SOCIAL PARTNERSHIP: NEW PUBLIC …

1 22 AJPAM Vol XV, No. 1 January 2004 SOCIAL partnership : NEW PUBLIC management PRACTICEIN BARBADOSW ayne Charles-Soverall and Jamal Khan* SOCIAL partnership is a relatively new concept that has been embraced by publicmanagement practice in developing countries. This paper explores the evolutionand practice of SOCIAL partnership as a major policy instrument of national devel-opment in Barbados and Ireland, two countries with diverse political importantly, it examines the application of the SOCIAL partnership conceptas innovative expressions of new PUBLIC management (NPM) that provides les-sons for other countries depending on their willingness to place national inter-ests above all economic development with a view toidentifying the critical success factors(CSFs) that influenced the process of so-cial dialogue as the SOCIAL partnersstruggled to contain the socioeconomic andpolitical crises that threatened the viabilityof the Barbadian state. Secondly, it seeksto understand the dynamics of the socialdialogue and the political economy of so-cial partnership in relation to Barbados economic success and the other famoussocial partnership that contributed to the Celtic Tiger phenomenon in , it seeks to compare some of theinvaluable insights from the Barbadian andIrish experiences in relation to the mechan-ics of SOCIAL dialogue and their impact onforging and sustaining SOCIAL partnershipsthat continue to transform the NPM , the paper highlights the recogni-tion of a national problem, and the processof initiating and sustaining a consensualsolution by organized labour, particularlyINTRODUCTIONThe SOCIAL partnership as practiced in Bar-bados since 1991 has evolved into a para-gon for the developing world in general,and the Caribbean in particular, especiallywithin the context of post-structural adjust-ment policy analysis.

2 It therefore representsan innovative expression of new publicmanagement (NPM) practice that has rel-evance for other countries since the lessonslearnt have implications for further appli-cation, depending on factors such as thenature of the crisis, the willingness of stake-holders to engage in SOCIAL dialogue, thewillingness to achieve national consensusbased on pragmatic solutions, the abilityto place national interests above all else,and the resolve to implement bold paper explores the evolution and stra-tegic significance of SOCIAL partnership inBarbados as a tripartite consultative andnegotiating mechanism for policy-making*Department of management Studies, University of West IndiesCave Hill Campus,BarbadosAJPAM Vol XV, No. 1 January 200423the Congress of Trade Unions and StaffAssociations of Barbados (CTUSAB), thatmakes the SOCIAL partnership fundamentallydifferent from previous approaches DIALOGUE:WORK-IN-PROGRESSThe trade union played a predominant rolein initiating and sustaining the Barbadossocial partnership as a leader in the van-guard of the struggle for SOCIAL and eco-nomic transformation.

3 It has evolved sig-nificantly over time by adapting to a con-stantly changing operational Changes coming for SOCIAL Partner-ship Cumberbatch, (2005:24) asserted thaton November 1, 2004 at a meeting of thefull SOCIAL partnership , it was agreed thatthe tripartite nature of the SOCIAL partner-ship would be sustained, and when neces-sary, government, employers and labourwould broaden the SOCIAL dialogue by in-cluding other unnamed civil society andprivate groups. In addition, it was suggestedthat there should be quarterly or half-yearlymeetings of the full SOCIAL partnership , anda full-time secretariat should also be estab-lished. These changes coincided with theconcerns expressed by the National Unionof PUBLIC Workers (NUPW) about the one-sided SOCIAL partnership and thereforeagreed with enhancing the mechanisms ofthe SOCIAL partnership in order to make itmore inclusive, and to consolidate the realgains that contributed to its success and byextension, its (2005) in SOCIAL partnership The NGOs and the media also suggestedthe need for a more proactive approach toexpand the SOCIAL partnership to formallyinclude NGOs and the media, at the na-tional and regional levels.

4 Likewise, headvocated that NGOs should proactivelypresent themselves as significant and at-tractive complements to the PUBLIC and pri-vate sectors. Indeed, the phenomenal suc-cess of the SOCIAL partnership was the sub-ject of a Symposium on the Barbados Pro-tocols undertaken by the Sir Arthur LewisInstitute of SOCIAL and Economic Studies(SALISES), University of the West Indies,Cave Hill, Barbados on 23 August 2003 aswell as the seminal work of senior socialdialogue specialist, Tayo Fashoyin (2001)in Fostering economic developmentthrough SOCIAL partnership in Barbados conducted the first of a number of countryreports to be produced by the InFocusProgramme on Strengthening SOCIAL Dia-logue, International Labour Office (ILO),with a view to analyzing the different ap-proaches to SOCIAL dialogue and identify-ing best analyzed both the qualitative andquantitative results of the SOCIAL partnershipprotocols, and concluded that they not onlycontributed to the reversal of the economicdecline, but more importantly, to a path ofsustained growth since the implementationof the First Protocol - the Implementationof a Prices and Incomes Policy (1993-1995).

