PUBLIC ENTERPRISES AND THE CHALLENGE OF …unpan1.un.org/intradoc/groups/public/documents/... ·...

AJPAM Vol XVI, No. 2 • July 2005 29

PUBLIC ENTERPRISES AND THE CHALLENGE OFPRIVATIZATION IN SWAZILAND

Musa P. Dlamini1

In Swaziland, as in many other African countries, the post-independence erawitnessed the phenomenal expansion of the parastatal sector as the governmentgeared itself for vastly expanded development functions necessitated by a rap-idly increasing population. However, the proliferation of public enterprises wasnot preceded by careful and systematic planning, hence their establishment wasunco-ordinated, haphazard and was a response to social and political exigenciesrather than based on purely economic considerations. Moreover, the nature ofBritish colonial administration and, in particular, failure to prepare its coloniesfor the problems and challenges of nationhood, meant that on the eve of indepen-dence, the newly elected Swaziland government had neither the knowledge norexperience in the administration of public affairs.

After nearly four decades of independence, the overall performance of publicenterprises in Swaziland has left much to be desired. While the contribution ofparastatals to the GDP and employment in the formal sector is small, they con-tinue to be a financial as well as an administrative burden on the governmentand, by extension, on the tax-paying public. In recent years, there has been arapid growth in budgetary subventions, coupled with the continuation of variousindirect and non-cash subsidies, including the spiralling of costs incurred bygovernment associated with capital restructuring and other forms of financialsupport to ailing public enterprises.

In this article, we examine some of the major problems and challenges facingpublic enterprises in African countries in general and Swaziland in particular.We argue that part of the solution to the problems faced by the parastatal sectorlies in the implementation of the privatization policy that the Swaziland govern-ment adopted as a reform strategy designed to turn around the economic for-tunes of public enterprises a decade ago. We also discuss the key features of thegovernment’s privatization policy, including the reasons for the gap between prom-ise and performance in terms of its implementation.

1Executive Director of the University Planning Centre. He is also Associate Professor in PublicManagement in the Department of Political and Administrative Studies, University of

Swaziland, Kwaluseni, Swaziland

30 AJPAM Vol XVI, No. 2 • July 2005

INTRODUCTION

On the eve of independence, the Africancontinent was characterized by a mood ofoptimism and euphoria that was unprec-edented in its history. Democracy, devel-opment and prosperity, freedom and dig-nity of the black man and woman – theseand other sacred ideas were the vision ofAfrican independence. The tasks facing thenew African governments were formidable,to which they responded, inter alia, by de-centralizing or delegating economic activ-ity through the establishment of public en-terprises. They acted in this way for a va-riety of reasons, including the need to ‘free’themselves from some of the demands ofdevelopment; reduce private sector domi-nation of the economy (where this wasstrong); promote efficiency in the admin-istration of public sector programmes andprojects and thus generate much neededrevenue or capital for development pur-poses; and generally control the command-ing heights of the national economy as avisible sign of sovereignty, nationhood andindependence.

Furthermore, besides the relative weaknessof domestic capitalism, which also led tothe rapid growth of the parastatal sector,African governments wanted to end foreigncontrol over the economy (Tordoff, 1984,139). The establishment of public enter-prises, therefore, represented an attempt bynewly independent African states to ensurethat major sectors of the economy lay un-der government control. The underlyingassumption was that the state was in a bet-ter position than the private sector to serveas the custodian of the people and thus en-sure that the benefits of development fil-

tered down to all segments of the popula-tion.

However, the performance of the parastatalsector has been much less impressive thanwas originally anticipated. Moreover, de-velopment planning, the proliferation ofpublic enterprises and measures for thetransformation of the bureaucratic appara-tus of the state placed formidable demandson developing countries. No one puts thispoint clearly than Roemer, who observedthat:

“... development planning itself impliedmore activity than colonial govern-ments had undertaken. Nationalizationof foreign enterprises and the establish-ment of new publicly-owned firmspushed government into entirely newareas, while rural development, the pro-vision of basic needs and thedecentralisation of government allmultiplied the demands on the civilservice”. (Roemer, 1982, 133)

African Public Enterprises: Constraints toEffective Performance

The constraints to the effective operationand performance of public enterprises canbroadly be classified into two main catego-ries, namely, internal and external. Inter-nal constraints emanate from the plethoraof administrative and or managerial prob-lems within public enterprises while exter-nal ones arise from forces and trends un-leashed by the immediate socio-economicand political environment of which theparastatal sector is an integral part. Whileinternal constraints may be within the con-trol and or influence of public enterprisesin general, external forces, by virtue of be-


ing externally – induced, often lie beyondthe control of the parastatal sector.

Many African public enterprises grew outof government departments, hence therehas been a tendency to model them on thepublic bureaucracy and also saddle themwith civil service rules, regulations andprocedures, including employees whosetraining, knowledge and experience derivesmainly from the public service. By defini-tion and orientation, these rules, regulationsand procedures are generally unsuitable forthe business ventures and operations typi-cal of public enterprises. The influence ofthe civil service legacy on African publicenterprises is such that work proceduresand methods are often cumbersome, result-ing in delays, inefficiency and unnecessarybottle-necks that have the negative effectsof paralyzing the decision-making process.

In recent years, public enterprise rules forfinancial management and control, whichdemand that they be in accord with opera-tional practices and procedures related tothe business environment, have come un-der greater scrutiny, particularly in view ofthe fact that they leave much to be desired.Inadequate internal financial managementand control measures are largely respon-sible for widespread corruption, misman-agement and the misappropriation of lim-ited financial resources at the disposal ofpublic enterprises.

Despite operating in a fast-changing andcompetitive environment, public enter-prises also suffer from a complete lack ofprovision for management planning, re-search and development. In today’s cut-throat business environment, in which the

demands of globalization have rendered theworld a global village, modern organiza-tions are continuously involved in an end-less search for better and more efficientmethods of production through, inter alia,corporate planning and governance, re-search, development and strategic planningand management. However, these andother time-tested methods and approachesto organizational change or managementare either lacking or seriously inadequatein African public enterprises, such that re-source allocation is often based onguestimates or insufficient information anddata derived from poor planning and or re-search.

