1. Centre for Rural Management (CRM)
Political Economy of Decentralised Planning in India with Special Reference to the Experience of Kerala By
Jos Chathuklulam
Centre for Rural Management (CRM)
Kerala, India
 &
  John S Moolakkattu
IIT Madras, India

2. Why Decentralised Planning?
  Sheer size of the country
 Varying needs of the people
 Regional disparities
 Differential availability of local resources
 Centrally conceived departmental plans often work at cross purposes
Local stake and ownership

3. Efforts for decentralised planning (DP) had started right from the early days of planning in India
 Advances in DP took place along with evolution and growth of Local Governments(PRIs) in India
Local Governments (PRIs ) were formed in the late 50s.
 Early attempts at DP were primarily technical/bureaucratic in character
They petered out due to lack of Autonomy, Resources and Political / Democratic Mandate.

4. 60 s & 70s witnessed lack of progress in DP – a phenomenon that is attributed to the overall decline in PRIs everywhere in India.
Attempts to Strengthen the PRIs and introduce DP were taken by the Non- Congress governments (West Bangal, Andhra Pradesh and Karnataka)
 During this period a paradigm shift is observed (‘Political Component’ is grafted on to DP)

5. In early 80s, there was an expansion of centrally sponsored rural development programmes.
 It was found that bureaucratic channel of implementing them was missing the targets, leading to leakages and waste.
Fresh initiative to strengthen PRIs and DP at the sub state levels from the mid-eighties.

6. It was in this context the 73 & 74 amendments to the Constitution were conceived.
They provided a robust basis for DP because the goal was to create Local Governments that can function as Institutions of Self Government and perform planning functions as well.

7. The creation of District Planning Committees (DPCs) to consolidate plan prepared at different levels and to prepare a District Plan - a significant advance in terms of institutionalization of DP.
 Most of the States have constituted DPCs but they are still struggling to perform their assigned constitutional role.

8. Silver Linings ?
The introduction of Flagship Programmes of the Government of India in recent years and the progressive allocation of funds for them have led to a “ System of Programme - Specific District Level Planning”.
Though such plans are like sectoral district plans they are projected as Building Blocks for future District Plans.

9. Availability of Information and Communication Technology (ICT) which could be used for planning. A number of useful software packages such as the user friendly ‘Plan Plus’ have been made available for DP

10. Two Misplaced Perceptions
There is a misplaced presumption that the 73 & 74 Amendments are sound enough and District planning can take place within this framework. While it is partly true with respect to the Gram and Block Panchayats, the same is not true when it comes to District Planning.
There is another misplaced presumption that DP can take place within the bureaucratic & technocratic framework . The political Economy Perspective is missing in the Decentralized Planning exercise.

11. Major Issues Knowledge gap Is planning a mere technical exercise ?
Political inputs need to be factored in to the planning process.
Planning should not be prerogative of the elected representatives alone.
Without putting in place a District Government the process of decentralized planning cannot make much progress.

12. The question of political will
Political and bureaucratic resistance from state level functionaries to sharing power and resources with the local level

13. Experiences of Kerala
People’s Plan Campaign (PPC)

14. Background
Kerala is in some ways a late entrant in the field of decentralization
Except for a very brief experiment with District Council in the early 1990s, it always had only a Gram (Village) Panchayat system.
Village Panchayats in Kerala historically the most endowed in the country
Unsustainability of the ‘Kerala Development Model’ and the need to salvage it was widely recognised by the mid-nineties

15. Background (contd…)
Stagnation in production
Discussions/ seminars etc under the aegis of the left on Kerala’s sustainable development
Political consensus within the top echelons of the left for decentralization
The encouraging experiments in participatory development in some Panchayats
Availability of pro-left activist/epistemic group of thousands of KSSP workers with a record of voluntary work
The context provided by the 9th Plan

16. Other factors
Devolution of 35% to 40 % development funds to local bodies and then capacitate them not the other way
Investing the Gram Sabha with the task of need identification, plan approval and plan implementation including beneficiary selection- first time in India

17. Preparatory work
Political consensus formation by bringing in the opposition
Elaborate system of training
Training of trainers
Preparation of training materials
Training content – focused on the organisational aspects of the planning process as well as thrust areas such as productive sector, gender, marginalized communities, equity, watershed, integration, and so on.

18. Stages of planning Gram Sabha discussions and reporting
Consolidation of the Gram Sabha reports sector wise into a Panchayat level report
Development seminar to discuss the report and set priorities
Formation of task forces for each of the sectoral areas
Preparation of a shelf of projects reflective of the priorities mentioned in the seminar by task forces
Vetting of the projects by the expert body (TAGs)
Granting of Administrative sanction by the Panchayat
Technical sanction
Submission to the DPC for approval
Project implementation – back to Gram Sabha

19. PPC KDP PPC under different political regimes
In Kerala decentralization was expected to deepen through the process of decentralised planning
9th Plan as development of a working methodology of planning(LDF)
10th plan as institutionalisation of the procedures (UDF)
11th plan as the institutionalisation of Decentralisation (LDF)

20. Results Mobilised nearly 10 percent of the population
Mobilised nearly 1 lakh trainers
Planning process demystified and made understandable by the people.
Institutionalisation of the planning cycle- Grants to local bodies on the basis of objective criteria - incorporated in the state budget and let known well in advance.
Some visible impacts on marginalized communities.

21. Challenges
No District Planning- minimalist and amteurish functioning of the DPC
Beneficiary committees faded out after 2 years
Plan process and budget not integrated
District level and state-level integration of local plans does not take place.
Annual plans do not get integrated into the five year plan
Routinisation of the participatory process – no citizen participation, but only engineered beneficiary participation
Declining participate level by engaged sections

22. Challenges
Elaborate guidelinessectoral ceilings constrain the level of freedom/discretion of the Panchayats
The annual nature of the planning process makes it time-bound and very little participatory input can be marshalled in such a short time
Decisions taken at the Panchayat level always made to prevail – not revised or annulled by the Gram Sabha

23. Challenges No major impact on productive sector ?
The discontinuity between the optimal planning principles that envisage larger spatial levels to get the spin offs from economies of scale and political accountability to the smaller spatial level of the electoral ward – leading to scattering of funds. Answer: Prop. Rep with multimember constituencies?

24. Thanks