Category: Uncategorized

We are here in Bali, Indonesia for the World Bank 2018 Annual Meeting. It is going to be an interesting meeting as I can already see. I usually don’t like to attend these meetings because I can safely predict the outcomes. And that is, it will be all talk and nothing will happen.

The first time I attended one of these meetings was the Working Party Meeting (preparing for Busan 2011) in October or November 2010 held in Tunis. This was before the Arab Spring. Before that meeting, I used to be extremely excited about development partners, especially the multilaterals, and their involvement in the development activities. After leaving Tunis in 2010, I became extremely frustrated and perplexed. I sat in meetings in which the “experts” discussed development issues as if they were new and novel. It was not until one of the participants confessed that those same issues were discussed in the 1970’s by some of the very same actors that were sitting around the table. I wondered: oh my gosh! What is this? Why are they doing this?

Well, because of the job I was doing at that time, I was forced to attend the Busan Partnership for Effective Development Co-Operation in 2011. This was another agonizing experience for me as I knew that no one was sincere about anything that was being discussed and that the gathering was just another fanfare for “development elites” to meet and pretend like they care about poor countries.

As I predicted, we are still where I thought we would be. And I can say, with the outmost certainty that the World Bank Annual Meeting here in Bali, Indonesia will produce nothing. Absolutely nothing!

In the few years that I have been around and paying attention to the debate, I have been able to learn that for everything we do in the political and policy space, there are consequences. What have been of particular interest to me is what the policy folks call “unintended consequences.”

First let me mention what I learned from one of my of colleagues who have always told me that “everything that makes for good politics does not necessarily make for good policy.” At first it sounds like a cliché but on closer examination, it really does make sense. There are lots of things that sound very good and make lots of political sense but on deeper thought and closer examination, they don’t make good policies.

In the few months that I spend around the table, I tried my best to ensure that we stayed far away from political optics as much as possible so that we don’t make it difficult to take the policy decisions if and when that time comes. Don’t get me wrong, there are times when we had to play politics in order to get certain things done. Understanding and appreciating the timing is the most important thing.

But even in the policy realm, we still have to be further careful when we are taking policy decisions or actions. While we may intend one thing from our policy actions, the fact remains that there could be “unintended” consequences from our actions. My advice has always been, let us try as much as possible to consider what we want to achieve and what is the potential “unintended” consequence of our action. It is not easy to spot all of the “unintended” consequences but it is important to consider as many of them as possible before we make the move.

My advice is that if the “unintended” consequences are negative and larger in impact than the “intended” consequence of the policy action, then let’s reconsider our policy actions.

I think we all need to seriously consider the consequences of our policy actions within the political environment in which we find ourselves.

The last thing that anyone wants is to undertake well-intentioned policy action and then realize that the “unintended consequences” far out-weigh the potential benefits of the policy decision. It gets even more frustrating when it is clear that the “unintended consequences” were glaring and avoidable.

 

Education reform seems so simple but it is one of those areas you wouldn’t know where to start after examining the depth and reach of the problems. I don’t envy our colleagues who have been called to tackle this challenge.

The ongoing education summit is, no doubt, an exceptionally good thing and much needed. And I say this without trying to suggest that such submit has never been done before. I remember vividly that one such summit was at the Cuttington University campus a few years ago. However, due to the challenges that we face in education, there is always a need for the professionals to meet and try to figure out what we really need to do to fix this situation.

I remember raising a few issues about education when I sat around the table and I still believe those issues to be relevant today:

1.  because the challenges in the educational sector are systemic and structural, I have repeatedly caution against measuring the performance of those who manage our educational reform by the “next WAEC score.” I think it is unfair to them when we think they have failed simply because there was mass failure in WAEC. The fact is that, a minister or a team appointed in January can do very little to change the WAEC score in December. Those sitting for the WAEC that year are products of several years of learning and those gaps in their knowledge cannot be filled within the last year of school. And so faulting the Minister and/or his team who took over a year or two ago is an unfair assessment of their performance. I argued, when I could, that we should a take a long term approach to education rather then the next WAEC scores or UL entrance exams.
2. Funding for and management of tertiary public education. I have observed that usually, the ministry of education has not paid much attention to tertiary education especially when developing sector plans. The focus has usually been on primary and secondary education. I have usually asked, “is tertiary education not part of the sector and who represents them at the level of cabinet or with development partners?” It has been difficult to get answers and so I can only hope that the ongoing submit try to address this issue of watching out for tertiary education in the entire planning process. the other side has to do with financing for tertiary education. there has to be a model for financing public tertiary education. I don’t know what it should be but some smart group of people have to think about a way of doing something because it is not adequately funded at all.