Consequently, many public enterprisesembark on programmes and projects thatare often formulated against a backdrop ofpoorly undertaken or no feasibility studiesat all, including market research, that wouldprovide crucial information on economicforces or trends that impinge on produc-tion, marketing, sales and other variables.Another serious internal constraint to ef-fective public enterprise performance inmany African countries relates to humanresource management and development. Itis widely accepted that the majority of Af-rican countries suffer from an acute short-age of skilled, trained and suitably experi-enced manpower despite several decadesof independence during which the schooland tertiary education system is expectedto have produced the requisite numbers ofeducated personnel.

This constraint to effective public enter-prise performance is both quantitative andqualitative and is particularly critical at themiddle and top management levels. It is,


therefore, not surprising that the parastatalsector in the majority of African countriesis characterized by poor or weak leader-ship at the highest levels of the organiza-tional hierarchy where it matters most.Productivity inevitably depends on themaximum use, utilization and developmentof human, capital and natural resources,hence poor public enterprise leadership isbound to affect adversely overall perfor-mance. The situation in many Africancountries is exarcerbated by the fact thatthe top management of public enterprisesis often appointed on the basis of politicalconsiderations rather than measurable cri-teria that are job or performance related.

With regard to external constraints to theeffective performance of public enterprises,it should be emphasized that African coun-tries are not islands unto themselves but arean integral part of the international eco-nomic system into which they were slowlyintegrated several centuries ago. Therefore,the problems and challenges of the globaleconomic order adversely affect Africancountries in general and public enterprisesin particular. For instance, the global socio-economic and political situation, the paceof modern technology, the increasing com-plexity of international economic and mon-etary systems, the world-wide recession,inflation, stagflation and other forces andtrends constitute a dynamic and volatileenvironment within which public enter-prises operate.

Almost all African countries are saddledwith a heavy debt burden and can no longermeet their financial and or loan repaymentobligations to either the developed coun-tries, overseas donor agencies or interna-

tional finance institutions, such as theWorld Bank and International MonetaryFund. Consequently, and confronted withother financial difficulties, African coun-tries face acute foreign exchange problems,such that many public enterprises are un-able to import vital equipment, machineryas well as spare parts for their operations.In desperation, some public enterprises arecompelled, through binding contractualagreements, to procure inappropriate tech-nology, obsolete plant designs and equip-ment from unscrupulous foreign dealers,many of whom are often unfamiliar withAfrican conditions and circumstances.

Public enterprise accumulated losses arenot only caused by inefficiency and cor-ruption but also come about due to the re-luctance or inability of major stakeholders,such as the government, to increase sharecapital. In many African countries, suchas Swaziland, government subventions topublic enterprises are maintained at thesame levels year after year and do not ac-count for inflationary trends in theeconomy. The unsatisfactory economicposition facing public enterprises is alsocaused by inadequate financial guidelinesthat fail to indicate clearly when a publicenterprise is expected to cover costs orbreakeven and when it is supposed to makeprofit.

Furthermore, besides the fact that publicenterprise borrowing powers are limitedand circumscribed, the procedures for se-curing government grants are too bureau-cratic and characterized by numerous de-lays and red-tape. Financial houses and orinstitutions, whether local or international,insist on government guarantees in respect


of the repayment of public enterprise loans.This notwithstanding, the number of pub-lic enterprises that can have access to suchloans is limited by the fact that most Afri-can governments provide an upper ceilingto their guarantees, such that once a quotaor ceiling has been reached, no additionalloans can be granted, except on exceptionalor extra-ordinary circumstances.

Closely related to the problem ofundercapitalization is the issue of pricing.More often than not, African governmentseither fix or alter the prices of public enter-prise goods and services based on socialand or political considerations. For in-stance, the prices of goods and servicesprovided by public enterprises are rarelyincreased out of fear of adverse politicalconsequences, such as alienating voters orlosing voter support for the government inpower. Consequently, many public enter-prises are compelled by political exigen-cies to charge uneconomic prices for theirgoods and services, particularly since con-trol over pricing policy lies outsideparastatals and specifically rests with gov-ernment – controlled committees, such asthe Standing Committee on Public Enter-prises (SCOPE) in Swaziland.

In view of the fact that pricing policies andmechanisms are often used as a politicalweapon, the prices of public enterprisegoods and services have very little, if any,relationship to increases in the cost of pro-duction. Herein lies one of the sources ofpublic enterprise financial losses, namely,escalating production costs that are notcommensurate with revenue or income.For this and other reasons, many publicenterprises can hardly break-even and are

often trapped in a never – ending viciouscycle of indebtedness from which it be-comes difficult to break, given the natureof the socio-political and economic land-scape that exists in the majority of Africancountries.

Government control over the parastatal sec-tor normally extends, inter alia, into suchareas as the appointment of top manage-ment, pricing policy, project formulation,planning and evaluation, investment poli-cies and sources of finance, wage policyand industrial relations. Because of theextensive nature of such controls, publicenterprise management is sometimes leftwith little, if any, scope for independentdecision-making. Lessons of experienceelsewhere, particularly in the developedmarket economies, have demonstrated thatif public enterprises are to perform theirfunctions effectively and efficiently, theymust be fairly autonomous and should beaccorded adequate parameters and or lati-tudes of action to take independent deci-sions, as long as these are within the frame-work of overall government policy and therequirements of the national developmentplan.

However, this is not always the case be-cause, among other factors, public enter-prises are saddled with members of theboards of directors that are appointed forpolitical and other reasons rather thanmeritocracy, competence or business con-siderations. Infact, boards of directors arecomposed of bureaucrats or former publicofficials who bring to bear onto parastatalscivil service rules, methods, regulations andprocedures that often hinder rather thanpromote progress. Since, in the majority


of cases, the boards of directors of publicenterprises are not made up of educatedmen and women of vision, leadership andprofessional integrity, they are a liability,not only to the enterprises but to the coun-try as a whole.

In some cases, there is usually conflict be-tween the board and top public enterprisemanagement as well as between the latterand controlling ministries, which may arisefrom unnecessary interference in the day-to-day administration of the affairs of pub-lic enterprises. Such interference, whetherpolitical or administrative or both, cansometimes be traced to a complete lack ofproper understanding of the role, nature andrelationship between public enterprises andthe government as well as between topmanagement and the board of directors.More often than not, the management ofpublic enterprises is held at ransom or hos-tage to the wishes of board members andvice versa. We turn next to a discussion ofthe public enterprise situation in Swaziland.

