Summary
LFMI analysed an official action plan for the implementation of the government’s programme for 2000-2004 and submitted comments and proposals to the government.
LFMI concluded that the plan was not based on the principle of strategic planning and therefore the envisaged measures were fragmentary and lacked in consistency and purposefulness. Although many of the proposed steps would improve living and business conditions, the expediency of certain measures is difficult to assess, while some plans even contradict the government’s programme. For example, the government’s programme stipulates abandoning the practice of dividing land into commercial and agricultural land, but the action plan projects an even more meticulous division of land depending on the nature of land.
Analysis suggests that the time the government had to start its work was not used to develop conceptual approaches and principles of work. For this reason the action plan envisages formulating concepts and principles in areas that require imperative actions, while postponing urgent steps until 2003 or even 2004.
The implementation of the government’s programme may be severely impeded by failure to define concrete measurable objectives. Obviously, balancing the budget deficit, limiting public investments and borrowing or reducing redistribution and government functions requires defining quantitative, measurable objectives rather than “tightening supervision” and “improving criteria,” steps which all administrations have vainly taken so far.
Realizing that it is impossible to accomplish all projected tasks in one fell swoop, LFMI proposed the government to define priorities that would help address the most pressing problems: to reduce unemployment and bureaucracy as well as to improve living and working conditions. The government should formulate for all ministries and government authorities concrete objectives, imperative actions and deadlines aimed to:
· to reduce state functions, institutions and expenditures as well as to increase the effectiveness of public administration;
· to improve business conditions by removing bureaucratic barriers, simplifying regulations and reducing the tax burden;
· to privatise state property, to allow market relationships in areas that are currently under state control and to privatise or outsource functions currently performed by the state.
The recommendations submitted by LFMI cover public administration and legislature, budget policy and finances, privatisation, business deregulation (including commerce, quality certification, company registration, operation and accountability, etc.), customs procedures, urban development and construction, healthcare, transportation, housing policy, etc.