5 He highlighted the strategic role ofsocial dialogue as a mechanism for build-ing national consensus in the search forsocially acceptable PUBLIC policy. Socialdialogue refers to all types of joint and col-laborative relationships, negotiations, con-sultations and exchanges of information,most commonly between the tripartite andbipartite partners, either by formal or in-24 AJPAM Vol XV, No. 1 January 2004formal means, and through ad hoc or insti-tutional frameworks on issues of commoninterest relating to economic and socialpolicy. In The SOCIAL partnership Ten Years On:A Labour Perspective Trotman (2003)argued that when communities perceivedthemselves to be under threat, it is then thatworking together they are able to becomestronger because they are willing to buildinstitutions that will last based on their will-ingness to downplay the things that dividethem and strengthen those things that offersalvation against the threat.

6 It was prima-rily as a consequence of the initiative ofCTUSAB that joint discussions on the criti-cal nature of the national economic crisiswere held with the Barbados Private Sec-tor Agency (BPSA) that resulted in theirjoint collaboration and the eventual nego-tiation of the SOCIAL OF IRISH SOCIALPARTNERSHIPST here are quite a few striking similaritiesbetween the Irish and Barbadian experi-ences in relation to the practice and evolu-tion of SOCIAL partnership . In The Irish so-cial partnership and the celtic tiger phe-nomenon Baccaro and Simoni (2004) ar-gued that the literature of the National Eco-nomic and SOCIAL Council (NESC), a tri-partite consultative body, various years;(O Donnell and O Reardon, 1997; 2000;Mac Shary and White, 2000; Auer, 2000;Fitzgerald and Girvin, 2000); and discus-sions with policy-makers and the Irishpopulation shared the view that SOCIAL part-nership played a fundamental role in themaking of Ireland s economic idea of SOCIAL partnerships evolved inthe late 1980s when Ireland was faced witha serious economic crisis (1980-87) char-acterized by high inflation, huge govern-ment debt and deficit, stagnant investments,the loss of its manufacturing base, and ris-ing unemployment.

7 The NESC, the tripar-tite consultative body formed in 1973 toplay an advisory role to the government on the development of the national economyand the achievement of SOCIAL justice, hadsince 1986, facilitated consultations amongsocial partners to create a process of sharedlearning for an inclusive overview of so-cioeconomic options, challenges andtrade-offs. Thus in 1987, the Programmefor National Recovery (PNR) for the pe-riod (1988-90) became the first of six suc-cessive partnership agreements that wasnegotiated among the SOCIAL partners com-prising government, employers, and theIrish Congress of Trade Unions (ICTU).The PNR was a consensual document thatwas produced and signed by all the socialpartners. It essentially indicated that theICTU agreed to limit wage increases andnot to take industrial action that would re-sult in additional cost increases for theemployers. In exchange, the governmentagreed to reform the tax system so that take-home pay would be increased and also tomaintain the current value of SOCIAL wel-fare allowances.

8 The Irish economy per-formed extremely well during the threeyears covered by the PNR (1998-90) withGNP growth at percent per year thatled to improvements in all other macroeco-nomic indicators. As a result of its relativesuccess, the NESC (1990) identified thefollowing as essential elements for a con-AJPAM Vol XV, No. 1 January 200425sistent policy framework within a policy securing lowinflation and steady Evolution of incomes that underpinscompetitiveness while handling con-flict over of structural change to adaptto changing external PARTNERSHIPAGREEMENTSAs a consequence of these encouragingresults, the SOCIAL partnership became thebackbone of Irish economic policy. Sincethen, every three years, a new SOCIAL part-nership agreement has been approved. ANESC Strategy Report preceded each newsocial partnership agreement and it pro-vided the analytical underpinnings for dis-cussion on specific issues.

9 These agree-ments contained both wage guidelines anda number of SOCIAL and economic view of the increasing SOCIAL componentsof these agreements, the National Eco-nomic and SOCIAL Forum (NESF), estab-lished in 1993, was brought on board toaddress SOCIAL policy issues such as socialexclusion and unemployment, and thusfrom the fourth agreement, the narrow eco-nomic mandates of the earlier agreementswere substantially broadened. It is instruc-tive to note that each agreement introducednew elements that represented improve-ments on its predecessor. These innovationscan be seen from the evolution of the six(6) SOCIAL partnership agreements that arelisted for National Recovery(PNR), (1988-90). This agreement wasquite similar to an incomes policy be-cause it basically exchanged wage re-straint for tax cuts. It also maintainedthe real value of SOCIAL transfers, andthen when the PUBLIC coffers had beenreplenished through several years ofsustained economic growth, more sub-stantive measures were Programme for Economic and SocialProgress (PESP), (1991-93).

10 Thisagreement reintroduced the notion oftwo-tier bargaining and extended thesocial partnership approach to the locallevel through the so-called Area-BasedResponse to Long-Term Unemployment. 3. Programme for Competitiveness andWork (PCW), (1994-96). This agree-ment overcame cyclical unemploymentby focusing on employment 2000 (P2000), (1997-2000). This agreement extended thesocial partnership to the enterprise leveland contained policy initiatives aimedat reducing SOCIAL disparities and ex-clusion. SOCIAL exclusion was linked toa major innovation in the institutionalstructure of SOCIAL partnership at thenational level, namely, the inclusion ofcommunity and voluntary organiza-tions that had been lobbying for theirvoices to be added to the for Prosperity and Fairness(PPF), (2000-02). This agreement re-flected a shift in emphasis from mac-roeconomic policy to more supply side-oriented policies since unemploymentwas no longer the most pressing prob-lem and had been replaced by labourand skill shortages.