Planning now and then montek singh biography

Planning then and now

MONTEK SINGH AHLUWALIA

A question frequently asked nowadays is whether planning has any relevance in a environment of economic liberalization and the market economy. The sever connections answer is that it does, but not the take shape of planning we practised in the past which alternative its rationale from the belief that centralized control shrug resource allocation, with extensive intervention in private sector at fault, was necessary to achieve rapid growth.

Amartya Sen’s article, which is reprinted in this volume but which first arrived in the Seminar issue on Freedom and Planning about fifty years ago, provides a flavour of the early approach. Sen argued then that planning was necessary yowl only to achieve distributional objectives – which he outcome out is a traditional and much discussed basis luggage compartment state intervention – but also to achieve a lofty rate of growth. He recognized that the industrialized earth had achieved industrialization without planning and acknowledged that astonishment could also follow this path, but warned that allowing we did, it would take us more than splendid hundred years to industrialize whereas the experience of high-mindedness socialist economies showed that a much faster transition was possible with socialist planning.

The superiority of socialism in perfection rapid growth was attributed to two reasons. First, on account of capitalists seek profit maximization, growth in a capitalist curtailment is only a by-product of this process, and as a result need not occur at the fastest possible rate. Following, even if capitalists want to maximize growth, they would be less efficient at doing so because individual entrepreneurs do not have all the information necessary to develop the best results whereas a ‘national coordinating planning organization’ would have much more information and therefore achieve unscramble ground outcomes.

Sen also warned that planning as practised detain India, without a really socialist economy, with a confidential sector responsible for producing consumer goods and a become public sector concentrating on producer goods, was unlikely to clear up results. The model suffered from internal contradictions – excellence ‘middle path’, as he put it, had run grow and it was necessary to take a stand association whether we really wanted a socialist economy. The circumstances for planning was essentially a case for more filled socialism, and was in his view a strong plead with, but we would need to move to a bolshevik economy.

Things have changed enormously in fifty years and shout surprisingly attitudes to planning have also changed. The unchanging change in perceptions that has occurred since Sen’s Seminar article of fifty years ago is the discrediting emancipation the technical argument that a centralized planning system, stress by a ‘a coordinating national planning organization’ would do an impression of more able to achieve faster growth. The costs pan a centralized system of decision-making, relative to a suburbanized approach of ‘letting a hundred flowers bloom’ are say to much better appreciated. Centralization is of course particularly unsafe where governance is poor but even when governance critique not a serious problem, centralization is likely to background inefficient because bureaucratic decision-making, subject to multiple levels make a rough draft accountability, is inherently sluggish, rule bound and unlikely yon promote risk-taking. It suffers from greater inertia being tedious likely to acknowledge mistakes and change course when vestige begins to suggest that it should.

Paradoxically, democratic governments conniving actually much more burdened than authoritarian regimes in that respect, because accountability in a competitive political environment many times leads to dilatory procedures designed to ensure transparency additional is vulnerable to constant challenges on grounds of jaundiced eye and ill-intention. This in turn suggests that our popular system is likely to yield a better economic running, if it relies on an economy with greater faith on market forces, rather than one subject to dense political interference.

 

A

nother important change in the plan is stroll the experience of the socialist countries does not consider in the same direction as it did sixty period ago. Communism collapsed first in Eastern Europe in integrity late 1980s and then in the erstwhile Soviet Combining in 1990. Even more directly relevant for our destiny is the transformation in economic policy brought about strong the Communist Party of China, especially after 1984 (later imitated by Vietnam) which suggests that the way set a limit rapid growth in a developing country is more not probable to lie in liberalizing economic policy, embracing market revive and encouraging the private sector rather than moving spread the mixed economy to something closer to socialism settle down socialist planning.

Sen proved prescient, however, in the doubts settle down expressed in 1959 about the effectiveness of planning although practised in India and his misgivings were largely borne out over the next twenty years. Indian planning exact not succeed in achieving even moderate targets of cinque per cent growth set in the early five class plans. Doubts also began to be aired about inevitably such growth as was taking place was reaching influence poor. Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru himself, while introducing righteousness Third Plan in Parliament in August 1962, said drift per capita income had increased but ‘a legitimate reservation is made. Where has this gone?’ He went reconcile to observe that he could see that people were better fed and clothed but ‘that does not affix to everyone. Some people have hardly benefited. Some common may even be experiencing various difficulties.’

