Reorganizing the commission

The Planning Commission has had a glorious past in the 1960s, 70s and 80s. Its plans of the early 50s left an impression internationally.

Rightly or wrongly, the nation expects a lot from this institution However, with time, its image and standing seems to have eroded. Perhaps, it has not been able to update and synchronize itself with time, and restructure and renew itself through injection of new ideas and visions. In the following, we propose some measures that may help enhance the performance of the PC and meet expectations from it.

Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, on assuming power in 2014, shut down India’s Planning Commission and replaced it with a new organization NITI AYOG (National Institution for Transformation of India).This probably prompted the two leading ministers of the then Nawaz Sharif government to propose in a public seminar that the Planning Commission in Pakistan should be closed down as well, terming it a stumbling block in progress, and outlining many other faults. This was done possibly due to the esteem Modi was being held in at the time due to his economic performance in Gujarat. The magic of Modi, however, appears to have been fading since then. Admittedly, NITI AYOG has done much good for India in a short while. We may borrow what is useful and relevant for us, instead of copying them as suggested by the former two ministers under a bout of misplaced enthusiasm.

Performance and potential issues notwithstanding, the Planning Commission does have some genuine third-party role in appraising and scrutinizing development projects and approve development funding. In a country where there are genuine allegations of corruption in government departments and in development projects, financed under the PSDP, this third-party project evaluation function is possibly a major protection against the claimed pilferage.

There may be issues of delays in approvals and release of funding where improvement may be possible. However, the function is important and indispensable. One is not aware as to who performs this function in India. There is discussion in India about reverting this function back to NITI AYOG.

Secondly, the Planning Commission offers a multi-disciplinary examination of projects, which single subject line ministries and departments would not have the wherewithal to undertake. The issue is therefore more of improving performance than of redundancy.

There has been controversy regarding the need for many infrastructural projects, in terms of project design, need and utility, debt impact and cost-benefit ratios. There is no evidence that adequate scrutiny had been done by the Planning Commission and that projects were approved or approval was rubber stamped. The problem is not just the tendency of politicians to bulldoze investment proposals (for good and bad reasons), the problem is that the Planning Commission does not enjoy much credibility. It has to build capability and acquire credibility.

While planning came in disrepute in the wake of the downfall of planned economies, the new market mantra could not replace it. There has been market failure in bringing the right kind of investments in the right kind of quantities. Problems and failures in agriculture, energy and industrial sectors are the evidence.

Planning and five-year plans have to be rediscovered, revitalized and performed with rigour as opposed to the mere documentation type activity that currently happens. Provinces would have to be involved. After all, it is the provinces where the action is. National targets alone do not mean much. In the wake of the 18th Amendment, this has become even more essential. The Planning Commission may have to have provincial offices or may have to develop via the media to integrate or interact with the provincial planning departments. Broad-based indicative plans and strategies might be the answer.

It is an impossible idea to monitor hundreds of projects centrally, although some exceptional projects may require issue-based monitoring or investigations. The Planning Commission would be better off by closing its monitoring department. More rigour has to go in project evaluation in terms of need-assessment and cost-benefit analysis. Similarly, post implementation-project impact evaluation should receive more attention and resources to guide further investments or provide lessons for project design. Currently, this activity appears to have gone into oblivion. PC-IV which is meant to do this activity is hardly visible and is riddled with myriads of issues.

In terms of facilities, it lacks a good library, does not subscribe to international journals and magazines and online services providing data and information. Most library acquisitions are old, as current budgetary provisions hardly exceed a few lakhs of rupees. It has no planning and modelling software. It does not have GIS systems which are now an essential part of planning activities. Significant investment would be required to acquire these facilities. In the past, project-based inputs have been acquired under capacity building projects but were wound up as soon as the international funding went away. No arrangements, frameworks or policies are there for sustainability and continuity.

Line ministries are responsible for making plans and policies for their sectors. The Planning Commission has been totally disenfranchised from any role in this respect. It may have been done in the interest of work speed, expertise and decentralization. Problems frequently occur; there are various instances such as the LNG controversy, circular debt, over capacity in power generation and underinvestment in transmission and distribution, the current Electrical Vehicle policy conflict between two ministries etc.

The Planning Commission can provide an inter-ministries consultation structure, while the ECC finally approves them. However, it is a chicken-egg problem. The Planning Commission is not consulted because of lack of credibility – and credibility comes out of involvement. The argument is not to establish the supremacy of the Planning Commission but to create a research and consultation framework integrating the related ministries and departments.

Finally and most importantly, the Planning Commission should incorporate a new Development Strategy Department in the form of a think tank. Associated with the government, it would have attention and some muscle and would be unlike NGO-type institutions. It would be able to have recourse to documents and would be able to call meetings involving public officials. This think-tank should be managed by short-term experts inducted as research fellows for a period of one to three years.

The experts may come from all walks of life – retired government servants, private sector retired or in service executives, secondment from the military services and academia, resident abroad Pakistanis and even foreign experts etc. There are hundreds of competent persons that would be potentially available in this framework. The experts may be recruited based on their qualifications, experience and quality of their research proposals. ToRs may also be developed institutionally; where required, multi-disciplinary teams may also be formed.

The output of these experts and the divisions should be the examination of long-term issues in all sectors; population, infrastructure, energy, agriculture, industry, education etc. Various academic and sectoral R&D institutions may remain in their geographical and institutional positions and be incorporated as institutions. To have a critical mass, around 20-25 experts should be inducted although through an organized and well-considered induction scheme.

A lot can be done; planning with thought and vision; consultative and consensus-seeking involving line ministries, provinces, public and civil society; assessing the future and developing strategies and options and not just number churning; a vibrant organization or a department with openness and open and flat structure renewing itself periodically and not jammed by incumbents. It is possible even in these difficult days.

Finally, Minister Asad Umar has assumed charge of the Planning Commission and the associated ministry. He has all the credentials to lead the Planning Commission towards rejuvenation and renewal. He may be already thinking on these lines. We wish him success.

The writer is a former member of the Energy Planning Commission and author of ‘Pakistan’s Energy Issues: Success and Challenges’.

Email: akhtarali1949@gmail.com