PUBLIC ENTERPRISES INSWAZILAND: PROBLEMS AND

CHALLENGES

After independence, the number of publicenterprises in Swaziland, as in most othernewly independent African states, grew tre-mendously; this reflected the increasing useof the parastatal sector as an instrument ofsocio-economic development. During thecolonial era and because of the nature ofcolonial ‘development’ policy, Africanswere neither encouraged to accumulate pri-vate capital nor were they given the oppor-tunity to acquire business managementskills, knowledge and experience. This wasparticularly the case in Swaziland where

decades of British colonial rule alienatedland and other means of capital formationfrom the indigenous population and placedthem under white-settler control and domi-nation. Naturally, independence markedthe beginning of an important era duringwhich the government, through the estab-lishment of public enterprises, tried to re-dress the economic imbalances of the co-lonial period by encouraging some mea-sure of public control over the command-ing heights of the economy (Dlamini, 1994,68).

The dualistic nature of the economy, inwhich the modern sector is under foreigncontrol and domination, has been a subjectof increasing concern to the governmentin Swaziland. For this reason and duringthe early years of the post-independenceera, one of the main objectives of govern-ment policy was to reduce economic dual-ism by creating employment opportunitiesand increasing the incomes of rural dwell-ers; it also sought to promote the partici-pation of Swazis in the development of thecountry. Accordingly, development policyafter independence put emphasis on clos-ing the gap in the standards of living andeducation, not only between the differentraces, but also between the urban and ruralcommunities; thus equipping Swazis toplay an important role in the developmentof the Kingdom. In sum, it was throughthe establishment of public enterprises thatthe government hoped to reduce controland domination of the economy by foreigncapital (Ibid).

In the immediate post-independence periodin Swaziland, as in almost all African coun-tries, a number of public enterprises were


established in key sectors of the economyin order to spearhead development and pro-vide a variety of goods and services.Swaziland’s Category A public enterprises,which are estimated at over two dozen innumber and include special fund organiza-tions, constitute a significant part of thenational economy, since they provide muchof the infrastructure, such as urban watersupply, electricity, telecommunications andpostal services, rail and air transport andagro-industrial services.

The causes of the poor performance of theparastatal sector in Swaziland are many andvaried. In recent years and due to geo-po-litical and economic conditions prevalentin the domestic, regional and internationalenvironment, the Swaziland economy hasbeen performing below expectations. Be-cause the economy has been sluggish andthe economic climate has not been condu-cive to healthy business operations, suchindifferent performance has reflected inindividual public enterprises. Some ofthese economic problems are caused, interalia, by the country’s inability to attractdirect foreign investment due, to a largeextent, to a socio-political environment thatis not conducive to such investment.

This having been said, it must further bepointed out that some of the root causes ofpoor performance lie with the political andbureaucratic leadership, both inside andoutside public enterprises. Also, manage-ment practices have been unsatisfactoryand external controls have been inadequate.The catalogue of failure is evidenced bythe frequency of commissions of inquiryinto the operations and activities of manypublic enterprises since their establishment

in the post-independence era. These inves-tigations always point to weak financialcontrols, both internal and external, includ-ing corruption and mismanagement. Evi-dence abounds to the fact that the manage-ment of many public enterprises is too weakto provide the necessary leadership anddirection to set things right; there are toomany lapses in professional and technicalcompetence.

Moreover, the inadequacy of communica-tion within these enterprises, as well as withgovernment, exacerbates feelings of lackof trust and confidence which militatesagainst efforts to develop coherent plansfor restructuring the parastatal sector. Inaddition, public enterprises suffer from anacute shortage of suitably qualified andexperienced personnel with the requisiteskills in commercial, industrial and busi-ness disciplines. Most personnel are eitherformer civil servants or individuals withrudimentary business training who lackknowledge and understanding of the man-agement of business-oriented undertakings.Consequently and in recent years, a num-ber of public enterprises, such as theSwaziland Electricity Board (SEB), theSwaziland Posts and TelecommunicationsCorporation (SPTC) and the SwazilandTelevision Broadcasting Corporation(STBC), have been on the verge of collapsedue to mismanagement and the inability toservice loan repayments to foreign credi-tors, thus placing a heavy burden on thegovernment which is, from time to time,called upon to bail them out financially.

Because Swaziland’s Category A publicenterprises are a critical part of the nationaleconomy, their poor performance is a fi-


nancial burden on both the tax payer andthe government. Undoubtedly, the im-mense weight of this burden hinders ratherthan promotes development. In one of itsquarterly reports, the Public EnterprisesUnit (PEU), a department within the Min-istry of Finance that was establishedthrough the legal provisions of the PublicEnterprises Control and Monitoring Act of1989 to facilitate and monitor the perfor-mance of and provide technical and advi-sory assistance to public enterprises, ob-served that the most prevalent problemsconfronting public enterprises centre on:

• Assets are seriously under-utilized;• Some of the larger enterprises are not

able to service their debt;• There is a lack of commercial orienta-

tion and proper business culture lead-ing to missed opportunities to earn rev-enue;

• Management information systems areinadequate;

• Lack of skills and training lead to inef-fective management;

• Some enterprises are exposed to sig-nificant foreign exchange risks; and

• Boards are often not well balancedin terms of the necessary expertise.(PEU, 1994, 1)

Elaborating on the pervasive problem ofan inadequate business and or commercialorientation within the parastatal sector, thePEU further observed that:

Many public enterprises do not have acommercial orientation or proper busi-ness culture; they consider themselvesto be part of Government and account-able to Government, not their custom-ers. Thus, there is inadequate empha-

sis placed on cost recovery and provid-ing good services and value for money.Rather than operate a more efficiententerprise, many are content to rely onGovernment subvention. Governmentis partly to blame by sending mixedsignals and interfering in managementdecisions. (Ibid)

In view of the entrepreneurial nature of theoperations and activities of public enter-prises, it is generally acknowledged thatthey need a greater degree of independenceof action than could easily be accorded tothem within the general public service.However, what constitutes an acceptableand operationally effective balance be-tween the required level of autonomy onthe side of public enterprises and the needfor government to have adequate controlof overall economic policy interests and theextent to which this balance can be institu-tionalized has been, and still is, a subjectof intense debate and concern – nowheremore than in less developed countries.(Corkery and Wetternhall, 1990, 3).

In Swaziland, as in may other African coun-tries, issues of governance and accountabil-ity, whether at the national political levelor that of public enterprises, have not beenseriously addressed, such that with regardto the parastatal sector there is lack of gen-eral principles governing the respectiveroles of the minister and his ministry onthe one hand and the public enterpriseboard and executive management of theenterprise on the other. Since attention hasnot been paid to the governance structureand relationships between the internal andexternal stakeholders of public enterprises,particularly the role and functions of their


boards, the parastatal sector in Swazilandlacks proper direction, control and manage-ment and, therefore, fails to accomplishmany of the development and other goalsfor which it was established.

