The Targeting Social Need & Gross Value Added? a Paradox – poles apart?
A presentation to the Policy Innovation Unit of DETINI
Wed 24th Nov. 2004
Nick Rogers MSc. North Down BC. nick.rogers@northdown.gov.uk
The policy paradox described
• The dilemma of Targeting Social Need and in yet also achieving above average growth in Gross Value Added to help catch up with the rest of GB
• Could a policy encouraging the direct involvement of the local knowledge based (KB) sectors within the supply chain of the public sector investment stream help retain significant GVA in the local economy?
• Could the same policy generate new enterprise spin off and accelerate enterprise growth?
A critical appraisal of the proposal
• Would the local KB sector respond to the opportunity?
• Would it be a ‘one time’ benefit - or could the partners use the knowledge to create new knowledge based tradable services?
• Would the policy ‘muddy’ the procurement process? i.e. split responsibilities – added costs etc. hence be politically unacceptable..
An analogy in Great Britain
• OGC & DTI are considering how projects based on innovative speculative proposals could be procured via single sourcing whilst still retaining best value and value for money
• Possible emphasis on ‘most economically advantageous terms’ as a criteria for local involvement (EU procurement rules permitting)
Atkinson Review – Measurement of Government Output and Productivity
• …government output represents a sizeable part of Gross Domestic Product (GDP). In broad terms, a one per cent per year faster growth rate of government output raises the overall GDP growth rate by some 0.2 per cent.
Source: Atkinson Review-Interim Report July 2004
So what might we do now?
• Are the potential benefits a mirage in economic terms? – lets check it out!
• Identify any international examples of a similar approach – Europe & further afield
• Develop a pilot project proposal – who with and how funded? DENI?
I would welcome any comments on this topic.. in particular has anyone has tried it?
Wed 24th Nov. 2004
Nick Rogers MSc. North Down BC. nick.rogers@northdown.gov.uk
The policy paradox described
• The dilemma of Targeting Social Need and in yet also achieving above average growth in Gross Value Added to help catch up with the rest of GB
• Could a policy encouraging the direct involvement of the local knowledge based (KB) sectors within the supply chain of the public sector investment stream help retain significant GVA in the local economy?
• Could the same policy generate new enterprise spin off and accelerate enterprise growth?
A critical appraisal of the proposal
• Would the local KB sector respond to the opportunity?
• Would it be a ‘one time’ benefit - or could the partners use the knowledge to create new knowledge based tradable services?
• Would the policy ‘muddy’ the procurement process? i.e. split responsibilities – added costs etc. hence be politically unacceptable..
An analogy in Great Britain
• OGC & DTI are considering how projects based on innovative speculative proposals could be procured via single sourcing whilst still retaining best value and value for money
• Possible emphasis on ‘most economically advantageous terms’ as a criteria for local involvement (EU procurement rules permitting)
Atkinson Review – Measurement of Government Output and Productivity
• …government output represents a sizeable part of Gross Domestic Product (GDP). In broad terms, a one per cent per year faster growth rate of government output raises the overall GDP growth rate by some 0.2 per cent.
Source: Atkinson Review-Interim Report July 2004
So what might we do now?
• Are the potential benefits a mirage in economic terms? – lets check it out!
• Identify any international examples of a similar approach – Europe & further afield
• Develop a pilot project proposal – who with and how funded? DENI?
I would welcome any comments on this topic.. in particular has anyone has tried it?
posted by Econ Dev UK at 1:41 AM
1 Comments:
Nick,
Interesting concept.
There are no perfect markets, whether we are talking about private ones related to business, or public ones related to government and the institutional sector.
Many folks in the US hide behind the cloak of competitive markets, but what does competitive really mean? How competitive That is a good question for economic developers everywhere in the world.
Your idea of targeting a part of the government "business" chain might make sense in economies that need a jumpstart to grow. There are some who will challenge the proposal arguing that markets know better than govt. how to respond efficiently to needs.
I suggest you start with an experiment and measure what happens.
As you know, minority set-asides and govt. business procurement for small business have been around for a long time in the US and many other countries.
Good luck!
Don
Post a Comment
<< Home