By early next year, the government is expected to launch
its development plan – a sequel to last year’s five-year
fiscal program. Although little is known about its content
and coverage, one expects that it will go beyond rebuilding
the infrastructure of the country and include at its core social and
economic development.
But if history is any guide, the record of development programs
in Lebanon has been mixed. For those who have forgotten, President
Chamoun’s three-year plan, Chehab’s famous Institut de
Recherches et de Formations en vue du Développement
(IRFED) delegation, Frangieh’s six-year plan, Sarkis’s 1977 CDR
plan, and Hariri’s 1993 Horizon 2000 plan attest to the numerous
attempts at undertaking development.
Will the new plan avoid the pitfalls
of its predecessors? While it is too early to
judge, its prospects for success will be higher if it avoids some of the pitfalls
associated with its predecessors.
The first is narrow development objectives.
The government’s understanding of
development has almost always been
confined to physical infrastructure and
sectoral policies. This is particularly the
case of the Horizon 2000 of 1993 and the less ambitious 1955 ministry of planning
program. These plans focused on building or rebuilding roads, bridges, airports,
ports and providing electricity, telecommunications,
water, housing and other essentials.
These are essential prerequisites for the functioning of the country
and are basic rights, but development is by no means confined
to this. In fact, development is defined by Joseph Stiglitz, the
chief economist at the World Bank, as the transformation of society
from traditional relations and traditional ways of thinking to
more modern ways. This is far from being achieved. What is necessary
is to bring forth a more inclusive approach to development
that would also address the social, structural, and human
aspects of development that are necessary to make it effective
and sustainable.
The second is the lack of consensus. Governments in
Lebanon have often failed to consult the relevant parties on the
objectives of development, and all development programs failed
to consult the different actors in society. In fact, the design of
the development programs has often been commissioned to private sector firms such as Bechtel and Dar al-Handassah in the
case of Horizon 2000 or to the French IRFED consultancy
groups in Chehab’s era. At most, the development plans would
be discussed in the council of ministers and, if lucky, sent to parliament
for approval. In light of the economic recession in
1997, the government held an economic conference with a
variety of business associations to come up with ways to get the
economy moving.
The move was hailed as the first step towards a participatory
approach to decision making. However, the recommendations
were never implemented. The other segments of society are
bypassed and have no mechanism to express their views on programs
that will directly affect their lives.
Given the wide coverage of the development
program, the government must consult, and also earn the approval of, the
different levels of government, for example
parliament and municipalities, as well
as the private sector, business associations,
research centers, NGOs, community
groups and other concerned parties.
This inclusive approach of designing a
development program will be based on
consensus and its prospects of surviving
will be greater.
The third is not allocating wide enough
responsibilities. The development process
often included a set of tasks to be performed
by the government. Given that the government’s
administration is not able to undertake development projects, the
objectives were often not implemented. Given that development
tasks involve the whole society and no matter how good the
administration is, other economic and social actors must play some
part in the implementation role.
The bottom line is this: the government should not pretend
it knows best. A successful development program’s objective must
be broad enough to encompass several segments of society. The
identification and the prioritization of tasks must be reached in
a participatory manner with the different actors in society and each
should be based on their capability to contribute to the development
project. Otherwise, the development program will be neither
sustainable nor effective and history will repeat itself.
Sami Atallah is an economist with the Lebanese Center for Policy Studies. The
views expressed here are those of the author and not necessarily those of the LCPS.