Besides the issue of a clear understandingof the role and functions of all stakehold-ers that are involved in the operations, ac-tivities and management of public enter-prises, another related area of concern cen-tres on the composition, knowledge, exper-tise and orientation of parastatal boards,including political interference and patron-age. For instance, it has been observed that:

Political interference and patronageare some of the causes of the poorperformance of the parastatal sectorin Swaziland. Political interferenceeither takes the form of non-viableprojects being imposed on publicenterprises despite expert advice tothe contrary or pressure for thegranting of business loans to influ-ential individuals or politicians. Theappointment of boards of directorsis often based on political rather thanobjective and/or merit consider-ations, with the result that boardmembers are occasionally not menand women of integrity and profes-sionalism with a broad understand-ing of national development policy ingeneral and the nature and opera-tions of the public enterprises intowhich they are appointed. (Dlamini,op.cit).

Swaziland is well-known for a socio-po-litical landscape or system, under theframework of the Tinkhundla traditionalorder, that facilitates the preponderance of

so-called shadowy political figures, popu-larly known as the faceless labadzala orelders of the nation, whose influence rela-tive to the modern arms of government,such as the legislature, the judiciary andthe executive, is overwhelming. Inevita-bly, the preponderant influence of the tra-ditional socio-political system, with its con-servative outlook towards the administra-tion of public affairs in general, extends tothe control and management of public en-terprises. The dynamics of the dual sys-tem of government, which facilitates thejuxtaposition and or co-existence of bothmodern and traditional structures of politi-cal power, is such that almost all publicpolicy decisions, including the appointmentof public enterprise boards and their topmanagement, must be submitted to the tra-ditional authorities for scrutiny as well asapproval.

For this reason, reform or restructuringprogrammes have been frustrated at thehighest political level with regard to suchpublic enterprises as the Central TransportAdministration (CTA), the Swaziland De-velopment and Savings Bank (SDSB) andthe Royal Swazi National Airways Corpo-ration (RSNAC). The status quo is allowedto prevail in these and other public enter-prises, simply because powerful politiciansand senior public officials benefit hand-somely from the widespread corruption andmismanagement that has become the hall-marks of public enterprises and civil ser-vice over the years. Lamenting the extentof corruption at CTA, which continues todrain public finances through annualsubventions and an ever-increasing deficit,including unwarranted political interfer-ence by the powerful Swazi National Coun-


cil (SNC), (an advisory body to the King)which has always frustrated the well-inten-tioned efforts of the government to restruc-ture the organization based on the findingsand recommendations of several commis-sions of enquiry, The Times of Swazilandmade the following observations:-

CTA will never be restructured orcleaned up as long as government androyal fat cats can use it as their personalgarage, petrol station and automobileshowroom. The Swazi people willnever have control over the leadership... (Times of Swaziland, December 18,1997, 16).

That the owners of an enterprise, namely,the public through the government, shouldcontrol parastatals is not in dispute, neitheris it questionable. However, a fundamen-tal question often emerges as to what formcontrol measures should take and, aboveall, how the owners of public enterprisesshould shape and influence policy withoutunduly interfering in the day-to-day admin-istration of parastatals without sending con-flicting signals to management on theground. Where a political system lacksclearly defined roles, functions and respon-sibilities, particularly in terms of the clas-sical principles of governance, such as di-vision of labour, the separation of powersand the provision of checks and balances,government officials, in and outside of pub-lic enterprises, often find themselves in thedilemma of receiving conflicting policydirectives and or instructions.

This is the case with the political system inSwaziland, where there exists a plethora ofpower centres, institutions, organizations

and individuals, all of which are involvedin a perpetual struggle for control and he-gemony over key sectors, policy decisions,activities and programmes of the Swazieconomy. The existence of such a multi-plicity of public policy centres not onlyparalyzes and delays the decision-makingprocess but also undermines the sacredprinciples of accountability, responsivenessand good governance. In these circum-stances, the administration of public affairsin general and the performance, control andmanagement of public enterprises in par-ticular, is adversely affected.

The use of contract or performance con-tracts is one of a number of policy optionsthat governments of African countries of-ten adopt in their efforts to improve theperformance, control and management ofpublic enterprises. Covering varying peri-ods of between three to five years, contractplans emerged as a direct response to manyof the problems and obstacles to publicenterprise efficiency and productivity, suchas unclear objectives, insufficient au-tonomy, excessive control, corruption andmismanagement. Accordingly, a typicalcontract plan specifies enterprise objec-tives, in terms of the desired socio-eco-nomic impact of goods and services; pro-duction goals and the quantity and qualityof services provided during the period ofthe performance agreement. In addition, itdefines policies and parameters with regardto such issues as numbers of staff to beemployed, size and growth of the publicenterprise wage bill, including details of thesocial or non-commercial activities to beundertaken by the public enterprise.(Dlamini, 2001, 68).


Since the underlying principle of perfor-mance contracts is the mutual specificationof rights, obligations and responsibilities,with regard to Swaziland, there are threemain players in this process, namely, thegovernment or controlling ministry, thePEU and the individual public enterprise,represented by its top management. Sucha tripartite structure, particularly the par-ticipation of all stakeholders in both the for-mulation and monitoring of the implemen-tation of the agreement, is indispensable tothe success of the management and con-trol of public enterprises. Unfortunately,this is not always the case in Swaziland,where the formulation of contract plans isallowed to be the prerogative and or do-main of outside consultants with little, ifany, involvement in the process by publicenterprise management and staff. Suchsituation is unfortunate, given the fact that,more often than not, the management andstaff of public enterprises shoulder the enor-mous burden of implementing the provi-sions of performance contract agreements.

Herein lies one of the reasons for the fail-ure of contract agreements in influencingthe fortunes of the parastatal sector, all ofwhich were disastrous experiences sincethey were largely not implemented and,therefore, did not improve the performanceof the public enterprises for which theywere formulated, namely, SEB, SPTC andthe Swaziland Water Services Corporation(SWSC). Because of the widespread useof consultants in the formulation of con-tract plans, including the determination ofmechanisms for their monitoring and evalu-ation, public enterprise management didnot develop the necessary sense of owner-ship and commitment to the success of the

enterprise contracts. Naturally, they re-garded them as largely foreign as well asan imposition from forces external to pub-lic enterprises. Lessons of experience withregard to the use of external consultants,experts or advisors, especially from devel-oped countries, in the formulation of de-velopment plans, have shown that whilethey may be knowledgeable about certainissues and areas that are generic to theirfield of specialization, they often lack anintimate knowledge of the unique socio-political and economic circumstances con-fronting individual countries, especiallythose of the Third World in general andAfrica in particular.

