Learning to Target for Economic Diversification: PDIA in Sri Lanka

Abstract

Many countries, like Sri Lanka, are trying to diversify their economies but often lack the capabilities to lead diversification programs. One of these capabilities relates to targeting new sectors to promote and pursue through a diversification policy: countries know they are 'doomed to choose' sectors to target, 1 but lack effective capabilities to do the targeting. This paper narrates a recent (and ongoing) initiative to establish this kind of capability in Sri Lanka. The initiative adopted a Problem Driven Iterative Adaptation (PDIA) process, where a team of Sri Lankan officials worked with Harvard Center for International Development (CID) facilitators to build capabilities. The paper tells the story of this process, providing documented evidence of the progress over time and describing the thinking behind the PDIA process. It shows how a reliable targeting mechanism can emerge in a reasonably limited period, when a committed team of public officials are effectively authorized and engaged. The paper will be of particular interest to those thinking about targeting for diversification and to those interested in processes (like PDIA) which are focused on building state capability and fostering policy implementation in public contexts.

Enhancing public health outcomes in developing countries: from good policies and best practices to better implementation

“…This exercise was conducted as a one-year pilot, but even during this relatively short time period mobilized significant work, which the World Bank then attempted to build on in a loan for the health sector. (A vastly larger and more detailed account of PDIA in action can be found in [4], in which a team in the Government of Sri lanka is tasked with significantly expanding direct foreign investment.) conclusion how can contemporary development professionals best interpret and perhaps contribute to the evolving "adaptive implementation" landscape?…”

“…For present purposes, we can examine indexes (and associated rankings) on themes such as “quality of government,” “bureaucratic effectiveness,” and “control of corruption.” Good faith efforts have been made to ensure these indexes meet minimum quality control standards, but they inherently have various strengths, weaknesses, and limitations, and as such it is best to take them seriously but not literally. These caveats aside, when the most relevant of these indices are integrated into a single overarching measure of “state capability” (see [4]) the picture is depressingly clear: only 13 of today’s developing countries (out of 102 for which data is available; these 13 countries are: Chile, South Korea, Singapore, Qatar, Indonesia, Colombia, Turkey, South Africa, Albania, Saudi Arabia, Uruguay, and Croatia) are on a path to having a state that, by the end of this century, can perform at the level of the weakest-performing of today’s Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development countries. Put differently, if current trends continue, only about 10% of those people currently living in the “historically developing countries” (i.e.…”

“…In Building State Capability [4], my co-authors and I extend this concern to argue that an unhappy (if often unintended) outcome of attempts to "reform" public sector institutions is that success is measured by the volume of inputs duly provided in compliance with prevailing budgeting and procurement rules and international "best practices," but with relatively little attention paid to whether performance has demonstrably improved. A good "education project" constructs buildings, trains teachers, and delivers textbooks-on time, on budget, at scale, without public controversy-but with little concern given to whether students actually learn anything [25].…”

“…This paper seeks to speak to these gaps by providing (a) a broad overview of the current state of state capability for implementation, generally, and using specific examples from public health in low- and middle-income countries (where these challenges are most consequential, even if still relevant elsewhere); (b) an account of how and why prevailing responses to implementation deficits are so often inadequate; and (c) an outline, on the basis of this analysis, of what an alternative strategy might look like (for further details, see [4]). Sections corresponding to each of these three domains follow, concluding with a final discussion of the constraints to more fully responding to 21st century implementation challenges in public health in developing countries.…”

Continuous Professional Development in the Primary School

“…In this context, INOVASI has adopted a pilot approach, in which local teachers and education administrators contribute to defining the solutions to the challenge of improving learning outcomesin the local context. The approach is known as problem-driven iterative adaptation (PDIA) [18] Local solutions are aimed at relevant local problems in education, this is supported with an approach to co-design, co-funding, and co-implementing of pilots. It is important that local authorities 'own' the pilots, that they are piloting their own solutions to the problems of literacy, numeracy and inclusion.…”