The diagnostic mapping tool assesses the status and potential of public-private dialogue. Now it comes to designing and implementing dialogue, what issues should a task manager consider?
This section of the handbook is based around the Charter of Good Practice in using Public-Private Dialogue for Private Sector Development (see section A. 4. above)
The issue: Some PPDs have a formal mandate. This can mean anything from a mission statement drafted by participants to a presidential decree of establishment. Some even have a formal mandate with legal backing, making the consultation process mandatory. Other PPDs are effective without any form of formal or legal mandate.
Closely associated with the question of mandate is that of institutionalization. Some PPDs are formal institutions, other are informal initiatives. Some begin as informal initiatives and morph into formal institutions. All need to be aligned with existing institutions to avoid the risk of duplicating efforts.
The issue: Structure and participation present difficult balancing acts. Too much formality in the structure can be stifling, while too little formality risks drift. Too many or varied participants can make dialogue practically unmanageable, while narrowing the range of participants increases the risk of capture and lack of balance.
The issue: Dialogue usually doesn’t happen unless someone really wants it to. A common hallmark of successful PPDs is that they have strong and effective “champions” driving the process forward – but not so strong that they skew the process or make it personally dependent on individuals.
The issue: Dialogue processes need to be facilitated to ensure progress. Meetings need to be arranged, participants invited and persuaded of the value of attending, and momentum maintained through the inevitable difficulties and changes.
The issue: Dialogue is not an end in itself – it is a means to outputs. Choosing the right outputs to aim for can be critical to a dialogue’s chances of success.
The issue: The public and private sectors often enter into dialogue with different worldviews, assumptions, and vocabularies. Many entrepreneurs who have value to add to dialogue may choose not to involve themselves in the process because of a lack of awareness or appreciation. Interactions between governments and businesses are also open to unfavorable interpretation by others, especially when the criteria for selecting business participants appear to be opaque.
The issue: Like any other activity in which time and money are invested, PPD needs to be monitored and evaluated. But PPD poses particular problems for M&E. One of the most valuable benefits it can bring – an improved atmosphere of cooperation and trust – is long-term and hard to quantify. And while it is a sign of success for a donor-initiated dialogue if participants take ownership of the process, that also makes it harder to set concrete targets in advance.
The issue: PPD should not focus exclusively on the national level; PPD at the local level can have tremendous impact on the investment climate and the enabling environment for private sector growth. It is important for business and civil society to engage in dialogue with local levels of government that often have the power to take – and implement – decisions that affect private sector development. Local PPD can also address national issues to ensure that national policies meet local needs. Holding events in only the capital city also skews participation by making it harder for small businesses based in outlying provinces to get involved. Most principles of running a PPD at the national level apply at the subnational level. But attention should be given to organizational and process issues to ensure that the PPD results in elimination of obstacles to investment and private sector growth.
The issue: It makes natural sense for dialogue to arise between a particular industry, cluster or valuechain in the private sector and those in government responsible for regulating that area of the economy – many theorists believe that promoting clusters plays a major role in improving competitiveness. But these sector-specific dialogues present their own particular opportunities and threats.
The issue: Just as sub-national opportunities for dialogue should not be ignored, neither should the potential for PPD to contribute in the international arena – especially in preparation for negotiations on treaties and trade talks. It makes sense for governments and private sectors to cooperate on opportunities such as trade, tourism and exploitation of natural resources in international fora.
The Issue: Experience of PPD in recent post-conflict situations – noticeably Sierra Leone, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Cambodia, Liberia, with further examples in Kosovo, East Timor, and other countries – points to its significant potential as a tool for promoting peace and expediting the reconstruction of civil society.
The issue: Much of the growth in interest in PPD in recent years has been fueled by the international donor community’s perception of it as a tool to promote private sector development and poverty reduction. Often, the relationship between public and private sectors is so poor that dialogue has little chance of getting started without the involvement of a donor. But donor involvement brings with it significant risks.