Now, from a non expert perspective, here is what I think happened to our educational sector. I think in the immediate aftermath of the civil war in 1991, this country, all of included, decided that we would we risk the long term quality of the educational system in exchange for PEACE. During this time in our national history, we decided that we needed to take the guns from young people and to ensure that they didn’t go back into bushes, we should put them in classrooms. At that point, we didn’t care who was in the classroom teaching; all we wanted was that young people should leave the streets and bushes and lay down their guns.

Because I lived this era, I can clearly remember that less than qualified instructors went into the classrooms because they needed to earn a living to feed their families; we needed them in the classrooms to demonstrate that school was in session; and also we needed a place to confine the kids after taking them from the streets and bushes. There are instances where sophomore students at the University of Liberia were teaching Physics and Chemistry at Tubman High. Some of my high school classmates were teaching Mathematics at other high schools (night classes). We even experienced 9th grade dropouts becoming principals and teachers at Junior High schools in some remote parts of the country.

I believe that we knew or should have known that putting less-than-qualified people in the classrooms would have long term detrimental impact on our educational system. But again, what choice did we have? The greater good was that we needed peace and then from there we would rebuild everything. At least, we hoped!

Well, since the end on conflict and the return of peace, we have not been able to make the kinds of investment needed to reverse the damage that we all did to the educational system. That system we all agreed to create in the early 1990s, have been producing products with diminishing qualities and these diminished qualities have been the ones passing knowledge onto others and so you can imagine how the value chain has been affected.

I don’t envy those charged with the responsibilities of reform the educational system because I wouldn’t even know where to start: pre-school? primary? secondary? tertiary? fire all teachers? shut all schools down? close some and keep some open? get qualified teachers from other places while we train ours? remove all qualified teachers from the classrooms? who will go there?

The challenges are enormous and complicated. My advice is that we give our educational sector leaders chance to do their job and also let them build on what those who came before them did. The problems are not easy and even after they are gone, there will still be problems…

my reflections…

The Cabinet retreat over the last few days brought back memories and deep thoughts. From afar, the problems seem very easy to solve and many times we wonder why those before us didn’t solve them?

Here are my honest observations:

1. the problems are too many. it is unbelievable how the problems are all over the place. in every sector or ministry or agency, there are just too many problems. sometimes it seems like for every problem that is solved there are many more that pop up.
2. the resources to address the problems are very limited. trying to rationalize the distribution of resources sometimes makes you feel stupid. its like you don’t know what you are doing but the truth is that it is not easy. the size of the resource envelop when compared to the size of the problems, you don’t know where to start.
3. and then the rules. we spend a lot of time trying to obey the rules that the small resources don’t do much. in fact, obeying the rules have also put strain on the resource envelop. it is now costing a lot in money and time

Truth be told, I don’t envy those who have the herculean task of brining all those things together: solving multiple problems with very limited resources within a very complicated rule-based regime.

I tell people, imagine fitting a request for 2 billion into an envelop of 500 million. at certain point the distribution has no science, no rhyme and no rhythm. the distribution defies reasoning. there are times when we have to cut support from “revenue generating” entities simply because we don’t have; not because we think they are not important. we know that they are important but then some “cost center” or “social service” or “security” will not be funded. but then again if we don’t fund the “revenue generating” we might not be able to raise the resources to fund the other stuff. this stuff starts to drive you crazy…

Because I sat there before, I know what they are going through and I can only wish them the best.

 

I noticed that we who are of little means (financial) love to chase ‘brand-named’ products while those who have much go for generic products. But not only do they go for generic products, they invest in the stocks of the companies producing the branded products and make more money from our desire for brand-named products.

Now here is my experience with branded products and why I am advising that the idea of branded product is another conspiracy to transfer resources from the poor to wealthy.

In my previous life, I worked as a Staff Accountant for a private cereal manufacturing company (name withheld). It was during my time here that I discovered that branding could be a farce and because we are not smart, we are robbed.

As a cereal company, we made lots of efforts to get our products in Wal-Mart, Sam’s Club, Costco, and Cub Foods. Getting shelf space in these outlets is a big deal and as part of the negotiation, these outlets usually ask you to consider producing some products for them with their name on it (their brand). Usually these big companies agree to do that and we classified these products as “private labels” because we are producing them for companies other than ourselves.

