LAC MIC++ Launch

June 25, 2009

Nick ManningSector Manager

Public Sector and Governance

Public sector managementSharing knowledge amongst peers

A LAC/MIC perspective

• Country level – indicators of progress• Very weak regional data collection• Tend to be anecdotal and fashion-driven

• Thematically• Strong existing professional networks

(INTOSAI, CAROSAI, LAC SBO etc.) – but coverage is limited

• Agency level• Very few institutionalized peer-to-peer

linkages

How do we share knowledge on public management developments?

We can do better – but we need to take care

Need to be very wary about any ratings/rankings approach to public management

Not everything needs to be public

Ranking is a tricky business

Ratings/rankings approach to public management is risky

Can be a catalyst to dissatisfied public But just as likely to be a source of political

resentment that closes down debate Above all, our evidence base that one

arrangement is better than another is generally thin

Not everything needs to be public

Sharing technical information between partners is facilitated by confidence and trust

Tax agencies, budget departments, ministries of public service – are all more likely to share information within a small group

LAC-MIC++ takes care

Not normative Develops a safe space for honest peer

partnerships

LAC-MIC++ is carefully positioned

Public presentation

Str

ongl

y no

rmat

ive

WGI PEFA when published Doing

Business/Enterprise Surveys

OECD Government at a Glance

Latin American Governments at a Glance (LAGG) indicators database

Less normative/m

ore descriptive

OECD DAC Procurement

PEFA when not published

OECD Peer Reviews Professional networks

(INTOSAI, CAROSAI etc.)

LAC-MIC++ peer-to-peer partnerships

Less public

In conclusion

Long way to go We’ll know that we’re getting somewhere

when: LAGG generates tough questions and

challenges orthodoxy Peer-to-peer partnerships are routine in any

capacity-building exercise