Smatta
JF-Expert Member
- Nov 5, 2008
- 2,350
- 730
Within the EAC Kenyans have a greater managerial capability when compared with Tanzanians. The main reason is that although both countries produced a multitude of managers, the managers of Kenya owned the businesses they managed while managers of Tanzania did not own the business they managed Because they did not own the businesses they managed there was limited concern on the part of Tanzanian managers as to whether the businesses made profit or not .The state was there to bail out the parastatal outfits in case they ran into financial difficulties .
Even after the introduction of the private sector led economy in Tanzania, the remaining parastatal outfits are being managed in the old way. Managers of the parastatal outfits are not aware that since we have introduced a private sector led economy the economic atmosphere has changed. It is now an economic atmosphere of a competitive private sector. Some of these parastatal outfits are key players in the economy .These include TANESCO, Tanzania Railways, Air Tanzania, to mention a few. Their poor performance act as a drag on the would be competitive private sector led economy. Here the challenge for the government is to look for serious and business minded managers for the remaining parastatal outfits.
The Kenya economic development plans since independence placed high importance on education and training in general. Their 1969-1974 development plan for example, besides aiming at literacy for all, focused on more practical vocational cum technical training in order to produce a sufficient number of people with skills
and knowledge required to support an independent economy at a high rate of growth. The Tanzania development plan also focused on literacy for all. But training at higher levels was linked training to work situation .This meant that spending on higher education was only to the extent of manpower requirements for expanding output. Training was geared towards satisfying the manpower needs of the government and parastatal outfits.
While Tanzania was training her young people to run the government offices and the parastatal organizations, Kenya trained her young ones mainly to be owners and managers of their businesses .Therefore, it should be no surprise that today Kenya has a bigger number of university graduates who make very good mangers. The pool of managerial capability is much bigger in Kenya than it is in Tanzania .In view of this fact the worries of Tanzanians with regard to job security should be understandable .The question is how long will Tanzania keep on worrying about this problem? We should take action to increase the pool of our managerial capability.
With regard to industrial development the economic development plans of Tanzania and of Kenya of 1967 to 1974 provide a good pointer as to what route each country took. The development plans of Tanzania for 1967 to 1974 focused on development of industry without neglecting small scale industry and handicrafts.
Major activities that aimed at achieving the major outcome included the following: promotion of socialist forms of organization and state control; economic and social transformation through rapid increase in production; expanded range of manufactured products and lessened dependence on foreign sources of supply; holding constant the total volume of imported consumer goods; increasing manufacturing element in exports; shift of trade dependence away from overseas towards internal and African markets; and, use economic integration among African countries to promote industrialization .
The development plans of Kenya during this period focused on accelerating the rate of manufacturing development consistent with economic viability and stable price level for industrial goods. The activities that were to be carried out in order to achieve the major goal included the following: give every encouragement to the private sector to achieve the necessary investment targets; increased government participation in terms of promotion of new projects and in the financing of them; .carry out more import substitution; export more processed products; carry out wider geographical dispersal of industries; and, harness large scale benefits through development of a single East African market .
With regard to industrial development, the two countries had policies that followed differing routes. While Kenya was relying on the private sector for her industrialization programme, Tanzania was relying on the public or parastatal sector. .While the role of the government of Kenya with regard to industrialization was that of a promoting agent, the role of the government of Tanzania, on the other hand, was that of control . While Tanzania planned stand still on the volume of imported consumer goods, Kenya planned the reduction of imports through import substitution. One finds similarities in the increase in industrial production, an increase in processed exports and use of regional integration as a tool for faster industrialization.
A private sector led economy has made all the difference that has made Kenya a strong and dominant economy within the EAC common market . Tanzania is on the way to a private sector led economy.