During the production process, there is no way we can change the formula for the products. We cannot use less wheat, less sugar, or less flavor. To attempt to do that will cost us more to produce the product because it might mean that we have to get a whole new boiler or steamer or drier. It is usually cheaper for us to use the same production line and same mix to produce the product. It is only the package that we differentiate. We print a different box or bag for the private label cereal.

So whenever you go into the Cub Foods or Sam’s Club and you see that ‘honey oats’ cereal with Sam’s Club on it and then you see the ‘honey oats’ cereal with General Mills but the GM product costs $2.50 more, just know that they are the same cereal in box: it is only the packaging. I am sure you know that Sam’s Club doesn’t have a cereal producing plant. The Sam’s Club cereal was produced by either GM or Kellogg but packaged for Sam’s Club because as part of the deal to get shelf space, Sam’s demanded that GM produce for them.

But sometime we deceive ourselves that they taste different and that GM’s cereal is better than the Sam’s Club’s cereal. This is a lie because all of those cereals came from the same production line. It is only the packaging that is different.

So you see how they can deceive us about branded product and rob us of our meager resources?

Well, so now you know what I know and why I deal in “authentic” fake….

 

 

All of my colleagues know that I am not a big fan of development aid. To put it bluntly, I despise aid. I have always had my suspicion about aid being a tool of global conspiracy intended to maintain a certain world order in which certain countries will continue to be the guinea pigs in the test on poverty traps.

But in October 2010 when I attended the Working Party (WP) meeting in Tunis, the conversations there firmed up my belief that aid is a dangerous weapon. The WP meeting was in preparation for Busan 2011 where the world was meeting to discuss the new development aid modality and craft the successor to the Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness. Off course from Busan came the Busan Declaration dubbed the “Busan Partnership for Effective Development Co-Operation.” Another fancy catch phrase that means nothing and will achieve nothing. I can bet!

Anyway, I sat through various meetings in Tunis, I was impressed with the level of discussions until some prominent development actors started revealing that these same conversations were held in the 1970’s. And then in 2010 we are still talking about the same things? I am like, what? Are these guys really serious? You guys sat around the table and talked these things before we were born and we are here talking about them again?

As the conversations continued, I got even more depressed. And then I started understanding why development partners and donors bring their aid with so much conditions and deliberately focus on the wrong things. In too many cases, the implementation modalities see a lot of resources going back to the donor countries and only pennies are left in the recipient countries but at great expense to these countries.

Then it all started making sense to me. I started to wonder why would aid want to put aid out business? We deceive ourselves when we think the true objective of aid is to deliver countries out of poverty when in fact it turns out that aid is really intended to keep countries in poverty so that donors and “development partners” can continue to have work to do. Why hasn’t it occur to us that it is in the interest of those delivering aids to ensure that aid doesn’t end poverty so that they can continue to have work to do? This means that the true objective of aid is for recipient countries to continue to remain in those state so that the lucrative industry of delivering aid can continue to flourish.

Look at it this way: there are no new countries being created and so if all the existing poor countries were to break out of poverty, wouldn’t the lucrative industry of aid die? In order for aid to be in business, there must be more poor countries and so deliberate efforts must be made to keep them poor.

The vexing question is why do we agree to play by their rules?

The problem I see most times is that these rich donor countries and individuals they use to implement this global conspiracy have succeeded in conditioning our thought process to believe that they are on our side and all we need to do is listen to what they say and do what they prescribe. Whenever I had the opportunity, I asked them to show me where their prescriptions have worked before and usually I don’t get any answer.

They look at very poor countries and they tell them that they should finance their development from domestic sources. How? After World War 2 did Europe finance its reconstruction and development from domestic resource mobilization? Didn’t the guys put in place a Marshall Plan to assist Europe because big problems need big solutions In fact, even today, these rich countries are using “leverage” to finance their development but then they develop rules and conditions that limit poor countries from using similar tools to develop themselves.

For example, the size of your economy is very small and then they prescribe that what you borrow MUST be a proportion of the size of your economy but meanwhile the size of your problem is several times the times of your current economy and unless you solve those problems, your economy will never grow and produce the transformation that is required to improve living conditions. But it is surprising that poor countries accept these prescriptions because they fear that if they don’t, they will not receive more aids. That is exactly where they want you! They want you to be dependent on aid so that you can never break the circle of poverty.

