Import sanctions were used to a very limited extent against South Africa in the early sixties and latter half of the seventies to clearly signal the international community's disapproval of the country's apartheid policy. In the middle eighties South Africa was further exposed to a two year wave of export and financial sanctions. This was after the government had already committed itself to move away from apartheid as a policy that was no longer deemed feasible. All these sanctions were lifted in the early nineties after the abolition of apartheid but before negotiations for a new constitutional dispensation had firmly got under way. Contrary to some popular impressions, the 1985-87 sanctions were also severe1y limited in scope and nature, with the result that their economic impact was only marginal at best. They were introduced at a time when the country unexpectedly had to face a foreign debt crisis and had to drastically adjust the economy downward, not unlike that experienced by many other developing countries. The severe recession and greater socio-political unrest that followed did not lead to an escalation of sanctions, but nevertheless threatened to make large parts of the country ungovernable. The evidence is that sanctions only played a minor role in bringing about this poor and deteriorating state of affairs. The political aims of abolishing apartheid and preparing the way for negotiations was achieved mainly as a result of certain internal political developments, together with the political implications of such major other outside developments as the economic collapse of Sub-Saharan Africa and the Soviet Union. South Africa's experience with sanctions confirms that as elsewhere their economic impact as an instrument of foreign policy was invariably exaggerated, whereas their contribution in explaining the subsequent course of political events was at best uncertain. / Department of Economics / Ph.D. (Economics)

Import sanctions were used to a very limited extent against South Africa in the early sixties and latter half of the seventies to clearly signal the international community's disapproval of the country's apartheid policy. In the middle eighties South Africa was further exposed to a two year wave of export and financial sanctions. This was after the government had already committed itself to move away from apartheid as a policy that was no longer deemed feasible. All these sanctions were lifted in the early nineties after the abolition of apartheid but before negotiations for a new constitutional dispensation had firmly got under way. Contrary to some popular impressions, the 1985-87 sanctions were also severe1y limited in scope and nature, with the result that their economic impact was only marginal at best. They were introduced at a time when the country unexpectedly had to face a foreign debt crisis and had to drastically adjust the economy downward, not unlike that experienced by many other developing countries. The severe recession and greater socio-political unrest that followed did not lead to an escalation of sanctions, but nevertheless threatened to make large parts of the country ungovernable. The evidence is that sanctions only played a minor role in bringing about this poor and deteriorating state of affairs. The political aims of abolishing apartheid and preparing the way for negotiations was achieved mainly as a result of certain internal political developments, together with the political implications of such major other outside developments as the economic collapse of Sub-Saharan Africa and the Soviet Union. South Africa's experience with sanctions confirms that as elsewhere their economic impact as an instrument of foreign policy was invariably exaggerated, whereas their contribution in explaining the subsequent course of political events was at best uncertain. / Department of Economics / Ph.D. (Economics)

Abstract Pressures to cut public expenditure and to maximize value-adding use of scarce governmental resources are evident across the globe. Decision support tools for pinpointing when the activity is net beneficial are lacking, i.e. accountability is urgently called for but the process for recognizing and validating the best choices in direction and control are yet in their development. The objective of this research is to provide the science in general, and national administrations’ management and overseeing bodies in particular, a new understanding of how well the tasks and missions of the administration are fulfilled in terms of enhanced socio-economic well-being and adding to the value of different functions of society. This study approaches public performance management from the view-point of impact evaluation of a service oriented public product portfolio. The adopted research approach combines both qualitative and quantitative research methods. The research presents a process for evaluating a public organization’s overall benefit to cost ratio, with a case study within transport safety administration. The key findings of this research are that the socio-economic efficiency of a public entity can be quantified and that an operation of a public agency can be socio-economically net beneficial. Practical implications include re-allocation of resources to other more beneficial fields of responsibility, redesign of performance agreements and their indicators and initiating discussion in joint design of sustainable and balanced operational and strategic targets across government. Further research can exploit the methods presented in this study, as it has overcome some of the hurdles in socio-economic evaluation of public entities. With a clearer understanding of performance, government is able to better achieve its mission and its task of ensuring that agencies and other public bodies are functioning efficiently and properly. / Tiivistelmä Paineet julkisten menojen leikkaamiseksi tai hallitsemiseksi sekä julkisten resurssien tehokkaimman mahdollisen käytön varmistamiseksi kasvavat maailmanlaajuisesti. Julkisen toiminnan tulosohjausta tukevat päätöksenteko-työkalut ovat vielä puutteellisia ja varhaisessa kehitysvaiheessa, samalla kun toiminnan kustannusvastaavuutta ja tehokkuutta vaaditaan. Tämän tutkimuksen päätavoite on tuottaa uuttaa tietoa tieteelle ja myös julkishallinnolle siitä, kuinka hyvin viranomaisille asetetut tavoitteet ja tehtävät toteutuvat yhteiskuntataloudelle tuotettavan lisäarvon kannalta, sekä siitä miten lisäarvoa kyetään mittaamaan. Tämä tutkimus lähestyy tulosohjauksen tutkimusta ja kehittämistä palvelukeskeisen julkisorganisaation sekä sen palveluvalikoiman yhteiskunta-taloudellisen vaikuttavuuden arvioinnin keinoin. Valittu lähestymistapa yhdistelee laadullisia ja määrällisiä tutkimusmenetelmiä. Tutkimuksessa esitetään prosessi ja menetelmävalikoima julkisviranomaisen kustannushyötysuhteen määrittelemiseksi Liikenteen turvallisuusvirastoa käsittelevän tapausesimerkin avulla. Tutkimuksen keskeiset löydökset osoittavat, että julkisorganisaation yhteiskuntataloudellinen tehokkuus voidaan määrällistää ja että julkistoimijan toiminta voi olla yhteiskuntataloudellisesti kannattavaa. Käytännön suosituksiin sisältyy resurssien uudelleenohjaaminen tehokkaammin toimiville vastuualueille, tulossopimusten ja erityisesti niihin valittavien mittareiden uudelleensuunnittelu, sekä koko hallinnon kattavan keskustelun ja yhteissuunnittelun aloittaminen kestävän ja tasapainoisen tulosohjauksen aikaansaamiseksi strategisella ja operatiivisella tasolla. Jatkotutkimus ja hallinto voi hyödyntää tässä esitettyjä menetelmiä, nyt kun julkistoimijoiden yhteiskuntataloudellisen vaikuttavuuden arvioimisen haasteita on ratkaistu. Tuloksellisuuden vaatimusten selkeämpi ymmärtäminen mahdollistaa hallinnolle tehokkaamman tulosohjauksen ja siten tukee hallintoa sen pyrkimyksissä varmistaa julkistoimijoiden tehokas ja asianmukainen toiminta.