Nicholas, from many years of experience in the trenches of the govermentally financed Expanded Public Works Programme, I can confirm what you wrote. I can even add some more nightmarerish facts about that massively ineffective programme, as I experienced it personally.
Firtsly, projects are often selected with a political or self-enrichment purpose in mind, which most of the time coincide. The most pressing and deserving projects are thus often not chosen, since they do not meet the unspoken criteria of being primarilly aimed at enriching some cadres and their hangers-on.
From there it goes all the way downwards. A so-called implementing agent or agency is chosen in line with the real motivation behind the project, as stated above. Merit is not much of a consideration. On the contrary, incompetent and manipulatable agents or agencies are preferred, as long as they are willing to feed their political master.
Then comes the implementation of the project which is preceded by appointing a contractor or contractors. Predictably, they need to be the "right" ones, irrespective of what they will cost the project. They in turn must then select workers from the local community using a biased selection process which will ensure that the loyal ones are chosen.
It goes without saying that the contractors are also expected to buy materials from the "right" suppliers, never mind price-competiveness.
Thereafter the project is managed in such a way that it defies all measures of productivity: believe it or not, but contractors and workers are ecouraged, almost forced, to work as slowly as possible. The reason being that the project must primarilly show how many people were employed for how long, since that is the main "success factor" against which a project is measured at "completion", which it seldom is.
"Projects" are known on which millions were spent, without the projects even existing. Many others end up only partially completed. But "completion reports" are of course created which may or may not point out the failures of the project - or which reports try to put a positive spin on the failed project results.
Afterwards, nothing further is heard about the whole abortion, which was supposed to be a developmental project, which actually should have added something tangible towards the improvement of a usually very poor community's wellbeing. The workers then more often than not go sit along the streets again without jobs, since no sustainable development was brought about.
All of above is then followed by a repeat cycle of similar "projects"...
Logicaly one would think so, Nicholas. But sadly our broader population has been sucked into the Nanny State phenominon of dependency and still in large numbers see the State as their saviour. The continued and even growing social grant dependency, and the sub-minimum wages paid to labourers on public sector works projects, which too often produce sub-minimum returns on the wages expended on th0se projects, further create the impression that the State is our Daddy. You remember the old adage associated with the failed communist/socialist experiments of the Soviet era: Something like “You will pretend to work and we as the State Party will pretend to pay you…“ It was the perfect recipe for destroying initiative and creating dependency.
The perverse incentive structure is key here. When contractors and officials benefit from delays, efficiency becomes a liability not an asset. The observation about parallel work being avoided is spot-on, I've seen road projects drag on when simultaneous work sections would slash timelines. Bonuses for early quality completion flips the incentiv structure completley. Thats where change actually happens, not in more oversight.
Nicholas, from many years of experience in the trenches of the govermentally financed Expanded Public Works Programme, I can confirm what you wrote. I can even add some more nightmarerish facts about that massively ineffective programme, as I experienced it personally.
Firtsly, projects are often selected with a political or self-enrichment purpose in mind, which most of the time coincide. The most pressing and deserving projects are thus often not chosen, since they do not meet the unspoken criteria of being primarilly aimed at enriching some cadres and their hangers-on.
From there it goes all the way downwards. A so-called implementing agent or agency is chosen in line with the real motivation behind the project, as stated above. Merit is not much of a consideration. On the contrary, incompetent and manipulatable agents or agencies are preferred, as long as they are willing to feed their political master.
Then comes the implementation of the project which is preceded by appointing a contractor or contractors. Predictably, they need to be the "right" ones, irrespective of what they will cost the project. They in turn must then select workers from the local community using a biased selection process which will ensure that the loyal ones are chosen.
It goes without saying that the contractors are also expected to buy materials from the "right" suppliers, never mind price-competiveness.
Thereafter the project is managed in such a way that it defies all measures of productivity: believe it or not, but contractors and workers are ecouraged, almost forced, to work as slowly as possible. The reason being that the project must primarilly show how many people were employed for how long, since that is the main "success factor" against which a project is measured at "completion", which it seldom is.
"Projects" are known on which millions were spent, without the projects even existing. Many others end up only partially completed. But "completion reports" are of course created which may or may not point out the failures of the project - or which reports try to put a positive spin on the failed project results.
Afterwards, nothing further is heard about the whole abortion, which was supposed to be a developmental project, which actually should have added something tangible towards the improvement of a usually very poor community's wellbeing. The workers then more often than not go sit along the streets again without jobs, since no sustainable development was brought about.
All of above is then followed by a repeat cycle of similar "projects"...
If more South Africans knew about this, there'd be revolution. Bu tthen that would likely be affected by cadre deployment as well.
Logicaly one would think so, Nicholas. But sadly our broader population has been sucked into the Nanny State phenominon of dependency and still in large numbers see the State as their saviour. The continued and even growing social grant dependency, and the sub-minimum wages paid to labourers on public sector works projects, which too often produce sub-minimum returns on the wages expended on th0se projects, further create the impression that the State is our Daddy. You remember the old adage associated with the failed communist/socialist experiments of the Soviet era: Something like “You will pretend to work and we as the State Party will pretend to pay you…“ It was the perfect recipe for destroying initiative and creating dependency.
The perverse incentive structure is key here. When contractors and officials benefit from delays, efficiency becomes a liability not an asset. The observation about parallel work being avoided is spot-on, I've seen road projects drag on when simultaneous work sections would slash timelines. Bonuses for early quality completion flips the incentiv structure completley. Thats where change actually happens, not in more oversight.