Truly a brilliant concept: an Institute of Effectiveness.
In 2005, recognizing the urgency of finding strategic, practical and operational solutions to state failure world-wide, the ISE team moved their attention from a specific country context- Afghanistan- to state-effectiveness more broadly, and mobilized a group of leading experts and practitioners in the subject to work towards consolidation and refinement of an integrated approach to state-building.
Their work has been very much ‘fragile-state’ buliding, (described as “failed states”), working in countries such as China, India, and Russia where Ghani worked with the World Bank, or in more recent state building analysis in Lebanon, Sudan, and Nepal.
ISE’s model proposes that states must perform ten critical functions in the modern world, in order to serve their citizens and fulfill their international obligations. Interestingly, though, there doesn’t seem to be much emphasis in this circle of 10 on engaging citizens as part of ‘state’ innovation and intervention.
In a free and civil society at least, citizens are the key stakeholders in the process of transformation and ongoing state prosperity. I don’t think this is a top-down kind of organisation at all, but maybe missed a trick describing the critical component of citizen engagement.
For instance, when improving transport in remote parts of rural England, although a state-funded initiative, it was critical for us (myself working as a lead consultant at live|work) to use the stakeholders within the community to resolve the issues. We moved up to the area for a period and based our office in a local community centre. We were improving ‘state’ services, yes, but working with ALL stakeholders of ‘effectiveness’ including citizens. It was the only way to embed effectiveness in a service system that for a long time had been very ineffective. Obesity, another example, is a state issue, a citizen issue, a market issue and a cultural issue. All connected. We can only address this problem through wholly connecting to all the stakeholders. Same goes for climate change or environmental overshoot; for unemployment or for failed agriculture. No state-level intervention alone could solve those issues. How does this sort of approach work in Afghanistan?
Anyway, my approach is an aside slightly because I truly believe in challenging state effectiveness and engaging PEOPLE in the process. ISE’s focus is really on leadership, accountability and higher education; transforming truly crippled nation’s, so maybe slightly different to where I’m going?
I believe each nation (“failing” or “operating”) should have its own Institute of Effectiveness. It should be non-governmental, independent, for profit (or better, a social enterprise); it should have a board of ‘citizens’, business leaders, scientific leaders, entrepreneurs as well as policy makers. In fact, forget a board, all these stakeholders should be running the institution. Stakeholders would revolve on a yearly basis. And it should work to challenge the system that is government, at local, regional or national levels as well as the market.
What would be the return? How would it sustain itself? I’d suggest a percentage of government expenditure/funds, from any budget holder (fed department or state budgets), and a combination of commission/royalty from any new service developed in partnership with the market to address and support ‘civic’ or ‘state’ needs. In fact, you could also put in place an effectiveness ‘bonus’ or commission on state funded work. There’s many ways to shape an organisation that’s sole purpose and performance indicator is effectiveness.
I’ve taken this concept wider than the mission of ISE I think. I’m just so inspired to see intervention on state effectiveness. And I believe ISE and Clare Lockhart are getting the attention they desire.