In view of the fact that contract plans areessentially a public enterprise reform ini-tiative, to be successful, and like all admin-istrative and other reform programmes,there is need for the existence of a strongsense of political will and commitment tothe process on the part of political and bu-reaucratic elites. Poor political support forpublic enterprise reform programmes inSwaziland is exemplified, among otherthings, by the inability of the governmentto eradicate corruption, mismanagementand other forms of the abuse of nationalresources, not only in the parastatal sectorbut also throughout the machinery of thestate or government.

The conclusion, therefore, based on theforegoing observations, is that the use ofcontract plans as a vehicle for improvingthe performance and management of pub-lic enterprises in Swaziland, although lim-ited to a few selected public corporations,has not yielded any positive results. Pub-lic enterprise performance contracts and or


agreements, based on the lessons of expe-rience from such African countries asSenegal, which have used them success-fully as instruments of the control and man-agement of the parastatal sector, should notbe viewed in isolation but should be re-garded as an integral part of a complex andconcerted programme of public enterprisereform. However, this is not the case inSwaziland, where the government, al-though having publicly committed itself tothe restructuring of the parastatal sector,through the adoption of a privatizationpolicy, has not moved beyond the level ofrhetoric and public policy pronouncementsby implementing such a policy.

The PEU, which was established to be atthe forefront of improving the overall per-formance of public enterprises through,inter alia, the formulation and implemen-tation of viable control mechanisms, con-tinues to suffer from serious administrativeand other problems that hamper the effec-tiveness of the Unit. For instance, for sev-eral years prior to the appointment of aCommonwealth Fund for Technical Co-operation (CFTC) – sponsored expert, thePEU was without an incumbent director,thus denying it the necessary administra-tive leadership and direction. Furthermore,the Unit faces serious staffing problems,such that its present staff are hard-pressedin coping with the administrative demandsof compiling reports and overseeing thecontrol and management of the country’spublic enterprises.

Attached to the Ministry of Finance as anordinary ministerial agency or department,the PEU merely provides expert advicewith regard to the management and con-

trol of public enterprises. It, therefore,lacks executive authority over the parastatalsector, hence it faces numerous problemsand difficulties in ensuring compliancewith directives and suggestions on the im-provement of enterprise performance.Until the Unit is strengthened and elevatedto a more or less independent status in themachinery of government, thus bestowingit with the mantle of executive authoritywith which to relate to and deal with theparastatal sector, the PEU will continue tooccupy an untenable subordinate position,without the requisite administrative powerthat will ensure the accomplishment of thegoals and objectives for which it was es-tablished.

Because the public enterprise terrain orsocio-political and economic landscape inSwaziland is characterized by some kindof lacuna in statutes, political and bureau-cratic elites do not hesitate to take advan-tage of such a situation by regarding theparastatal sector, including the civil service,as ‘milking cows’ for supporters of the tra-ditional political order, their families, rela-tives and friends. Moreover and as ob-served earlier, criteria for the appointmentof members of public enterprise boards,more often than not, do not emphasize one’sgeneral stature in society, knowledge,skills, managerial talent and experiencewith regard to the enterprise’s line of busi-ness. Similarly, the appointment and re-newal of board membership is not linkedto the performance of the public enterpriseas a whole, hence this is one of the reasonsfor the dismal failure of the majority of statecorporations, which continue unabated ontheir loss-making path.


Another consideration of equal importanceis the recruitment and selection of publicenterprise top management. In this regard,there are a number of critical factors thatneed to be taken into account in the appoint-ment of the public enterprise chief execu-tive officer and his top management team,which include, inter alia, education, train-ing, work experience and or career history,aptitude, motivation and disposition to-wards the public. However, in the major-ity of cases in Swaziland and like the ap-pointment of public enterprise boards, theseobjective criteria are often side-stepped infavour of non-merit and or political con-siderations. Classical examples in recentyears include the appointment of chief ex-ecutive officers for SEB, SPTC and theSwaziland National Trust Commission(SNTC), all of which are on the verge ofcollapse, mainly because of poor leader-ship, management and control, both inter-nal and external.

It need not be over-emphasized that publicenterprises are business – oriented organi-zations that should not only subscribe tofundamental business norms and or prin-ciples but should also be customer – driven.There is no doubt that public enterprise topmanagement should be the embodiment ofthese principles. In addition, the appoint-ment of top management, and that of thechief executive in particular, should be con-tractual and should, like that of membersof parastatal boards, be linked to the over-all performance of the public enterprise.Unless these and other sacred ethos of cor-porate governance are recognized and re-ligiously upheld, Swaziland’s parastatalsector which continue with its hemorrhageof limited public resources and at a period

in the country’s history when it faces for-midable problems and challenges posed byHIV/AIDS, poverty, unemployment andrapidly declining economic fortunes.

THE PRESSURES ANDCHALLENGES OF PRIVATIZATION

The multiplicity of problems and chal-lenges facing public enterprises in Africa,including Swaziland, are largely respon-sible for the present demands for the re-form of the parastatal sector. While theadvent of independence witnessed a phe-nomenal growth and proliferation of pub-lic enterprises as African states believedthat rapid socio-economic developmentcould not be achieved without thegovernment’s active participation in andcontrol over the commanding heights of theeconomy, several decades after indepen-dence, there has emerged a growing cho-rus that critically questions the role of thestate in economic development. For thisreason, an emerging view is that the stateis over-extended, inefficient and needs tobe rolled back (Turner and Hulme, 1997,183).

Despite the formulation of a privatizationpolicy during the mid – 1990’s, an exer-cise that was given impetus by the adop-tion of the Economic and Social ReformAgenda (ESRA), the objective of whichwas to instil discipline within the civil ser-vice in Swaziland and promote the prin-ciples of affordability, efficiency and effec-tiveness in service delivery and in meetingtargets, the restructuring of some publicenterprises which, in some cases, led to theprivatization of a number of theirprogrammes and activities, has taken placeon a haphazard and or ad hoc basis.


