Mariano Browne
Commentators have attributed the public sector’s weak performance delivery to several factors. These include systemic weaknesses, organisational culture, budget issues, or that some public servants are politically compromised. Another argument is that whilst ministers are responsible for the performance of their respective ministries, they can only decide policy matters; they have no constitutional authority to discipline or manage public sector employees.
This argument is not unique to Trinidad and Tobago. In the United States, President Trump has argued that he should have the power to hire and fire all senior officials, including operatives at agencies considered independent. Last week, the US Supreme Court affirmed the President’s power to dismiss officials previously shielded by statutory “for-cause” removal restrictions. It is not clear if this will make any administration more efficient. Previously, we noted that the operations of the Department of Governmental Efficiency (DOGE) in the US have been a failure. This effort at “public sector reform”, to make government more like the private sector, has not generated any useful examples for the T&T environment.
It is true that more successful countries have relatively efficient public sectors, and this is a function of how they are organised. The Singapore model is often cited as one to be emulated. But it took many years for that model to evolve to what it is today.
Managing a country is similar but not identical to running a business. Both require a long-term vision supported by measurable objectives and implementation plans. Successful organisations and countries typically establish clear priorities rather than attempt to do everything simultaneously. Neither has unlimited resources. Leaders must decide how to allocate capital, labour, time, and other resources among competing priorities. To be successful, businesses must remain solvent, while governments must maintain fiscal sustainability. Both need to manage revenues, expenditures, borrowing, and investment prudently.
However, the objectives, control mechanisms and constraints differ significantly. Managers must maximise value for shareholders while maintaining the brand’s interests, loyalty, and integrity. This means a business must increase revenues and focus on profits. Governments’ objectives are much broader. They must focus on the welfare of all citizens and ensure that the systems are balanced and equitable. These include economic growth, employment, equity, public health, education, and social stability. Some objectives require trade-offs between competing objectives.
The key point is that public sector organisations tend to be budget-driven, with a weaker focus on objectives or missions. Their main challenge is defining and measuring effectiveness rather than controlling costs. Peter Drucker, the father of modern management, argued that governments were inherently burdened by bureaucracy, making them monopolistic, rigid, and incredibly inefficient at getting things done.
This inherent tendency to bureaucracy and the five-year electoral cycle creates an execution trap. In practical terms, there is a considerable gap between the announcement of initiatives and the ability to fund and execute them. The inevitable result is that the time elapsed between the announcement of a policy initiative and its implementation is quite long. An initiative often becomes subordinate to competing or unforeseen operational fires, leading to implementation delays. The key point to note here is that every administration, regardless of its politics, faces this issue.
The implementation of the Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Property Act, Property Tax and the Landlord surcharge are examples. The Procurement Act was first passed in 2015 and was fully proclaimed into law on April 26, 2023. Despite the 8-year gap and revisions, many ministries and other public bodies remain noncompliant with the Act’s requirements. The Act presumes a robust electronic environment where the public can access details of an organisation’s procurement agenda. Suffice it to say that most organisations are struggling with supplier registration and other basics and have not yet reached this stage.
Performance is the achievement of specific targets or outcomes. This is not to be confused with public relations announcements and promises. It is about delivery and problem resolution. How are ministers to be evaluated if not on the achievement of objectives?
By all accounts, the public debt profile is high, at 84.7%, and the debt service is at 20% (or higher) of recurrent expenditure. A key objective should be to reduce the debt-to-GDP ratio and create more fiscal space. On Thursday, the Ministry of Finance announced that the Government had successfully raised a US$800 million sovereign bond in the US market. The issue, like the US $1 billion bond issue early this year, was heavily oversubscribed and will be used to repay the 4.50% notes due in August 2026 and for general budgetary purposes. Both bonds carry a nominal interest rate that is 49% higher than that of the bonds they will replace, thereby increasing the debt service ratio.
The announcement is meant to be a confidence-boosting measure but really points to the fragility of the debt position. The same is true of the announcement that the fiscal position strengthened during the first seven months of the 2026 financial year, with the Government recording a smaller overall deficit despite lower energy revenues, as stronger collections from non-energy sources helped offset the decline. The announcement does not reveal the quantum of unpaid VAT refunds or the size of the unpaid backpay owed to public sector employees. The payment timing has been adjusted to achieve a better result.
Mariano Browne is the Chief Executive Officer of the UWI Arthur Lok Jack Global School of Business.
