Economic Development And Development Act Of Hawaii State Planning Act

1094 Words Nov 23rd, 2015 5 Pages
The above diagram identifies most of the possible causes to the problem, by applying the “why” as suggested by Oakes (2009) at each stage until a common problem is identifying as the absence of a specific “Economic Development or Planning Act” similar to other countries and state such as the Mauritius Planning and Development Act, Singapore Planning Act and Economic Development Board Act, Texas Economic Development Act, Hawaii State Planning Act, and others that should mandated the existing role and functions of the Department of Strategic Planning Office. The system failure in terms of no underlying act or mandate to enable the SPO to fully function and maximized its role is deem to be the underlying root cause of the continuing lack of researching capacity in the department. The SPO now relying on a broad ‘section 123’ of the 2013 constitution to justify its existence and roles. However, this section 123 focus on the values and principles of the State service, which cover the jurisdiction of more than one government ministries and departments, therefore there is a high possibilities of duplication of roles and responsibilities (Fiji Constitution, 2013).
Past attempt to rectify the problem
Fiji’s only attempt towards such specific Economic Development Act was in 1980 in the formation of an Economic Development Board Act. However, it was then amended in 1986 by repealing the words “Economic Development Board”, replacing them with “Fiji Trade Investment Board”, now known as…

Related Documents