| By Hermann Jeuschenak,
on 08 February 2007
|
 The high-tech skills of a bygone age One, two, buckle my shoe
Three, four, knock on the door
Five, six, pick up sticks
Seven, eight, lay them straight
Nine, ten, do it again!
In a world of equality and non-discrimination, we cannot afford to support one needy individual above or before another. Nor can we, in this same world, financially afford to help both. Our collective response to this dilemma is a dangerous compromise – to help as many as we can, but only to the extent of short term benefit.
Take, for example, the Expanded Public Works Programme (EPWP) launched by the South African government in 2004. With a mandate to create one million jobs in five years, it has created 250 000 temporary jobs for unskilled workers who will, at the culmination of each public works project, emerge no more skilled or empowered than they were before, and reliant on yet another project offering menial employ. What happens then, when the list of worthwhile public works projects ends or the money runs out, to the unskilled?
They become victims of a quantitative, short-term obsession, rather then beneficiaries of a qualitative, self-fuelled solution.
Eenie meenie miney moe,
Catch a tiger by the toe,
If he squeals, let him go,
Eenie meenie miney moe
A slight derivative of this approach is found in the public tender process. Determined to support a reforming society, these projects are awarded to organisations and individuals assessed as suitably disadvantaged. The trouble is, yet again, that there are too many. The current solution: award a single contract to a qualifying entity and, thereafter, give the others a shot at it. So, ACME cc sets up, builds infrastructure, learns, makes a few mistakes, concludes the contract and - now equipped to service a specialised industry - is set free but cut out of the loop. Round two and Widget Inc steps in, sets up, builds, fails, learns, gets the hang of it and is cast out. And so on. Money has been spent and wasted; skills have been learnt and lost; individuals have been carried for a while.
But how else can we make public spending fair? And, more importantly, what is fair?
Central to the tenets of equality and democracy is equal opportunity; a promised open-invitation only; a belief importantly distinct from socialist ideologies that call for equal ownership. The distinction between society and the individual, and the necessary arbitration this implies, is another consideration. Do we sacrifice the few for the many? It is a debilitating, paralyzing question that invites the same compromise as above and will result in the same net loss.
Better is the creation of long term value on which we can all build and which we can all ultimately share. In any investment, we must choose those that are best placed to deliver. So too, in development, must we choose carefully from the targeted group and then stick by them long enough for the individuals to grow to a sustainable size that offers a long term foundation.
Only when we cannot choose, when moral values make the positioning of one ahead of another impossible, should we resort to counting rhymes. Ibble obble black bobble
Ibble obble out
Turn a dirty dishcloth inside out
Once if it's dirty
Twice if it's clean
Ibble obble black bobble
You are out
|
|
|
