Jawaharlal Nehru, the architect of planning in India set up the national planning committee towards the end of 1938. He viewed planning as a way of developing the country avoiding the unnecessary rigours of an industrial transition in so far as it affected the lives of the masses living in India’s villages. Moreover, he recognized that planning was a positive instrument for resolving imbalances and contradictions in a large and heterogeneous country such as India. The committee, set up by him, considered all aspects of planning and produced a series of studies on different subjects concerned with economic development. These, together with reports of earlier commissions and committees, prepared the ground for larger planned effort for the country after independence. Just after the attainment of independence, government set up planning commission in 1950s to assess the country’s need of material capital and human resources so as to formulate plan for their balanced and effective utilization.
A. Objectives of Planning;
The Directive Principles of our constitution visualizes an economic and social order based on equality of opportunity, social justice, and the right to work, right to an adequate wage and a measure of social security for all citizens. These directive principles provide a guideline of state policy. Planning in India has to follow these guidelines and to initiate action, which, will, in due course create, desired social and economic pattern. The directive principles are an expression of the will of people for economic growth and consequently the government adopted planning as a means for fostering economic and social development. Four long-term objectives were set out by the planners in India. They were:
1) To increase production to the maximum possible extent so as to achieve higher level of national and per capita income;
2) To achieve full employment;
3) To reduce inequalities of income and wealth
4) To set up a socialist society based on equality and justice and absence of exploitation.
Planning in India has thus been conceived as a comprehensive process of developing material and human resources in terms of defined social ends. The social structure envisaged was a socialistic pattern of society. The political framework being a federal government, the state governments and elected legislatures have their assigned spheres of action. The citizens were expected to participate in the process of planning on the widest possible scale.
B. Five Year Plans
The main vehicle of planning, however, was the Five Year Plan. Though the First Five Year Plan (1951-56) was basically a simple exercise of putting together programmes, targets and outlays, it provided the first milestones in rural development through the launching of the community development programmes, national extension services.
Second five-year plan was conceived in an atmosphere of economic stability. Agricultural targets fixed in the first plan had been achieved, price levels had registered a fall and consequently, it was felt that Indian economy had reached a stage where agriculture could be assigned a low priority and a forward thrust made in the development of heavy and basic industries of the economy for a more rapid advance in future.
The basic philosophy of second five-year plan was therefore to give a big push to the economy so that it enters the take-off stage. Besides, the government announced its Industrial Policy in 1956 accepting the establishment of socialistic pattern of society as the goal of economic policy. This necessitated the orientation of economic policy to conform to the national goal of socialist economy.
Among the priorities listed in the Third Plan, it was generally recognized that agriculture had the first place. Thus in its initial formulation at least, the third plan differed from the second plan. It is generally recognized that there was a general de-emphasis of agriculture in the second plan. The third plan attempted to reverse this.
Indian planning suffered two major shocks caused by exogenous factors in the 1960s. The first came in the shape of the war with China in 1962 and the second in the form of successive harvest failure in 1965 and 1967. The first shock caused a sharp increase in India’s defense outlays and a severe curtailment in public investment of the government. Consequently, the capital goods sector was badly hit. The crisis on food front was met with wheat imports from the USA. This situation exposed India’s dependence on international aid. However, Indian planners woke up to the need to build food self-sufficiency as a result of these crises. The response of the government to the crisis came in the shape of the abandonment of the Five Year Plans. As a result, the period between 1966 and 1969- the Annual Plans phase- is often labeled as the “Plan Holiday “ period.
The new strategy came to be implemented during the course of the Fourth Five Year Plan (1969-1974) and was more popularly known as the “Green Revolution” in agriculture. Even as the “Green Revolution” in agriculture was ushered, it was realized that “distributive justice” still remained a distant dream. Thus arrived the popular slogan of Garibi Hatao (Removal of Poverty) and with it came the emphasis on poverty alleviation as a distinct planning objective in its own right.
