Arguing for ‘Multidimensional Approaches’ to the 12 Five Year Plan

by Jos Chathukulam

I would like to appreciate the Planning Commission for widely recognising the civil society organisations and for providing space for enabling citizens to give suggestions while constructing the Approach Paper for the 12th Five Year Plan. I hope, as it is mentioned in the Draft Approach Paper, the process of consultation will continue till the draft is finalised. Please note my specific remarks and it will be confined to only three areas including overall comments.

1. Overall Comments on the Draft
Approach Paper

There should be a paradigm shift in the Draft Approach Paper to the 12th Five Year Plan. It is better to have two approaches, instead of ‘an approach’. One approach for those States/ Union Territories/Regions, which have developed and addressed almost all problems related to the first generation. These States/Union Territories/ Regions have altogether a different set of issues, say, second and third generation problems. On the other side, underdeveloped States/Union Territories/ Regions have to address mainly first generation development issues. Second and third generation problems are not a serious issue for them. I am not arguing for water- tight compart-ments, rather the two separate approaches should be integrated and synchronised at appro-priate levels.

On the basis of the Human Development Index (HDI), States/Union Territories/Regions can be divided into two categories: category one and category two. Category one includes States/Union Territories/Regions having HDI between 0.700 and above. And category two includes those having HDI less than 0.700. (All the States and Union Territories have prepared human development reports. At the district level also, preparation of human development reports has been either completed or started.) This argument for two approaches has some evidence in the draft approach document of Twelfth Five Year Plan itself. It says: “... several of the economically weaker States have demonstrated an improve-ment in their growth rate. Amongst them are Bihar, Orissa, Assam, Rajasthan, Chhattisgarh, Madhya Pradesh, Uttarakhand, and to some extent Uttar Pradesh.” It also admits that “...some formerly higher income and high growth States have shown slightly weaker growth over the 11th Plan period, most prominent of which are Karnataka and Tamil Nadu”. In a written reply to the Rajya Sabha, the Minister of State for Planning said: “The hitherto low performing States such as Bihar, Orissa and Chhattisgarh have started growing faster than the national average. In the case of Gross State Domestic Product (GSDP), Bihar recorded a growth rate of 11.44 per cent against the 11th Five Year Plan target of 7.60 per cent. Chhattisgarh, a newly formed State, achieved an average growth of 9.71 per cent against 8.6 per cent. In the case of Uttar Pradesh it was 7.28 per cent against the target of 6.10 per cent.”
The available evidence suggests that the approach and strategy to the 12th Five Year Plan may be more suited and conducive for weaker States/Union Territories/Regions, in terms of HDI and other development indicators. A ‘leveling of approach’ is not suited to contribute to the potential growth rate from higher income and higher growth States. In other words, ‘leveling of approach’ will lead to a convergence in economic attainment across the States, which in turn may accelerate the process of stagnation of development within the higher HDI States. Finally, the hitherto high performing States may move towards a retarded growth rate. My argument is that for achieving nine per cent-9.5 per cent targets for the 12th Five Year Plan, the Planning Commission has to adopt ‘multi-dimensional approaches’ based on development indicators rather than ‘an approach’.

2. Rural Transformation

No doubt, as the Approach Paper argues, there is “an unprecedented injection of resources from the Union Budget to the rural and farm sector”. There is evidence to show financial inclusion by covering 100 million population from the poorest segments of the community. But the injection of resources and opening bank/post office accounts under the MGNREGA does not provide real development and transformation to the rural economy. Rural transformation requires rapid expansion of employment and income oppor-tunities. The Approach Paper says there are total 13 flagship development programmes and in all these programmes certain proportion of funds are set apart under the ‘flexi-fund’ to promote innovation. It also argues that there is a need for greater State-specific flexibility reflecting the variations in conditions across the country. But the question is: where is the ‘flexi-fund’ available? What type of State-specific flexi-bility is reflecting under the flagship prog-rammes? In a majority of States, all the flagship programmes are considered as either the Collector’s pocket money or the pocket money under the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of the Zilla Parishad. In the administration of the flagship programmes, no space has been allowed to the elected representatives of the PRIs by the officials. Though all the flagship programmes require the specific involvement and ownership of Panchayats, generally schemes are imple-mented by the functionaries of the line depart-ment. The Approach Paper argues for the “Accountability of local government functionaries to the elected local representatives”. The ground reality is that the very local government functio-naries are not allowing the elected represen-tatives to act and function. There are incidents to suggest that elected local representatives
are not allowed to occupy even their respec-
tive space in the Zilla Parishads and Block Panchayats.
The Draft Approach Paper reports: “PESA would lead to self-governance and empowerment of the people. However, implementation of PESA is far from satisfactory. Most of the States have not framed rules for the implementation of PESA so far.” The Planning Commission should try to find out the reasons for the present state of affairs of the PESA implementation. However, the Approach Paper is quite silent on these matters. My major submission is that without real devolution of powers to the Local Self-Govern-ments rural transformation is impossible.

3. Governance

The Draft Approach Paper rightly speaks of the role of good governance in the broader context of both the functioning of the society and the implementation of the Plan schemes. According to the Approach Paper, “An important reason for the relative lack of success of many flagship programmes in India is that the local institutions that should run these programmes are not adequately empowered. The 73rd Amendment, transferred functions to PRIs, but there has been very little effective devolution of funds or of control over functionaries.” For the present status, the Approach Paper makes allegations against State governments. It says: “Action in this area lies predominantly with State governments” The political economy analysis gives an impression that the Government of India too is equally responsible.

Delay in wage payments has nullified the achievements of the MGNREGA. High rates of mortality in the SHGs have an adverse impact of the self-employment schemes. The inability to transform the Indira Awaas Yojana into a larger habitat programme is the major weakness of the IAY. The slip-back is major problem of the TSC and NGP Gram Panchayats whereas lack of the perspective of aquifer management is a lacuna in the Watershed Management Programmes. However, Panchayats are generally criticised for the poor project implementation and lack of the perspectives of project management capabilities of the system in which Panchayats have no real role.

The time-consuming nature and lack of tracking capacity of ‘utilisation certificates’ is the major reason for poor monitoring of fund flow. For tracking of Central and State releases, the Approach Paper stands for the Central Plan Scheme Monitoring System (CPSMS). The CPSMS has been initiated by the Comptroller General of Accounts in collaboration with the Planning Commission to serve as comprehensive MIS and decision support system. This merits appreciation.

I wonder why the Approach Paper is silent and not making any comments on the most extremist affected areas and districts including those under the sway of Left-wing extremists. It is reported that there are around 83 districts in India under the category of most extremist affected districts (MEAD) and Left-wing extremist districts (LWED).

The problem of corruption has been considered as a major issue of governance by the Approach Paper. It has suggested a multifaceted approach to deal with corruption. Electoral reforms constitute another area which attracts the attention of the Approach Paper and it argues for carrying out such electoral reforms. I would suggest the introduction of the system of ‘pro-portional representation’ as one of the major terms of electoral reforms. The Planning Commission deserves appreciation for accepting and equally recognising the importance of specialists trained in alternative dispute resolution with expertise in conflict assessment, management, mediation and facilitation.

Dr Jos Chathukulum is the Director, Centre for Rural Management, Perumpaikadu P.S., Kottayam (Kerala) He can be contacted at e-mail: crmrural@ sancharnet.in and crmrural@sify.com