How we have come to accept that these poor countries will develop on the basis on domestically generated revenues amidst all the herculean infrastructural challenges is mind boggling and bewildering to say the least. If these countries are not creative to effectively use the power of “leverage” to address the structural impediments or ‘binding constraints” to economic growth, they ready themselves to be those state for decades if not centuries. Only the radicals and those written off by them (like South Korea) have progress in the several decades.

In my honest opinion, aid succeeds when they have convinced us that we should continue to depend on them even though they have no interest in solving our problems. True be told, they shouldn’t. Why should they?

 

 

Today, I hear everyone starting every sentence with “pro-poor” and some even try to make fun out of it simply because they may not understand what it means. There are others who genuinely want to understand and implement it. At this point, I think it would be unfair for me to not weigh into this debate since I have considered myself one of the founding “ideologues” of the grassroots political revolution.

When we started the grassroots political revolution in 2004 and my colleague, DTweah, and I spend many hours trying to give policy and ideological underpinning for the raison d’etre of the Liberia National Congress (turned CDC) onto the political landscape, we reasoned that putting the poor at the center of the policy debate was probably the most important aspect of our struggle and that Ambassador Weah’s life story epitomizes our storyline and reinforces the pro poor argument as an entry point.

At that time we were young and radical but our thought process that Liberia’s growth had been far removed from the poorest of the poor was something we believed in very strongly. For many, the words pro poor sound new and seemingly paradoxical. The less sophisticated minds are asking why would a Government or group of people be advocating for poverty? In the minds of simpleton, pro poor means an agenda that favors poverty.

But again like I said, when we started talking about pro poor policies and pro poor agenda, our position was that policies should be deliberately and intentionally geared toward improving the conditions of the poor. Then, again I say then, we posited that pro poor policies should disproportionately favor the poor even at the expense of the wealthy. In our thought process, “equity” was “unfair.” The major litmus test for any policy in the pro poor agenda is how does it improve the conditions of the poorest of the poor? If in the process of improving the conditions of the poor, the wealthy benefits then that is fine but the focus MUST remain the poor. In the pro poor agenda, our thought was that we should not hope and pray for “trickle” down effects. The faith of the poor should not be left to the benevolence of the wealthy: it should the deliberate and purposeful actions of the Government to improve the conditions of the poor.

Again, I don’t know what it is today but when I checked my files and reviewed my notes, I see that we spend many hours debating and deliberating the issue of the pro poor agenda.

Like I told some of my colleagues a few days ago, pro poor did not just slip into the lexicon of the of the grassroots political revolution. It has been around for as long as the revolution has been. The only thing that has changed is that the proponents of the pro poor agenda now have the “megaphone” and the “bully pulpit.”

I know its not going to be easy but I trust their abilities to deliver on the agenda.

Salutation my dear brother, Mr. Pro Poor!

 

I am one of the persons who loves to think about the future and therefore plan for it. But of late, I have started to hear a lot of noise about 2029. In fact, it seems that a real fight about 2029 has already begun.
Every time I hear the chatters, I go back and check my calendar to see if we are within the timeframe to begin the conversation about 2029. But every time I check, I am faced with the reality that we are just in 2018 and it seems very too early to begin the 2029 fight. I am not saying that there wouldn’t be a fight about 2029 but starting this early is irrational in my opinion.
Wouldn’t you get tired if you start fighting this early? I can understand if the 2029 fight started in 2024. That would be 5 years of fighting and that would be the beginning of the second term of the President. But starting now is counterproductive.
This is not a surrender call; it is a warning that we know and that we can fight even if we decide that now is not the appropriate time. Anything now is a distraction.

Comrade, slow down! Yes, slow down. Let’s give the President all the support and focus he needs to deliver for us all.

It would be the greatest injustice recorded in modern history if I didn’t take out time, in this public manner, to say THANK YOU! Madam President.

God first! Only under your administration was my story possible and for this I owe you a debt of gratitude.

Therefore, I want to use this public manner to express my sincere and profound thanks and appreciation to you, Madam Ellen Johnson Sirleaf, for the opportunity which you afforded me to be a part of this great Liberian story. I remain eternally grateful and admit that no combination of words can adequately express my appreciation. Madam President, thank you ever so much for making my story possible.

Full text… Thank You Note to Madam President

 

“Fishery Speech Abuja