The Approach Paper to the fifth plan followed the recommendation of the Working Group in its definition of poverty in terms of nutritional inadequacy and ventured to put the explicit redistribution of incomes towards the lowest three deciles as an objective in itself. Thus, the basic approach of fifth five-year plan was growth with redistribution. However, on account of the serious harvest failure of 1972-73 and the oil crisis of 1973, inflationary pressures forced Indian planners to curtail the ambitious programmes they had envisaged. Public investment continued to be under strain and as a result, many of the programmes had to be postponed to the next five-year plan.
The Sixth Plan (1980-85) again undertook eradication of poverty as its primary aim. Consequently, the programmes to eradicate poverty—NREP, RLEGP (later merged into Jawahar Rozgar Yojana), TRYSEM, DWCRA, and Integrated Rural Development Programme- were strongly emphasized. The IRDP coupled with rural employment programmes, the Minimum Needs Programme and the area development programmes meant that the Sixth Plan had strong emphasis on the rural sector.
Poverty alleviation continued to be a central concern in the Seventh Plan. Growth of employment opportunities, human resources and infrastructure development, removal of inequalities, an expanded system of food security, increase in productivity in agriculture and industry, participation of people in development and substantial improvement in agricultural and rural development administration, were identified as priority areas. In the course of seventh plan, the emphasis had shifted towards the concept of modernization again- this time in industry. With this came the relative deemphasis on the public sector as an engine of growth.
The eighth five-year plan (1990-95) could not take off due to changing political situation at the centere. The new government which assumed power at the centre by June 1991 decided that this plan would commence on April 1992 and that 1990-91 &1991-92 should be treated as separate Annual plans.
Eighth Five-Year Plan (1992-97) was launched immediately after the initiation of structural adjustment policies and macro stabilization measures which were necessitated by worsening balance of payment position and inflation position during 1990-91. Various structural adjustment policies were introduced gradually so that economy could be pushed to a higher growth path.
The Ninth Five-Year Plan (1997-2000) launched in 50th year of India’s independence, was based on careful stock taking of strengths and weaknesses of past development strategies and seek to provide appropriate balance for socio-economic development of country. The principal task of this plan was to usher in a new era of growth with social justice, in which not only the government at the centre and states, but the people at large, even the poor can become effected in participatory planning process.
One could obviously see here an understandable relationship between the democratic and political processes on the one hand and the planning process on the other. The government in power naturally wants the development process to take place in accordance with its stated policies and this is given effect through the mechanism of five-year plans.
C. Multi-Level Structure of Planning
The important feature of planning in India is that it operates in a democratic framework, through a federal system, involving concurrent planning at the national and state level.
The federal nature of India’s Constitution demands planning at least at two levels i.e. Union and States (economic and social planning being in the Concurrent list). However, in view of mixed economy resulting from a pluralistic socio-economic environment and the large size of some states, planning in India has to be viewed in terms of activities at different area and agency levels extending well beyond union and state framework.
A multi-level structure of planning for the country based on the politico-administrative structure.
i. National level Planning
i. Planning Commission
The Planning Commission is the technical body for facilitating the planning process in India. It was set up by the Government in March 1950. Its chief function is to make an assessment of the material, capital and human resources of the country, including technical personnel and investigate the possibilities of augmenting these resources that are found to be deficient in relation to the nation’s requirements.
The Planning Commission performs its role as an advisory body functioning at the highest policy level without further being involved in the responsibilities of day-to-day administration. The prime minister is the Chairman of Planning Commission. Within the general organization of planning commission, the Programme Evaluation Organization (PEO) has functioned since 1952 as an ancillary agency. It undertakes evaluation studies to assess the impact of selected Plan and programmes in order to provide feedback to the planners and implementing agencies.
i. National Development Council
Under the constitution, the subject of economic and social planning is in the concurrent list as this is a subject in which the Centre as well as the states are interested and have to work in unison. The coordination of policies between the two integrating structures of the federal set-up is brought about through a process of mutual consultation. The system of consultation in the formulation of policies on the basis of overall national requirements is the central point of planning in the country. The National Development Council is the highest policy making body which provides the opportunity for plans to be formulated and implemented throughout the country as a unified development effort.
ii. State Level Planning
As in the centre, so also in the states, a number of organizations and departments are involved in the planning process. Let us now consider these:
i. State Planning Department
In each state, there is a planning department, which is responsible for the preparation of the Five Year Plans, Annual plans, monitoring of the plans and generally the evaluation of programmes through its evaluation wing. Essentially the Planning Department is responsible for coordinating the development effort in the state.
