Making the CARICOM Administrative Machinery Work: The Decentralization and Leadership Factor

• Author: Edwin Jones and Ivan Cruickshank
• Pages: 104-125

104 NEW CONCEPTIONS OF REGIONAL GOVERNANCE

1. INTRODUCTION

Within the globalised, good governance-oriented environment there is

CARICOM commitment to restructure its organs and institutions. An

important part of this challenge involves the search for appropriate

rationalization strategies. We are mainly concerned with the governance-

decentralization and leadership dimensions.

Rationalization of governance and administrative strategy in the

‘integrationist’ framework entails situational analysis and the reshaping of

decisions, institutions and instruments to meet the overall demands of

meaningful implementation. In practice, it requires some degree of

coordination to create coherence and integration in systems of decision-

making. It must also refocus vision, drawing on the creative insights of

localized entities, and working through inter-organizational networks.

Additionally, integration and other models that take diversity into account

must guide the process. All these challenges imply the need for strong and

legitimate institutional mechanisms of conflict prevention and resolution.

Our ‘case study’ proceeds on the basis that the CARICOM context is

uniquely special because:

• Sovereignty is a major problem, rooted in theoretical innocence

and procedural flaws;

• Challenges of globalisation are made to appear intractable in light

of late preparatory starts and socio-technical deficits;

• Weak public administration and leadership systems constrain

policy change;

• Retreat from good governance practices generate the usual

unwanted effects; and

• Leaders learn slowly that all rationalization activities entail risks.

MAKING THE CARICOMMAKING THE CARICOM

MAKING THE CARICOMMAKING THE CARICOM

MAKING THE CARICOM

ADMINISTRATIVE MACHINERY WORK:ADMINISTRATIVE MACHINERY WORK:

ADMINISTRATIVE MACHINERY WORK:ADMINISTRATIVE MACHINERY WORK:

ADMINISTRATIVE MACHINERY WORK:

THE DECENTRALIZATION ANDTHE DECENTRALIZATION AND

THE DECENTRALIZATION ANDTHE DECENTRALIZATION AND

THE DECENTRALIZATION AND

LEADERSHIP FACTORLEADERSHIP FACTOR

LEADERSHIP FACTORLEADERSHIP FACTOR

LEADERSHIP FACTOR

Edwin Jones and Ivan Cruickshank

1111

1111

11

Making the CARICOM Administrative Machinery Work 105

These contextual factors continue to determine the leadership response

and administrative infrastructure and how these in turn, influence the

approach to community-building, the marketing of the governance-

decentralization approach, and meeting relational demands. We start with

a brief consideration on the bureau-shaping dimension.

2. THE WAY THINGS ARE: BUREAUCRATIC

FORMATION AND PRACTICE

It is difficult to undertake a proper evaluation of all the forces influencing

the formation and development of the so-called CARICOM bureaucratic

realm. One difficulty is its transitional nature; it is always changing and

adapting to new circumstances and conditions. The incompleteness of the

regional integration system has been responsible for much of those

dynamics. Moreover, there is lack of empirical support, since the rationale

for change is not always explicitly stated. These difficulties aside, we know

enough about the integration process over 30 years to comment on

important bureau-shaping forces and practices.

An important principle in the process of bureaucratic formation

continues to be the search for structural modes to fit the realities of

Community politics whilst inducing integrative behaviour. Commitment

to ideas about indivisible sovereignty and the need to dismantle the self-

sufficient state also influenced the shape of the regional bureau.

Instrumental considerations such as the need to demonstrate socio-technical

prowess in diverse policy sectors and in complex task environments have

played their part. Bureaucratic formation proceeded as well without a clear

understanding, on the part of some key actors, of the theoretical dynamics

and practical implications of integration. For all these reasons, bureaucratic

practices have been fraught with unique dilemmas and paradoxes.

As we shall see, the bureaucratic design that emerged did not or could

not command the needed technical tool kit, autonomy and social coherence

to effectively confront the core operational goals. Essentially, it would be

challenged to bring together the demands of governance, national interests

and intergovernmentalism. It would be forced to manipulate the

mechanisms of mediation, coalition building and resource mobilization that

are relevant to problems of member countries. Certainly, it would be

required to track and process positives and negatives of integration, and

the like.

In relational terms, a core Community bureaucratic infrastructure

has emerged in response to the following structural configurations (cf.

Taccone and Nogueira: Chapt. VII) The Conference of Heads of Government

as the supreme body and final authority — the policy centre with powers of

decision. The Community Council of Ministers, as the second highest body,