rather than Disease and root causes. In the past 8 years
the disease has gone worse and so Fire Brigade in this era of Britext is most
unlikely to work.
It is clear that without finding clear and
correct answers to AAAA, SDG, COP21, Agenda 21 aligned and harmonized with
Community Development Plans and Country Development Plans in 306/193 UN Member
States How questions, especially DOING of How, it will be especially difficult
to resolve the Britext Challenge and in ways that deliver Stronger UK and
Europe, and Stronger US and World.
The NBER’s work in almost 100 years
provide evidence that where MSPs that include all relevant Stakeholders are
given Official Status; where Ideas Creators are meaningfully involved in the
implementation of their ideas harvested in Community / Sub-national / Sub-regional
/ Regional / Global Consultations, our World can indeed be Configured in ways
that find sustainable solutions to real complex problems and politically
sensitive issues on the ground from Community to Global levels. It is our hope
that the bright prospects of success will not be squandered. Otherwise, the
ultimate consequences could be catastrophic.
We are willing to offer a more detailed
information / clarification on any of the points made in this Paper.
Contact:
Director General
International
Society for Poverty Elimination / Economic Alliance Group
5, Moses Orimolade
Avenue,
Ijapo Estate,
Akure, Ondo State,
Nigeria.
M: +234-8162469805
Email: nehap.initiative@yahoo.co.uk 20
July 2016.