A decade after the formulation of theprivatization policy, the government has nottaken energetic steps towards its implemen-tation. The public enterprises that havebenefited from partial privatization in re-cent years include the Swaziland DairyBoard, the commercialization of whichwitnessed the acquisition of a 60%shareholding by Parmalat, 26% by TibiyoTaka Ngwane and 14% equity by the gov-ernment. The partial privatization of theRoyal Swazi National Airways resulted ina joint venture agreement being reachedand implemented between the governmentand Airlink South Africa – a company withclose links with South African Airways.Lack of progress in the adoption and imple-mentation of a privatization policy has de-layed the separation of postal from telecom-munication services within the SPTC andthe commercialization and or corporatizationof SEB.

As a public enterprise reform initiative,Swaziland’s privatization policy aims atachieving a number of strategic objectiveswhich include, among other things stimu-lating socio-economic development and theliberalization of the economy; encourag-ing the development of financial and capi-tal markets on the one hand and introduc-ing competition and market discipline onthe other. Other objectives centre on en-couraging wider share ownership, render-ing the country’s public utilities and indus-tries more efficient and thus improving thedelivery of essential services (Ministry ofFinance, 1995, 13). Furthermore, a closeexamination of the kingdom’s public en-terprise privatization policy reveals a num-ber of significant salient features which aretestimony to the fact that the policy forms

an integral part of the government’s macro-economic policies and, in particular,broader monetary, fiscal and socio-eco-nomic development policies that were cap-tured in ESRA, which later became knownas the Millenium Action Programme(MAP) and is now referred to as the SmartProgramme on Economic Empowermentand Development (SPEED).

In addition, the policy is based on thepremise that as the economy and its for-tunes changes, so too must the role of gov-ernment. The latter thus recognizes thatthe adoptation and implementation of aprivatization policy will inevitably alter itsrole in the economy to the extent that therelationship between government and theprivate sector will be transformed into apartnership that will be characterized by co-operation and good corporate governance,including the promotion of Swazi eco-nomic empowerment (SEE). Accordingly,as the role of the public sector in the provi-sion of marketable goods and services di-minishes, it will pave the way for govern-ment to create and facilitate an enablingenvironment for private enterprise to flour-ish, particularly given the existing policyof stimulating direct foreign investmentthat is anchored on the view that industryshould be the cornerstone and engine ofsocio-economic development.

A privatization policy would be seriouslyflawed if it did not make provision for theroles, functions and responsibilities of dif-ferent stakeholders, the involvement andparticipation of which is crucial to the suc-cess of the exercise. To this end, policyguidelines for privatization in Swazilandmake provision for the identification of key


role players in the process, namely, theparastatal sector, a Public Enterprise Au-thority or Agency (PEA), line ministries,different committees and or structures asdeemed appropriate and, of course, gov-ernment, represented by cabinet. This un-derscores the need for the privatization pro-cess to be driven and located at the highestlevels of the apparatus of the state in orderto enhance chances of its success.

Mention of different stakeholders and theirroles and obligations in the privatizationagenda also brings in the issue of the ex-tent to which the policy is receptive and orresponsive to the needs and aspirations ofthe labour force. Accordingly, the country’sprivatization policy puts emphasis on theneed for the process to be transparent andconsultative, such that it should take cog-nizance of the requirements of labour aswell as environmental issues. Since thepassage of the Industrial Relations Act sev-eral years ago, Swaziland’s labour unionsand their members have increasingly be-come militant and demand a greater stakein decision-making that affects their livesand destinies.

Not only have unions and employee asso-ciations wrestled significant concessionsfrom their employers, both private and pub-lic, with regard to wages and salaries, in-cluding terms and conditions of employ-ment, but they also have influenced thecountry’s socio-political environment.Against this backdrop and since public en-terprises control key sectors of the Swazieconomy and, therefore, employ thousandsof workers, it was realized that one of theingredients of the success of theprivatization policy is for it to take on board

the needs of labour. We examine next and,in conclusion, the problems and challengesof privatization in the small mountain King-dom.

PRIVATIZATION: PROBLEMS ANDPROSPECTS

A number of obstacles stand in the way ofthe privatization of the public enterprisesector in Swaziland. In a Public EnterprisesReform Policy statement issued immedi-ately after the formulation of theprivatization policy, the government arguedthat the policy demonstrated its unwaver-ing commitment to the restructuring ofpublic enterprises and also presented thekey principles that would guide theparastatal sector reform programme. It wasfurther pointed out that the restructuring ofpublic enterprises was an important com-ponent of the government’s Economic andSocial Reform Agenda, the primary objec-tives of which were the acceleration of eco-nomic growth, improvement of social ser-vices and the enhancement of standards ofgovernance, such as transparency, account-ability, discipline and respect for the ruleof law. (Public Enterprises Reform PolicyStatement, 1999, 6).

A decade after its formulation as a frame-work for the restructuring and reform ofthe parastatal sector, the privatizationpolicy remains pending in the government’simplementation agenda. Several factorscan be identified to explain the reasons forthis state of affairs. Public enterprises, likeeconomic organizations in general, do notoperate in a vacuum; they are affected by,and in turn affect, the socio-political andeconomic environment of which they are


integral part. As business undertakings,public enterprises are affected by the gen-eral economic climate that is prevalent ineach country. There is no doubt that, untilrecently and due to the geo-political andeconomic conditions that are characteris-tic of the domestic, regional and interna-tional environment, the Swazilandeconomy has been performing below ex-pectations. Understandably, one of thecauses of the poor performance of publicenterprises in general has been that the eco-nomic climate has not been conducive tobusiness operations. Against a backgroundof serious socio-economic problems, theimpact of which has been felt by both thepublic and private sectors, the governmentseemingly adopted a ‘wait and see’ attitude,with the ardent hope that should the eco-nomic climate improve, the privatizationpolicy would be put in place for implemen-tation.

Because the parastatal sector in Swaziland,as elsewhere in most African countries, isboth an administrative as well as a finan-cial burden to the tax-paying public, thegovernment is finding it extremely diffi-cult to increase and sustain the size of re-sources allocated to public enterprises.Consequently and in view of serious eco-nomic problems, the government is alsohard-pressed in coping with the demandsfor subsidizing the cost of goods and ser-vices supplied by public enterprises to con-sumers. Unfortunately, the removal of gov-ernment subsidies so that consumers couldbear the full cost of the provision of goodsand services by the parastatal sector wouldhave serious economic and political impli-cations. For instance, in an economy whose

performance is on a down-wide spiral andone that is characterized by widespreadpoverty, unemployment and the devastat-ing effects of the HIV/AIDS pandemic, asis the case in Swaziland, such an economicroute, (of removing government subsidies)would prove suicidal.

