WE are sometimes bombarded with news of this or that initiative, but increasingly we experience what seems to be a meltdown occasioned by inadequate or total lack of feedback on these interventions. I speak of what seems to be a less than enthusiastic dialogue as enshrined in the rationale for the establishment of the National Competitiveness Council.  Maybe I am wrong but I think that we need to hear more public-private dialogue (PPD) as the single most important vehicle for public policy implementation, and the realisation of competitive strategy outcomes, and not merely as a publicity manoeuvre.

One likely inhibitor to effective dialogue may be a mindset which suggests that the private sector does not really understand the processes and practices of pragmatic political governance.  A Survey of Good Practice in Public-Private Sector Dialogue postulates that while policymakers and their professional advisers are responsible for emergent policies and their implementation, they “do not have a monopoly on perspective, understanding, knowledge, and wisdom” (UNCTAD 2001:1).
The logical extension of that argument is that it behooves the private sector to see itself in an active, supportive role in terms of public policy implementation, and not complicit in the practice of unwelcome and unsavoury acts such as tax evasion, law-breaking, bribing government officials, union busting, and capital flight.  Pinaud (2007:16) argues that through PPD the private sector can be an enabler of government transparency and responsibility, thus contributing to political and economic stability.
Participation in PPD should not be automatic, since the concept application would be rendered meaningless if the “champion” from each sector is not suitably equipped to motivate and promote strong communication both within the dialogue and with key interests outside the dialogue, while at the same time avoiding dominating and personalising the dialogue (Bannock 2005).  Moreover, caution should be exercised when the question of which government agency is the appropriate host for the dialogue is being considered.  Bannock argues that notwithstanding it being an essential participant in dialogue, a ministry or agency with historical relationship in the provision of direct services to the private sector is not likely to be a wise choice for hosting the dialogue, since the ministry is likely to be resistant to change which reduces government presence in the economy.
Editor, space constraints preclude this contribution from being an article or column, so I will conclude by simply stating that the private sector should not be seen to be limiting its role to identifying problems and suggesting solutions, but must expand its mindset to contributing to reform implementation, and to capacity development in the delivery of public services, particularly where the skill sets in the public sector are not as competitive.  An implementation phase and policy monitoring are natural next steps to the dialogue process, with the private sector maintaining pressure for follow-through, and positioning itself to assess dialogue and policy change outcomes for the education of its constituencies.