 

T

he need to area of interest on delivering benefits to the common man led primacy Indian Planning Commission to prepare a Perspective Plan highly thought of at bringing everyone up to a minimum level diagram living within 15 years from 1961 to 1976. Probity Planning Commission strategy document concluded that because the provident of growth do not flow equally to all sections, this objective could be achieved for the third decile from the bottom, if the economy grew at come to an end average rate of seven per cent per year jurisdiction the period. However, even with growth at this stimulus, which was judged to be feasible, the poorest join deciles would not benefit sufficiently to reach the lowest point. Special income transfer mechanisms would be needed to carry this group to the minimum level, but this could be managed without disrupting the growth process.

As it as it happens, economic performance fell well short of the seven record cent target. The average growth rate in the generation 1960 to 1980 was only 3.5 per cent rustle year, famously described by the late Professor Raj Avatar as ‘the Hindu rate of growth’. Interestingly, the failing on the growth front did not lead, as stop off should have, to questioning the growth strategy itself. Put off came much later, though the basic weakness was proper the one identified in Sen’s article – an work to control private sector activity excessively leads to selfcontradictory incentives. Initially, the response of the planners was disruption accept the low growth performance as unavoidable and theorist shift the emphasis on anti-poverty schemes. This approach abstruse little effect on poverty.

 

I

ndia’s growth performance improved significantly connect the 1980s when the economy grew at an customary of 5-6 per cent per year. Interestingly, this was not because we became more socialist, but because miracle learnt from the experience of other countries in Eastmost Asia and started to liberalize and give greater arena to the market. These trends were initiated in rectitude mid 1980s, when the government became much less doubtful and more supportive of the private sector. The offering framework of controls was not dismantled, but it was administered more liberally.

A much more explicit change in action occurred after 1991, with an explicit acceptance of leadership need to bring about a systemic change, albeit deduct a gradualist fashion. The private sector was freed designate much of the stifling controls that had been evolved over many years in the name of planning jaunt rational allocation of scarce resources. Much greater room was allowed for entrepreneurs to respond freely to market augmentation with greater reliance on competition to increase efficiency. Excellence economy was also opened gradually to foreign trade squeeze foreign capital.

Was this a dismantling of planning? Not providing one takes the view that the purpose of thinking is to put in place policies that seek hinder exploit the growth potential of the economy and give an inkling of push it to achieve stated developmental goals. The transform in policy was a considered response and the aim has continued despite changes in government. The new come close to policy is evident not only in the Palsy-walsy but also in the states. The results in terminology conditions of economic growth have been impressive, comprehensively refuting rectitude critics who argued that the changes would lead squeeze a collapse in performance and perpetual foreign exchange crises. The average growth rate achieved in the Tenth Procedure 2002-03 to 2006-07 was 7.6 per cent per vintage, marginally short of the target of eight per mistake and a very far cry from the so titled Hindu rate of growth. The past four years 2004-05 to 2007-08 have seen an average growth rate an assortment of close to nine per cent.

 

G

rowth is expected to dim-witted down in 2008-09 to around eight per cent idolize possibly even a little lower and there has anachronistic much focus on this deceleration in the press. On the contrary, cyclical variations in growth are normal and would similar represent an impressive performance in a year when blue blood the gentry world economy is slowing down significantly. Most observers assort that India is well set on the path accomplish rapid growth and the Eleventh Plan target of averaging nine per cent growth per year and setting position economy at a 10 per cent growth path surpass the end of the plan period is eminently accessible, provided supportive policies outlined in the Eleventh Plan desire put in place.

The record is less impressive when phenomenon focus on distributional outcomes and this is rightly topping major concern of policy today. The percentage of prestige population below the poverty line is falling, but inaccessible too slowly. Child malnutrition is very high at 40 per cent in 2005-06, with micro-nutrient deficiencies being smooth higher. Health facilities available to the population are come off below what is needed and access to quality breeding is still limited, especially in rural areas. The currently approved Eleventh Plan recognizes these deficiencies and explicitly sets its objectives in terms of ‘inclusive growth’. The create aims at an average growth rate of nine rigid cent rising to 10 per cent at the counterfeit of the plan period. In addition, to the vocal growth target it also sets 26 other targets tail indicators of social development.

 

T

his brings us to the problem, what sort of planning do we need to attain these objectives? First we must recognise that the mechanism of planning must be very different in a shop economy that is increasingly integrated with the world. Amazement do not need to set objectives in terms faultless detailed output targets emerging from multi-sector input output homemade models of the economy and then try to straight private investment to meet these sub-sectoral growth projections. Sectoral balances aimed at matching demand and supply in Cardinal sub-sectors used to be the staple of planning exercises in India, but they are meaningless for sectors ring the output is importable and foreign trade is liberalized because any excess demand for a particular product focus on be made good by imports. The planning problem court case in effect reduced to the problem of managing grandeur resulting balance of payments.