The five-year plans for the state provide framework within which Annual plans are prepared. These take into consideration the guidelines set by the Planning Commission. In most state in addition to the State Planning Department, there exists a State Planning Board. It comprises of the ministers concerned, experts, non-officials and officials. Normally, the role of such a Board is advisory, relating to plan strategies. It also suggests ways and means to improve the working of various programmes in the state.
ii. Department of Economics and Statistics, Manpower and Evaluation
In most states, within the administrative umbrella of the State Planning Department, there are departments of Economics and Statistics, Manpower and Evaluation. The Department of Economics and Statistics provides technical personnel at the state and lower levels for planning and monitoring of programmes. The Manpower department assesses the requirements and need for manpower in the coming years and enables the planning process to incorporate action plans for meeting the overall manpower requirements for plan implementation. The Evaluation Department as the name suggests, is entrusted with task of conducting evaluation studies of the various programmes being undertaken on concurrent or ex post facto basis. Such studies provide feedback to the government for enabling corrective action to be taken in regard to plan schemes.
iii. District Level Planning
Requirement of district planning arises from the need to supplement the national and state plans with a more detailed examination of potentials at the mid-unit of administration i.e. the district. Such planning would help in investment decisions geared to the needs of each district. District planning, therefore, would involve striking a balance amongst specific needs of the people of the district, growth potentials of the area and budgetary allocation available.
The organizational framework at the district level should offer an integration of the political, district, administrative and local institutions for determining the programme of development for the district and the manner in which it can be implemented. Besides, its aim should be to bring all administrative operations at the district level under effective coordination and control of single agency and clearly lay down a programme of work for the participating agencies (Panchayti Raj Institutions).
At the district level most of the heads of departments are represented by officials termed as District level Officers. For example, there are Executive Engineers for PWD, Irrigation, Public Health, and Engineering Department etc. These officials are part of the planning process at district level. In the context of major poverty alleviation programmes, viz., IRDP, NREP & RLEGP, in 1980 the District Rural Development Agencies were set up to plan, implement and monitor such programmes.
In states like Maharashtra, there are District Planning and Development Committees (DPDCs), which take important decisions with regard to planning rural development programmes at the district and lower levels. In other cases there may be District Planning Committees which are for coordinating the work of development programmes and sometimes for taking decisions related to location of projects such as schools, roads, villages to be electrified, villages where drinking water is to be provided, etc.
iv. Block Level Planning
The community development block is one of the levels at which the task of planning is undertaken in the country. In fact, it is the lowest administrative level at which such an exercise is undertaken in India. Block planning essentially means planning for the development of block within a specified time frame. Whereas for a national plan the needs of various sectors will be taken into account at a micro level, block planning essentially goes through the planning exercise at the local level. Needless to say, even small changes in living conditions, as a result of the plan, are readily visible at such a level. This encourages popular participation. Such public participation makes the block planning exercise more broad based and therefore, very vital.
The block planning has its origin in the establishment of community development blocks under the Community Development Programme (CDP) in 1952. These blocks were considered as suitable units for planning and development purposes. It was felt that this would facilitate people’s participation in plan formulation and implementation.
Block plans could not be formulated in the required manner as there was lack of expertise on the one hand and lack of coordination among different functionaries operating at that level, on the other. As a result, though schemes were selected by the officers responsible for the integrated development of different sectors, these were implemented in isolation; however, these schemes were put together to indicate the allocations for different programmes in a block.