Moreover, since public enterprises are acritical component of the Swazilandeconomy, the declining fortunes of the lat-ter have, as alluded to earlier in this article,affected negatively the overall performanceand profitability of the parastatal sector.The irony of this situation is that althoughadverse economic and or financial consid-erations may pose as some of the compel-ling reasons for the implementation of aprivatization programme for public enter-prises, in an environment of serious socio-economic problems, few enterprises maybe attractive for privatization or sale to pri-vate investors. This is because in their op-erations, investors are motivated by con-siderations of profitability or profit-maxi-mization, rather than by socio-political fac-tors as is the case with governments, espe-cially those in Africa.

That public enterprise reform does not rankhigh in the government’s list of nationalpriorities in Swaziland is evidenced by thefact that out of approximately thirty (30)Category A and government wholly-ownedpublic enterprises, only three (3) parastatalshave had performance agreements withgovernment, all of which lapsed and havenot been re-formulated. Because of suchfactors as bureaucratic inertia andimmobilism, including lack of a sense ofurgency, the process of redrafting perfor-mance agreements always moves at a


snail’s pace. Meanwhile, the majority ofSwaziland’s public enterprises continue ontheir loss-making path and remain outsidethe ambit of effective control and account-ability (Dlamini, 2001, 72). In view of thisand other considerations, there is no doubtthat Swaziland suffers from a lack of po-litical will, courage and commitment tomove from the realm of rhetoric and theoryinto concrete and or action-orientedprogrammes designed to translate promisesinto reality.

Resistance to the public enterprise reformprogramme in Swaziland, as elsewhere inother African countries such as South Af-rica, comes from trade unions and em-ployee associations which argue that theprivatization of the parastatal sector ofteninevitably results in job losses, through re-trenchments, the deterioration of terms andconditions of employment, as well as theweakening and or erosion of collective bar-gaining powers. These and other argu-ments, the majority of which are valid,maybe cited as one of the main obstaclesto progress with regard to the implementa-tion of the privatization policy in Swaziland– a country whose unemployment ratestands at a staggering 40% and where, aspointed out above, chronic poverty and theHIV/AIDS pandemic have reached astro-nomical levels.

In recent years, industrial/labour relationsin Swaziland, as a consequence of a multi-plicity of factors and considerations, havebeen characterized by instability and un-rest, to the extent that in the public sectorin particular, these relations are alwaysstrained. Although labour unions in thecountry, be they in the public or private

sector, are not as radical or militant as theircounterparts in neighbouring countries,such as South Africa, they have succeededto wrestle significant concessions for theirmembers, especially with regard to in-creased wages and salaries as well as im-proved terms and conditions of employ-ment. Even though these unions are notnecessarily affiliated with the banned pro-gressive political formations in existencein Swaziland, some of their demands, suchas the democratization of the socio-politi-cal system, good governance and the re-turn to constitutional government, havehelped bring to the attention of the interna-tional community, the need for far-reach-ing political and economic reforms.

The existence of two parallel political andadministrative structures, each vying forinfluence and supremacy, not only under-mines the principles of accountability andgood governance but also leads to the frag-mentation of the policy and decision-mak-ing process. The situation often results ina conflict of interest, particularly since thetraditional arm of government is by natureconservative and resistant to change. Inaddition, in view of the complex nature ofthe political and administrative system, itis sometimes difficult to identify the cen-tres of decision-making, let alone avoid asituation whereby government officials arecaught in the cross-fire of conflicting di-rectives. The public policy decision-mak-ing process is always affected by lack ofcommon ground and consensus among thenumerous actors in the diarchical politicaland administrative system.

In many respects, therefore, theprivatization of public enterprises in


Swaziland has been frustrated, inter alia,by the diarchical political and administra-tive system and, in particular, the prepon-derance of traditional political institutionsover those of the modern government.Fearful of losing its stranglehold on socio-political and economic power the latter,which is exercised through such royal-based state corporations as Tibiyo TakaNgwane and Tinsuka Taka Ngwane, bothof which were established by royal charterand are accountable only to the King whocontrols them in trust for the so-calledSwazi Nation, traditional authorities inSwaziland, besides being, by definition re-sistant to change, have shown a strong im-pulse towards embracing the classical viewthat the state must exert meaningful con-trol and influence over the commandingheights of the economy.

In Swaziland, Parliament is supposed toexercise general control over the activitiesof public enterprises, the extent of that con-trol depending on the way in which theenterprises were established. Though over-detailed parliamentary control would ham-per the commercial operations of thecountry’s parastatals, it can be argued thatthe latter are not subject to sufficient scru-tiny. Politicians, such as MPs do, from timeto time, debate issues relating to state en-terprises during ordinary parliamentarysessions and when particular bills are pre-sented by controlling ministries, but inother respects, parliamentary interest in theactivities of public enterprises is not asstrong as it should be. Had the privatizationof public enterprises agenda been drivenat the highest political and or legislativelevel(s), there is no doubt that meaningful

progress would have been made in theimplementation of the privatization policy.

Therefore, one of the most serious chal-lenges facing the privatization of theparastatal sector in Swaziland, as in mostother African countries, is the absence ofpolitical will. As the United Nations hasobserved:

“The biggest obstacle to privatizationin Africa is the lack of political will.Public enterprises, which often domi-nate the economy, both in terms ofemployment and importance of theiroutputs, represent a power base formany politicians. Privatization is,therefore, not just an economic exer-cise but also a political process involv-ing the redistribution of power and, assuch, a threat to vested interests, bothin public enterprises and governmentministries. Ministerial bureaucrats andpublic enterprise employees are alllikely to oppose any change in the sta-tus quo, given their privileged publicsector status and benefits” (United Na-tions, 1996, 3).

CONCLUSION

Although in the majority of African coun-tries, including Swaziland, the creation ofpublic enterprises was motivated by a va-riety of factors, such as the need for thestate to exert control over the command-ing heights or key sectors of the nationaleconomy, thus reducing its domination byforeign capital, in recent decades and be-cause of the performance of the parastatalsector which has been much less impres-sive than was originally anticipated, pres-sure for privatization has been one of the


dominant characteristic features of devel-opment programmes in these countries.There is general agreement, among bothdomestic and international stakeholders,that since public enterprises continue toimpose a heavy administrative and finan-cial burden on African governments, mea-sures should be adopted not only to ensurethat the parastatal sector conforms to spe-cific standards, such as those of efficiency,accountability, responsibility and, aboveall, service to the public, but also socio-economic imperatives dictate that the ma-jority of public enterprises be privatized asan integral part of a broad programme ofeconomic reform.