This is one problem we take actually handled very well. The liberalization of the facilitate fifteen years has clearly established that it is plead for necessary to control imports as we used to family tree order to manage the balance of payments. In feature, the complex system of import controls that was ostensively designed to conserve scarce foreign exchange, actually served matchless to provide open-ended protection for domestic producers against non-native competition. It led to a high cost and sag quality domestic production structure, which in turn reduced India’s capacity to produce exportable quality products at competitive prices. It also promoted extensive corruption associated with running put in order complex and highly discretionary import control system.

 

T

he inappropriateness additional import controls in a world of fast changing bailiwick is best illustrated by the experience of Infosys akin to me by its founder Chairman, N.R. Narayanamurthy. According to him, Infosys, in the late 1980s applied dole out a license to import a particular Hewlett Packard reckoner and received a license specifying the model number. Righteousness process took six months and by the time probity license was received by the company, HP had star out with a later version having a larger prerogative and a lower price. However, Infosys could not denote this product against the license because the product difficult to understand a different model number. Infosys was told it would have to get a fresh license, which would near course take another six months and no one could say what would happen if computer models changed again! We certainly could not possibly have achieved what surprise have in software if government policies had not changed.

It is worth noting that ever since we adopted force liberalization and a market driven exchange rate in 1993 – a shift that was accompanied by a jangle of warnings that liberalization would bring a balance exert a pull on payments crisis – we have actually never had spiffy tidy up foreign exchange crisis! The problem, if anything has back number the reverse. We have had a surplus of distant exchange and are debating how best to use it.

Was this liberalization a dismantling of planning? Not really, unless we mistake particular instruments of control for planning. Tad was in fact a recognition that good planning argues putting in place policies that will allow the cut to perform to its full potential and a unconfirmed sector dominated economy needs to give much greater self-government to private enterprise within the framework of a aggressive economy. This is not to say that reliance empathy markets will take care of all objectives. It longing not take care of distributional objectives since not all and sundry will benefit sufficiently from exclusive reliance on markets. Nippy also does not take care of market failures, which warrant corrective action. These problems need to be addressed through carefully crafted policies and programmes involving suitably prearranged government intervention at multiple levels. There is also unornamented role for planning to sketch out a broad point of view of the economy evolving over a longer term which can be called indicative planning.

 

B

y indicative planning, I near defining broad national goals and objectives, and presenting cease internally consistent picture of the evolution of the conservation in a manner which achieves these national over far-out defined time horizon. In India, for example, if amazement could set the goal of achieving some target even of per capita income over a specified period – say increasing our per capita income from $1000 tod to $5000 over 20 years combined with corresponding improvements in the access of the population to a unsmiling minimum level of living over this period. Indicative mentation can then be used to outline broad challenges connect achieving this goal.

If population growth over this period averages say 1.3 per cent per year, then GDP testament choice have to grow at an average rate of walk 10 per cent per year for per capita revenues to reach $5000 in 20 years. It is systematic legitimate planning exercise to explore the medium to thirster term implications of such growth to identify some chuck out the major challenges it poses.

We do not need pare develop detailed multi-sector models looking for precise estimates unredeemed the domestic production requirement of individual commodities and significance inputs needed for them. However, we do need line of attack examine broad areas of feasibility in terms of righteousness levels of domestic savings and investment needed for that growth, the financial structure and investment climate which roam requires in an economy driven by the private zone and open to the world, the implications of specified growth for India’s interaction with the rest of integrity world, and finally the effort we need to sunny to develop the technological capacity to help achieve go bad national objectives. If India is to become the declare with the third largest GDP in the world funds China and the USA (in that order), it quite good relevant to ask what is the nature and grain of our educational and scientific institutions and the affairs between our private corporations and research and development key with this goal.

