Download - The India Economy Review

egions, but how to allocate appropriate
funds for their development. A related,
but equally important question is proper
implementation of projects contemplated
with all the good intention by the plan-
ners.
In the existing paradigm, backwardness
is measured from Human Deprivation
Perspective, based on Capability Short-
falls in terms of different social and eco-
nomic components. The approach takes
the rule of uniformity by which the Back-
ward Districts are identifi ed as per the
components mentioned earlier by attach-
ing equal weights to each one of them.
However, the actual data gathered from
Blocks may call for a differential approach
of funding on various components which
go towards the creation of an Index of
Backwardness. In other words, not all
components may be contributing uni-
formly towards the existence of backward-
ness in a Block. If Block is taken to be the
unit of disbursement, a methodology
should be devised to suitably differentiate
the importance of different social and
economic components of backwardness
region and location wise.
One such approach toward aggregating
the components is Principal Component
Analysis (PCA).
Broadly speaking, Public Infrastructure
can be categorized as follows:
A. Physical Infrastructure, like Roads,
Electrifi cation, Irrigation etc.
B. Financial Infrastructure like Cooperatives,
Banks etc.
C. Health Infrastructure like PHC,
SHC, Rural Hospitals etc.
D. Education Infrastructure like number
of schools, teacher student ratio etc.
An aggregate index of backwardness with
variable weights attached to shortfall of
each type of infrastructure from a socially
and economically desirable minimum
could be calculated using PCA (Raychaudhuri
and Haldar, 2009). The weights
really refl ect importance of capability
shortfall in any particular dimension according
to local needs and conditions.
The main problem with the existing
planning process is to initiate well intended
schemes based on certain uniform
percentage based rules of allocation
across all the backward regions in India.
This approach is self-defeating from the
very beginning because the uniform rule
ignores the variation of locations and
needs across different regions in India. It
is about time more fl exibility is allowed in
all such devolution schemes. What about
corruption and other money laundering
activities? We would suggest that these
are really problems of monitoring and
enforcement in the implementation stage
and are not part of planning. One must
fi rst try to achieve more perfection at the
planning stage and then go for its perfect
implementation. Thus, a proper mode of
devolution of funds is the necessary condition
of success to address backwardness
and proper implementation is really a
suffi cient condition for its success.
Conclusions
The issues raised above are to highlight
some of the defi ciency in the planning
process of India today. This is not to deny
the historical importance of planning in
India nor does it ignore its role at present.
Planning, even in its much smaller role
today, can be an important means of addressing
concerns of average citizen in
India. But what is required is a reorientation
and repositioning of some of the
goals and objectives pursued in our planning
process for years. Also, equally important,
is to rethink about modes of
D EVELOPMENTAL PLANNING
devolution of funds to alleviate poverty
and inequality in the society. We should
not succumb to a sense of despair that
nothing can be implemented in a society
which has lost some of its moral and ethical
values. We must not forget that implementation
comes later than planning and
we should never err too much in the stage
that precedes implementation.
References and
Additional Thinking
• Banerjee, A., P. Gertler and M. Ghatak.
“Empowerment and Effi ciency: The
Economics of Agrarian Reform”,
Mimeo, 1998.
• Desai, Padma and J. Bhagwati. Planning
for Industrialization - A Study of
Indian Industrialization and Trade
Policies, OECD Development Center,
Oxford: Oxford University Press,
1970.
• Raychaudhuri, Ajitava and Sushil K.
Haldar. “An Investigation into the Inter-District
Disparity in West Bengal,
1991-2005”, Economic and Political
Weekly, XLIV, Nos. 26 and 27, June 27,
2009, pp.258-263.
• Raychaudhuri, Ajitava,. Land Reforms
in West Bengal, India, Paper prepared
for the World Bank sponsored Scalingup
Poverty Reduction Conference in
Shanghai, 2004.
• Srinivasan, T.N. Eight Lectures on India’s
Economic Reforms, Delhi: OUP,
2000.
• World Bank- Agriculture and Rural
Development in India: Sustaining Reform,
Reducing Poverty, Delhi: OUP,
2003.
(The views expressed in the write-up are
personal and do not reflect the offi cial policy
or position of the organization.)
THE INDIA ECONOMY REVIEW
129