In this article, it has been observed thatmany problems and challenges face publicenterprises in African countries in generaland Swaziland in particular, to the extentthat the latter, in an attempt to stop the hem-orrhage of limited public resources by theparastatal sector, formulated a privatizationpolicy a decade ago. However, despite itsadoption in principle little, if any, progresshas been achieved in terms of the imple-mentation of measures for the privatizationof parastatals, such that many of them con-tinue almost unabated on their loss-mak-ing path.

Of the many causes of the gap betweenpromise and performance or theory andpractice with regard to the implementationof the privatization policy in Swaziland thenature of the political system and, in par-ticular, the interplay of forces between tra-dition and modernity are some of the mostobvious. It has been argued that the politi-cal system is dual or diarchical in the sensethat it is characterized by two distinct and

parallel, but interrelated, political and ad-ministrative structures. Such a system is areflection of a unique pre-colonial and co-lonial heritage that has existed and albeitbeen consolidated since independence in1968. It has further been argued that theexistence of two parallel political and ad-ministrative structures, each struggling forinfluence and hegemony, not only under-mines the principles of accountability andgood governance but also leads to the frag-mentation of the policy and decision-mak-ing process. The situation often results ina conflict of interest, particularly since thetraditional arm of government is, by nature,conservative and resistant to change.

The management and control of public en-terprises, including their performance, hasnot improved significantly, despite the ex-istence of the PEU which, inter alia, wasestablished in order to provide governmentwith an independent as well as an objec-tive analysis of the performance of theparastatal sector. Located in and or exist-ing as an integral part of the bureaucracyof the Ministry of Finance, not only doesthe PEU lack the required independenceand autonomy to critically evaluate theperformance of public enterprises but alsoit faces serious problems of staffing, lead-ership and direction. Consequently, it has,since its establishment, failed to commandthe confidence of stakeholders, particularlythat of public enterprises which, from timeto time, defy its directives by failing tocomply with periodic reporting obligations,even though these are sanctions by thefounding legislation.

Besides lack of political will towards theimplementation of administrative reform in


general on the part of the political and bu-reaucratic leadership in Swaziland, it canalso be observed that the adoption of theprivatization policy for the reform of pub-lic enterprises took place at a time, in thehistory of the country, when the energiesof the ruling elite were devoted towardspolitical reforms designed to return theKingdom to constitutional rule. After de-cades of rule by royal decree following thesuspension of the Westminister –style in-dependence constitution through the King’sProclamation of 1973 that witnessed theassumption of legislative, executive and

judicial powers by Sobhuza II, the rulingelite during the decade of the 1990s had noalternative but to give in to domestic, re-gional as well as international pressure forthe implementation of constitutional re-forms. Preoccupation with the latter re-sulted in a situation whereby other reforms,such as the privatization of public enter-prises and the implementation of far-reach-ing changes within the apparatus of the civilservice as part of the Public Sector Man-agement Programme (PSMP), have beenrelegated into secondary importance.

REFERENCES

AAPAM, (1987) Public Enterprise Performanceand the Privatization Debate: A Review ofthe Options for Africa , Vikas PublishingHouse, New Delhi.

Corkery and Wetternhall, (1990) Public EnterpriseBoards: A Neglected Area of Governance, In-ternational Institute of Administrative Sciences,Brussels.

Dlamini, M.P. (1993), “Administrative Reform andthe Civil Service in Swaziland: The Gap Be-tween Promise and Performance”, AfricanJournal of Public Administration and Man-agement, Vol. II, No. 1.

Dlamini, M.P. (1995), “The Management and Con-trol of Public Enterprises in Swaziland: TheCase of NIDCS and SEDCO”, UNISWA Re-search Journal, Vol. 4.

Dlamini, M.P. (2001), “Contract Plans and PublicEnterprise Performance: The Case ofSwaziland”, African Administrative Studies,No. 57.

Dlamini, M.P. (2003), “Administrative Reform andthe Public Sector Management Programme(PSMP) in Swaziland: Problems and Pros-pects”, African Journal of Public Adminis-tration and Management, Vol. XIV, No. 1 and 2.

Dlamini, M.P. (2002) “Ethics, Accountability andGood Governance: The Case of Swaziland”,African Administrative Studies, No. 59.

Government of Swaziland (1997), Economic andSocial Reform Agenda, Government Printer,Mbabane.

Government of Swaziland (1995), PrivatizationPolicy for Swaziland, Government Printer,Mbabane.

Government of Swaziland (1996), Public Enter-prises Reform Policy Statement, GovernmentPrinter, Mbabane.

IMF, (1997), Swaziland: Recent Economic Devel-opments, IMF, Washington, D.C.

Ministry of Finance, (1994), PEU Annual Report,Government Printer, Mbabane.

Nellis, J.R. (1986), Public Enterprises in Sub-Sa-haran Africa , World Bank, Washington, D.C.

Powell, V. (1987), Improving Public EnterprisePerformance: Concepts and Techniques,ILO, Geneva.

Roemer, M., (1982), “Economic Development inAfrian: Performance since Independence and aStrategy for the Future”, Daedalus, Vol. III.

Robhan, R. (1979), Public Enterprises and theNature of the State, Development and Change,Vol. 10, No. 1.

Savas, E.S. (1987), Privatization: The Key to Bet-ter Government, Chatham House, New Jersey.

Shirley, M. and Nellis, J. (1991) Public EnterpriseReform: The Lessons of Experience, WorldBank, Washington D.C.


Tordoff, W. (1984), Government and Politics inAfrica , Macmillan, London.

Turner, M. and Hulme, D. (1997), Governance, Ad-ministration and Development: Making theStake Work, Palgrave, New York.

United Nations (1978), Measures for Improvingthe Performance of Public Enterprises inDeveloping Countries, U.N. New York.

United Nations (1996), Privatization Opportuni-ties in Africa, UNCTAD, Geneva.

PUBLIC ENTERPRISES AND THE CHALLENGE OF …unpan1.un.org/intradoc/groups/public/documents/... ·...

Documents

Transcript of PUBLIC ENTERPRISES AND THE CHALLENGE OF …unpan1.un.org/intradoc/groups/public/documents/... ·...