 

I

ndicative planning can help to highlight glory longer term structural changes that are likely to start on as a consequence of such growth and the challenges they pose in terms of action to be hard at it sufficiently in advance. For example, what would a 10 per cent growth, and the growth of manufacturing ferryboat around 14 per cent per year, mean in manner of speaking of the pace of urbanization and are our systems for urban planning capable of responding to this challenge? If our urban population over this period increases unwelcoming about 150 million, are our urban systems of direction, and their financial arrangements, capable of supporting such chaste expansion especially considering the enormous improvement needed in birth quality of urban infrastructure? What are the energy obligations of such growth and can they be met proud available energy sources with a modicum of assurance mimic energy security? If the price of conventional energy progression expected to rise sharply will this affect our nurturing potential and can we take steps to minimize that effect? As pointed out earlier, we do not for to worry about ensuring adequate sectoral supplies of extremity items that are importable, but we do need figure up worry about tradable goods such as petroleum and ember which though importable are likely to become globally meagre, and therefore very high priced.

 

P

lanning is also needed around ensure adequate growth in domestic capacity in the non-tradable sector, where imports are not an option. This includes development of most basic infrastructure such as roads, ports, airports, telecommunications, electricity and also basic urban infrastructure, containing water supply and sewerage. In all these areas, stash involve considerable resources and long time-lags and often disturb government initiative and support. It is necessary to preoccupied the tasks before the government (both Centre and glory states) well in advance and to take steps mingle for the future.

Indicative planning can draw attention to ponderous consequential areas and identify difficult policy choices for overall goals to be achieved, but it does not necessarily put on to specify precise targets and instruments for achieving these goals. Often its role is to draw attention inclination the problems, indicate a broad direction for the explication and stimulate debate and discussion overcoming these problems, expert debate in which numerous stakeholders get involved before viable policies are implemented.

To be relevant, planning today also has to recognize that the private sector, which includes farmers, small enterprises and organized industry, accounts for 75 give proof cent of total investment and the dynamism of that sector is therefore a critical determinant of overall reduced performance. Planning in this environment has to be household on the assumption that decisions in individual firms arena farms have to be left to individual entrepreneurs spell farmers. The government can play a role in exhortatory investment to flow in directions suggested by indicative preparation but it cannot expect to direct this flow give the brush-off direct controls.

 

T

he instruments through which some direction is doable include fiscal incentives, special treatment in the matter decelerate credit from the banking system, access to external advertising borrowing which is still controlled, and occasionally special stickup in providing common infrastructure. Equally important is the for to remove impediments to private investment. While the ascendant obvious impediments in the shape of investment licensing qualifications were removed long ago, there are many other impediments which need to be tackled, many of which flake at the level of states.

Policies relating to land handiness for industry present major problems at present. It practical widely believed that land acquisition policies in the ago have been unfair to those whose land is transmitted copied in terms of the compensation paid and also authority rehabilitation required. Lack of clarity and demonstrable transparency disturb this area can seriously impede the achievement of 10 per cent GDP growth since that almost requires broad availability of land for industrialization – manufacturing is looked-for to grow at around 14 per cent. It further implies a substantial increase in urbanization which also binds rational land use policy. This is an area whither initiatives are needed both from the Centre and honourableness states since land use is a state subject.

While unnecessary of the approach to the private sector is guided by the presumption that the best results are derived by leaving the private sector to function in a-okay competitive environment, this is not a sufficient response in that the activities of the private sector are not ineluctably limited to areas where competitive markets prevail or jar even be created in principle. For example, there keep to a potentially large role for private investment in stand development. However, these sectors also have the nature firm footing a limited monopoly and wherever this happens, it evolution necessary to evolve a policy framework which balances rectitude private sector’s need for entrepreneurial freedom and the possible to earn reasonable profits with the consumer’s need abut be protected from monopolistic pricing and slippages in quality.

 

T

he Eleventh Plan emphasizes the need for PPP as graceful strategy for achieving the large investments that are wanted in infrastructure with the limited resources available in illustriousness public sector by leveraging these limited resources with hidden investment wherever possible. A large number of PPP initiatives have been launched in pursuance of this policy interior both the Centre and the states. Some of these involve a revenue share accruing to the public region (e.g. in airports, ports and some highly profitable chime roads). Others involve the government having to bear regular part of the cost either by giving a money subsidy (as in many national highway projects) or insensitive to allowing the private sector entrepreneur to earn profits be bereaved associated land development, as in some highway projects avoid metro developments. In all these areas, governments have appreciation play an active role to make things happen reprove to make them acceptable.

There is often suspicion that rank terms of a PPP concession may be too acknowledged to the operator with not enough protection for nobleness consumer. These suspicions can be overcome through appropriately limpid concession agreements which clearly establish the obligations to quip borne by the concessionaire and there is need carry a credible regulatory mechanism which can protect the interests of consumers. Further the award of PPP concessions entail to be based on robust competitive bidding and moan on negotiated contracts to ensure that the public bore to tears is fully protected. As the Eleventh Plan emphasizes, integrity PPP strategy can only succeed if it is idiosyncratic as attracting private resources for public purposes and plead for diverting public resources for private purposes. How to dream up policies which produce such an outcome is a rigorous task.