The fact that only a handful of blocks in the country have actually participated in the planning process has considerably weakened the block planning exercise in the country. Since block level planning has been subsumed in the district planning exercise, this has undermined the progress of block level planning in the country. Thus inspite of efforts made in some pockets in the country, block planning has by and large failed to materialize. Therefore, in the years to come steps towards a coherent block planning exercise will first have to reckon with ways and means of actually installing this structure in the planning machinery. Unless this happens we will only talking about a virtually non-existent tier in the planning structure.
In a democratic and federal structure like ours, the process of planning has evolved on the basis of consultations between the central and state governments and involvement of the states in the planning process. In our country the planning process is basically decentralized in nature in the sense that the powers, responsibilities and duties have been handed over to the people in general to ensure the effective implementation of plans and policies with maximum people’s participation.
D. Approaches to Social Planning
Approaches to social planning may be briefly recounted:
I. Sectoral Planning
Planning by individual sectors like education, health, housing and social security are included in sectoral planning. This approach advocates compartmentalization of development in different sectors as if these are watertight compartments and have nothing to do with each other. Its inadequacies stem from this compartmentalized approach. Little attempt is made to integrate them.
II. Area Development Approach
This approach contemplates that development of an area depends not only on the development of an adequate infrastructure network but also the way factors of the local economy are activated around the production infrastructure. In other words, for development of an area, spatial and functional integration is necessary. Thus, while rural growth centers provide ideal locations for the provision of infrastructural facilities, their hinterlands are regarded as basic planning units for integrated multi-sectoral planning to achieve integrated development of an area.
The approach, while taking area poverty into consideration, provides a balance between various sectoral activities as well as spatial pattern of growth; however, it does not ensure that economic growth is being shared by all classes and communities of the rural areas.
III. Integrated Development Approach
In the context of problems in the area development approach as discussed above and the government policy to tackle the problems of rural poverty, a new strategy of development, i.e. the integrated development approach has been developed because the area development approach by and large failed to address the question of inequalities in the distribution of employment, incomes and assets. A mere geographical emphasis, as is the case with the area development approach, has been found to be inadequate in solving the problems.
The Indian economy and social structure are characterized by widespread poverty, poor health conditions, illiteracy, exploitation, inequitable distribution of land and other assets and lack of infrastructure and public utilities (roads, communications etc). Clearly, this means that the problem requires an approach that will take into account all these factors in devising a comprehensive strategy to further rural development.
The concept of “integrated rural development” came into vogue with the need for a multipurpose thrust to rural planning. It stresses that various facets of rural development, which have an impact on rural life, are interrelated and cannot be looked at in isolation. Thus, an integrated approach towards rural development is essential. The various dimensions of rural life- growth of agriculture and allied activities, rural industrialization, education, health, public works, poverty alleviation and rural employment programmes –all form a part of an integrated approach to the problems of rural development.
E. Components of Planning
a. Spatial Component- Spatial plan would need to consider the physical resources, land use and all human settlements in a region right from smallest settlement to the city. The spatial component would be such as to guide the development programmes through a location blue print, ensure distributive justice and bring about rural-urban integration and continuity.
b. Economic Component- Economic planning has traditionally been the case of core of planning, since a principle aim of development planning has been to increase employment and income. Essential prerequisites of economic planning are knowledge about the state of following in the district:
Resources;
Demographic features;
Agro economic features;
Socio-economic features;
Infrastructural factors
Sectoral profiles
c. Social Component- The task of a plan is also to reduce social inequalities, provide social services and ensure public participation. For any plan, public participation is both an important tool and a goal for development since planning is the medium of social transformation and means to bridge the gap between government and the people.
d. Administrative Component- success or failure of social planning is ultimately influenced by the political and administrative set up of planning machinery. Administrative arrangements of development were discussed in a number of workshops and committees in India. The working group on district planning in its 1984 report, considered the following administrative aspects for smooth functioning of planning process-
No comments:
Post a Comment