The speed towards this goal though good during the second half of the nineteen nineties and the first half of this decade, is faltering .We have to ask ourselves as to what is causing us falter. We surely need to put our house in order so that we can participate gainfully in the EAC common market.
this is a good read for most of us who are into this East Africa Community. I know what most of you will say, but the truth will always prevail. One
http://www.businesstimes.co.tz/inde...-eac-common-market&catid=39:columns&Itemid=67
Even after the introduction of the private sector led economy in Tanzania, the remaining parastatal outfits are being managed in the old way. Managers of the parastatal outfits are not aware that since we have introduced a private sector led economy the economic atmosphere has changed. It is now an economic atmosphere of a competitive private sector. Some of these parastatal outfits are key players in the economy .These include TANESCO, Tanzania Railways, Air Tanzania, to mention a few. Their poor performance act as a drag on the would be competitive private sector led economy. Here the challenge for the government is to look for serious and business minded managers for the remaining parastatal outfits.
The Kenya economic development plans since independence placed high importance on education and training in general. Their 1969-1974 development plan for example, besides aiming at literacy for all, focused on more practical vocational cum technical training in order to produce a sufficient number of people with skills
and knowledge required to support an independent economy at a high rate of growth. The Tanzania development plan also focused on literacy for all. But training at higher levels was linked training to work situation .This meant that spending on higher education was only to the extent of manpower requirements for expanding output. Training was geared towards satisfying the manpower needs of the government and parastatal outfits.
While Tanzania was training her young people to run the government offices and the parastatal organizations, Kenya trained her young ones mainly to be owners and managers of their businesses .Therefore, it should be no surprise that today Kenya has a bigger number of university graduates who make very good mangers. The pool of managerial capability is much bigger in Kenya than it is in Tanzania .In view of this fact the worries of Tanzanians with regard to job security should be understandable .The question is how long will Tanzania keep on worrying about this problem? We should take action to increase the pool of our managerial capability.
With regard to industrial development the economic development plans of Tanzania and of Kenya of 1967 to 1974 provide a good pointer as to what route each country took. The development plans of Tanzania for 1967 to 1974 focused on development of industry without neglecting small scale industry and handicrafts.
Major activities that aimed at achieving the major outcome included the following: promotion of socialist forms of organization and state control; economic and social transformation through rapid increase in production; expanded range of manufactured products and lessened dependence on foreign sources of supply; holding constant the total volume of imported consumer goods; increasing manufacturing element in exports; shift of trade dependence away from overseas towards internal and African markets; and, use economic integration among African countries to promote industrialization .
The development plans of Kenya during this period focused on accelerating the rate of manufacturing development consistent with economic viability and stable price level for industrial goods. The activities that were to be carried out in order to achieve the major goal included the following: give every encouragement to the private sector to achieve the necessary investment targets; increased government participation in terms of promotion of new projects and in the financing of them; .carry out more import substitution; export more processed products; carry out wider geographical dispersal of industries; and, harness large scale benefits through development of a single East African market .
With regard to industrial development, the two countries had policies that followed differing routes. While Kenya was relying on the private sector for her industrialization programme, Tanzania was relying on the public or parastatal sector. .While the role of the government of Kenya with regard to industrialization was that of a promoting agent, the role of the government of Tanzania, on the other hand, was that of control . While Tanzania planned stand still on the volume of imported consumer goods, Kenya planned the reduction of imports through import substitution. One finds similarities in the increase in industrial production, an increase in processed exports and use of regional integration as a tool for faster industrialization.
A private sector led economy has made all the difference that has made Kenya a strong and dominant economy within the EAC common market . Tanzania is on the way to a private sector led economy.
The speed towards this goal though good during the second half of the nineteen nineties and the first half of this decade, is faltering .We have to ask ourselves as to what is causing us falter. We surely need to put our house in order so that we can participate gainfully in the EAC common market.
this is a good read for most of us who are into this East Africa Community. I know what most of you will say, but the truth will always prevail. One
http://www.businesstimes.co.tz/inde...-eac-common-market&catid=39:columns&Itemid=67