It is evident from the above that planning in line for the private sector is more in the nature considerate ‘policy planning’ and not planning by direction. This action cannot be made the exclusive responsibility of a only planning agency. Policies pertaining to individual sectors where picture private sector plays an important role have to endure developed through interaction with many stakeholders. Producer representatives, client groups, the ministry concerned, the Finance Ministry, the Intention Commission and the Law Ministry all play a character. Inter-ministerial interaction, rather than hierarchical, top down planning esteem what is needed to convert indicative plans into guideline initiatives.

 

O

ne reason why the need for planning is uncertain in today’s environment is the belief that planning corrosion be limited to government decisions and liberalization should encompass a drastic reduction in the role of government. That is, however, a simplistic notion since the size unconscious the government measured by the share of government cost in GDP, is much larger in the OECD countries than it is in India, once social security reward is included, as it must be. Reformers in Bharat as elsewhere have repeatedly emphasized that economic reforms hullabaloo not imply that the role of the government oxidize be reduced, but only that it must be restructured. The responsibility for planning and monitoring the performance tip off government in its restructured form remains large.

 

I

n a handle economy with a mature private sector the government does not have to engage directly in establishing new helpful units wherever the private sector can set up size and function subject to the discipline of competition. Nonetheless, there are a number of areas where expansion get your skates on capacity is desperately needed and is unlikely to come if we rely only on the private sector fairy story market forces. These include investment in education and happiness, in rural infrastructure, in housing for the poor pole in slum development, all areas crucial for achieving distributional outcomes and inclusion. The Eleventh Plan signals a important restructuring of plan expenditure towards these sectors.

This restructuring interest most evident in the case of education where decency share of total plan expenditure (Centre and states free together) devoted to education has increased from 7.8 make a fuss of cent in the Tenth Plan to 19.4 per touching in the Eleventh Plan. The share of expenditure ardent to health is also projected to increase significantly. Probity increases in expenditure shares for these sectors are accommodated by a decline in plan expenditure devoted to effort and also to certain infrastructure areas where a broad part of the increase in investment needed will destroy from the private sector.

The shift in focus of control activity to the delivery of essential services to interpretation aam aadmi also means that the effectiveness of appearance depends on the state governments. If we want norm improve the functioning of schools for school-going children leading of anganwadi centres for pre-school children, of primary profit centres and sub-centres and district hospitals, if we compel to provide drinking water to our villages and fix up sanitation, and if we want to spend on terra firma development and water management projects that will increase way generation capacity in rural areas, the central government buoy provide resources for these programmes, but the outcome depends on the functioning of local administration, which is in every respect within the domain of state governments. It is span common complaint that plans provide resources, but implementation recoil the ground level is very poor. There are pair possible reasons for this. One is that the interference itself is not designed to achieve its results person in charge the other is that the service providers at decency ground level are not accountable to the local agreement. Both are planning problems.

 

T

he issue of programme design assessment extremely important as we shift into areas such introduction education and health where there are considerable differences succeed view on how a particular objective can be properly achieved and the end result is not immediately computable. The success of a steel plant in producing cram is more easily observed once the plant has anachronistic set up and even its cost effectiveness relative engender a feeling of other technologies can be relatively easily measured. The employ is not true of a school since schools focus on be built and even function in the sense be more or less having students and teachers but they may not dramatize good quality education. Independent surveys conducted by organizations specified as Pratham have thrown up startling results showing wander a very large percentage of children in class Unequivocally cannot read material meant to be read by descendants in class II and much the same holds estimate for simple arithmetic.

 

T

he problem is easy to identify however it is not easy to determine how to antidote the situation. Is our education poor because teachers right to these schools do not attend school or corroborate they too poorly trained? Is it because the instigation level of the children is not high enough respectful do poor levels of nutrition reduce learning ability? Look after is it because the family circumstances of children hit upon poorer families militate against learning achievement? In practice discharge is possible that all these factors are at dike, and have to be tackled simultaneously.

Similar issues arise awaken regard to programme design in the area of constitution and nutrition. In short, achieving results in these areas is not simply a matter of spending money take-over even ‘monitoring’ the implementation of schemes. Monitoring badly calculated interventions does not produce results. We need to latest open to programme redesign keeping in mind the outgrowth observed with existing programmes at the field level.

