Chief of Staff

The 80-20 rule may not be instinctive to us but given the aspirations of the Aquino Administration, somebody could be keeping the president focused on the vital few initiatives that will deliver the bulk of these aspirations? James Baker was a respected Chief of Staff in the Reagan White House – and he could focus the president on delivering on his promises. (It’s not surprising how Tony Blair, then an MP, described his first meeting with Baker, at the time the Treasury Secretary: “I had a touch of that British raised eyebrow . . . and he sent me out . . . reeling and seeing star . . . Above all, he was smart”.) We may not agree with Reagan’s politics but as a leader he focused and delivered.

In fairness, it is a new administration and they’re still sorting out the cooks in the kitchen? And beyond the seriousness of our economic challenges, President Aquino has to deal with the politics of governing. Still, a good chief of staff can get the two elements of economics and politics in synch – i.e., keeping an eye on their common denominator. In short, the left hand ought to know what the right hand is doing.

For example, if the Administration is committed to aggressively driving our revenues (i.e., GDP, beyond tax collections) the chief of staff could be getting the president to focus on the strategic industries the JFC (Joint Foreign Chambers) offered; and reconciling them with the initiative from government?

The JFC appears to be lobbying for the mining industry, reminding us that their 7 strategic industries would equate to $75 billion in foreign direct investments. (Are there other offers we are missing that can match the magnitude of this option? It is important that we are not distracted by the ‘trivial many’ so that we can focus on the ‘vital few’?) At this level of investments, and if indeed we sharpen our pencils and pursue truly strategic industries and attain competitive advantage, their multiplier effect should generate over $100 billion in incremental GDP – that will more than match Thailand’s economic profile, and they have a prettier poverty picture than ours? But until we dramatically raise investments it is incongruous to expect meeting our MDG poverty-reduction goal – i.e., we can’t squeeze blood from a stone?

The administration could proactively deal with the JFC’s proposal (and truly move private-public partnership beyond rhetoric?) so that we can ascertain if indeed it will facilitate delivery of the president’s economic promise? For example, the chief of staff could get the JFC (and it would help if they have major local players within their task force) work with the DTI (and whoever else from the economic team) and come up with an actionable, joint resolution – and the sooner the better? But the efforts should be transparent so that the rest of society is kept in the loop? Of course there will always be conflicting ideas – but that’s precisely why focusing on the vital few is key? Every initiative (at every level) should be focused on its vital few – i.e., the 80-20 rule?

Several expressions of support are coming to fund the infrastructure initiative of the administration – and infrastructure is the requisite foundation of any set of strategic industries? The administration could figure out which of these funding options best fit its infrastructure and strategic-industries initiatives? It also means that if there are legislations that are either imperative or counterproductive to the cause the administration ought to call the leaders of Congress to Malacañang to get them on board?

We’ve recognized the imperative of stepping up investments? But how we manage generating them and executing the requisite strategic-industries initiatives are a much bigger challenge? And the media could play its role by constantly challenging the administration to get us focused on what matters? We can’t be copycats of Washington DC where the media plays off the left against the right because we have yet to find our place in the sun? (Of course, they could demonstrate how to handle a hostage-taking crisis like they did the other day?) We can play critics or apologists – but we have a job to do as a nation and we better get the job done?