The concept and methodology of planning have become somewhat controversial over the past several years. To a certain extent, this is because different governments have viewed planning differently. Whatever be the perception, planning has become less relevant in defining governance paradigms and in the formulation of governance agendas. In many cases, this is because the planner, funder and implementer—that is, the planning, finance and implementing governmental arms—have divergent perspectives, priorities and objectives. New schemes are becoming increasingly ad hoc. This is putting an unnecessary strain on the economy and growth possibilities.
The basic function of a planning process is to enable the various government components to break down political assurances into strategies and further unbundle them into implementable activities in order to achieve intended outcomes. Planning enables the confluence of economic growth with developmental outcomes and societal transformation. Therefore, it is essential for planning to drive the delivery of effective governance. This, in turn, requires a rethink of the planning architecture and process.
One way of doing this is to align the planning and political governance processes. This implies that planning be made co-terminus with the government’s political mandate. After all, people vote in a government for a set of programmes or which is to be achieved during its tenure. Therefore, planning for programmes and schemes should be completed or brought to a sustainable stage by the anticipated end of a government’s term in office, which can best be achieved by adopting a ‘working backwards from D Day’ planning approach.
Planning and implementation at the Centre and in the state are largely a compartmentalised process with no communication and coordination between the various wings of government. Planning should shift to the convergence approach. That enjoins all government components that are relevant to the forward and backward linkages of a particular programme to make suitable budgetary and resource provisions and keep the programme implementing wing in the loop. This will ensure the proper implementation of a programme.
Systemically, the planning process needs to be strengthened in order to convert it into an effective tool of good governance. Usually, a project proposal is prepared shortly before the budget. Given the heightened media coverage, there is pressure to present a budget brimming with new schemes year after year. Such proposals are scant on detail or justification. In order to be effective, planning should be a year-long data- and analysis-driven process that moves from the micro to the macro level.
While there is a provision for planning officers (PO) to be embedded in the ministries and departments, there is also an urgent need to empower these departmental POs to be more than ‘another chair at the table’. One manner of ‘empowerment’ is to make it mandatory for the POs’ views to be an integral part of the department’s response to the state and central audit.
Making a dedicated financial outlay for project maintenance, upgrade and sustainability are key to effective planning and successful implementation. At present, the expenditure on maintenance is more curative than preventive, and usually only provides for the bare minimum. Maintenance funding has to be proportionate to the anticipated wear and tear. It should be made an integral part of the budget. Like the special component plan and tribal sub-plan that were initiated by the government in the 1970s, it should be non-divertible and non-lapsable and form a fixed, inviolable percentage of every ministry and department’s total budgetary outlay.
Planning must strive to make a larger shift from tangible benefits to include intangible ones. Traditionally, planning has focused on ‘visible’ infrastructure or asset creation like buildings, bridges and roads. The intangible problems like empowerment, pollution, climate change, mortality rates, and nutrition levels had been invisible till recently—probably as a result of their low ‘voter attraction’. These issues are being increasingly highlighted by irate citizens whose lives are directly impacted by them. However, their effect on voting patterns will determine their place in planning priorities.
Tools such as data analytics and AI would help to accurately formulate the required programmes at a granular level and devise their implementation strategies at the micro level. Technology will also be vital to optimise monitoring, evaluation and course correction.
Finally, planning must be more of a visionary statement than the policy and programmatic component of an annual budget. Accurate futuristic predictions for long-term and holistic programming depend on aspects like contingency planning (CP), outcome budgeting (OB) and continuous evaluation being an integral part of the planning architecture.
CP can bring down costs on repeated unforeseen events or items (like recurring natural calamities and cost overruns) which can be utilised for other priority programmes. The pandemic showed us how vital CP is in the planning process.
OB is gaining currency in the Indian planning universe. Some 11 states are already preparing them and some ministries such as finance have OB for central schemes. Just as gender budgeting has revolutionised the critical link between planning and outcomes for women; OB will help governments track the manner in which their electoral commitments are being implemented and are impacting the lives of the citizenry. OB is intimately linked to both CP and evaluation and can be successful only if the three are activated in tandem.
Until the planning process is fully assimilated into governance and directly linked to outcomes, there will be a lack of clarity in prioritisation, proportional funding, fund management—and finally, in achieving the desired governance objectives. The goal of planning is to show the government the best and quickest way to achieve its mandated governance outcomes.
Renuka Chidambaram, Retired IAS officer, former UN bureaucrat and former head of Karnataka’s planning department