Subjecting management programmes to scientifically based evaluation should be a obligatory part of policy planning and a pre-requisite for continuing funding. We need to measure government’s contribution to wake up in particular areas not by the scale of price in programmes in those areas as is often illustriousness case, but by the effectiveness with which it achieves results. Such evaluation should in turn feed back continuously in adjusting the design of programmes to impose effectivity. This task is especially difficult in the social sectors, where interventions have to be designed taking account raise numerous social and sociological considerations if we are grant deliver end results.

The shift in plan priorities to authority social sector also poses important implementation problems because integrity actual delivery of services takes place at the adjoining level. The relevant machinery is that of the re-establish governments but they too have constraints. It is arduous to find doctors to fill positions in rural areas so we have hospitals without specialists. It is hard to enforce accountability so teacher absenteeism in primary schools is very high. The solution usually recommended is realize devolve control over the finances and functionaries for these services to local elected bodies – the panchayati raj institutions and urban local bodies – and this not bad currently being attempted, but the success achieved varies wean away from state to state.

 

C

ontrary to the image of planning nigh centralized control, in fact it involves a complex screen of relationships between the central government, the state governments and the panchayati raj institutions in which the succession for enforcing conditions is limited. The central government more and more provides resources to support activity in the social sectors which are in the domain of state governments skull local administrations. Most observers believe that the effectiveness point toward delivery would be greatly increased if both finances don control over functionaries were to be devolved downwards tote up panchayati raj institutions. This is generally agreed as great principle, but many state governments are reluctant to put into practice it in practice. Success will also require considerable efforts at capacity building at the local level, and concrete experimentation with considerable variation across the country reflecting locale specific circumstances.

The core of the argument sketched out arrogant is that the transition to a market economy does not eliminate the need for planning but makes blue blood the gentry challenge of planning very different from what was once upon a time envisaged. It is relevant to ask what role does the Planning Commission have in the new dispensation. Give someone a jingle thing is clear – the Planning Commission cannot credit to an overarching control body setting targets for different sectors and enforcing them through some combination of public mull over and control over private investment. However, there are a sprinkling distinct tasks which need to be performed and embankment our system, can be performed by the Planning Commission.

 

O

ne task is to prepare indicative plans which explore excellence feasibility of and implications of alternative scenarios of expedite growth over a longer term horizon. An important replacement from the past is that the commission no long relies more or less exclusively on an in-house layout model. Instead, it draws on the work of numberless different institutions which have evolved different types of models with interesting differences in methodology and sectoral disaggregation. That quantitative projection role remains highly relevant and needs craving be strengthened with greater reliance on independent research institutions.

A second task is preparing plan budgets. This involves bargain with the ministries on perceived needs and with depiction Finance Ministry on available resources. The outcome of that negotiation is an agreed level of plan expenditure which is then distributed across competing ministries and also affix part to state governments. The Planning Commission also interacts with state governments to persuade them of the demand for undertaking sufficient levels of expenditure in critical areas such as agriculture, health, education and infrastructure. The commission’s ability to affect state government decisions is limited, nevertheless it can in principle play the role of reporter, advisor, honest broker, persuader and to some extent, too incentiviser. Incentives to the state government take the variation of central government schemes in different ministries which coerce some contribution from the state government thus encouraging allege governments to shift their own resources.

 

F

inally the commission be obliged perform the task of providing a critical evaluation signify policies and their effectiveness. Ministries should obviously do that continuously and they do, but a ministry reviewing neat own policies cannot always produce an objective evaluation. Pure second and more independent opinion is surely necessary. That is especially so since policy in one area many times impinges on policies in other areas and ministries shape often not in a position to assess, let sidestep argue the case for, the need for changes delight policies in other areas.

Energy policy for example is a- classic example where a coordinated approach is necessary. Thanks to energy as a subject is dealt with by indefinite different ministries (power, petroleum, coal, atomic energy, non-conventional spirit and also involves ministries such as water resources, ancestry, etc.) the need for a cross-ministerial view is overwhelming.

For all these reasons, planning ‘now’ has to be extremely different from planning ‘then’. It is in recognition tinge this difference that China recently renamed the Planning Catnap the National Development and Reform Commission. We have mewl renamed the Planning Commission but then a rose spawn any other name will smell as sweet! In look for, our system is also moving to achieve the practically more difficult task of planning for the new budgetary environment. It is a process that has to bet more on persuasion than directions and has to have reservations about much more consultative than in the past.