Are The Left?s Concerns Really Misplaced?

There has been considerable media attention over the appointment of advisors in the Planning Commis-sion who are stated to be either working or past employees of international organisations like IMF, World Bank and private consultancy firms. The Left has been very critical stating that while it is not opposed to World Bank or IMF, it is against using these experts for what is perceived to be the review of the Tenth Five Year Plan.

The change in government and the enunciation of the CMP has necessitated the review of the Tenth Plan. Since the CMP has come mid-way through the Tenth Plan, project priorities in the Plan documents may also have to change to take account of the programmes of the new government. The Planning Commission is therefore saddled with several responsibilities now. First, it is to judge the level of public expenditure that would be required under the different aspects of the CMP. Second, it must identify activities and programmes which will enable the CMP targets to be achieved. Third, it would need to estimate the resources for its implementation and, finally, identify the structures which would implement these programmes.

Apart from the above, there is also the issue of taking state governments on board. The Tenth Plan was adopted by the National Development Council, which is a body constituted by the Centre and states together. The five year plan of states have already been prepared and commitments may have already been entered into, in respect of several projects which may now be assigned a lower priority. Unless there is a consensus in the NDC, such a change in priorities may not be possible. Finally, and most importantly, this entire exercise needs to take into account resources available which would be required for this level of public expenditure. A large number of advisory committees have been set up by the Planning Commission presumably to advise on all the above aspects. It?s here that there is some cause for concern.

Most of the items enumerated in the CMP fall within the realm of state governments to implement. There?s no information that the committees are taking advantage of the expertise available with the state governments. It would be the states and not the Planning Commission, who should decide the course of action to be pursued. Second, there is the issue of non-transparency of the selection process. The Planning Commission, as a body, was constituted by a government order, and is neither a constitutional nor a Parliament legislated body. The members of the Planning Commission enjoy the status of ministers of state, but they are not accountable to Parliament nor are they accountable to the executive, though they decide the economic development programmes for the country. We may like to compare the situation in the US where every major presidential appointment has to go through a series of public congressional hearings before the nomination is confirmed.

It?s in the context of the Planning Commission taking on the responsibilities of clearer articulation and implementation of the CMP that this issue has become important. Earlier, the Commission was a committee of experts who were performing an advisory role to the development processes initiated by the respective ministries. In the budget speech this year, the FM, for the first time, distanced the ministry and other ministries from the process, and placed the responsibility on the Commission. Government has now been repeatedly looking to the Planning Commission to find answers to what it should do and how it should be doing it. By the very nature of the shift, the role of the Commission is sought to be changed significantly.

It is against this backdrop, that the appointment of the external experts has clearly attracted the attention of the Left, though the Left itself, in the states which are governed by these ideologies, has had occasions in the past to turn to external Left leaning ideologists and intellectuals. In the current case, the argument of the Left that, having placed on the Planning Commission the additional responsibilities that have been enumerated, it is important that the recommendations respect the ideologies which govern the country. No doubt these experts have DNAs that are Indian. But they have grown up in, and represent institutions where, by training and experience, a particular methodology of development is performed over others. This methodology would focus on a competitive environment in public services, alternate models for public-private partnerships, recoveries of service charges for public utilities, targeted expenditure, and a greater focus on efficiency of delivery. No doubt, all laudable and required objectives.

But across the board, public expenditure for food-for-work, for employment guarantee programmes, and indeed, the articulation of the finance minister, that improvement of delivery systems need not be a pre-requisite for allocation of resources by him, point to a different direction. A direction, in which as in the 80s, there is direct funding of rural loans, more agricultural credit (where recovery is a problem) and greater distribution of public resources. It?s this contradiction that, perhaps, is the cause of the worry for the detractors of the process. If true, the problem is much deeper than the selection of experts, it is indeed an ideological conflict about what the Planning Commission should be recommending.

The lack of transparency in the selection of experts, the ideological bias of the organisation they represent, and indeed, the very background of the individuals (none of them have expertise in irrigation or agriculture or poverty reduction) is a cause for concern, given the composition of this government. If this is an issue between the market oriented reformers of the PMO, MoF and the Planning Commission, and the more public expenditure based approaches, then the concerns of the Left are certainly not misplaced.

The author is a former finance secretary and economic advisor to the PM