Download - The India Economy Review

tion and higher growth requires rapid
reform of markets. At the same time ac-
tion on poverty would require attention to
market failure and merit goods. For both
tasks we require radically new vision and
models, not modifi cation of existing formulas.
We need visionary thinking and
smart solutions not just expedient ones.
If we agree on this agenda, we need to
settle the question of agency – to whom to
assign the jobs. We have two alternatives.
The fi rst is to distribute the jobs among
central ministries and pass those involving
state subjects to state governments.
The second alternative is to employ a
single pan-Indian organisation with adequate
reserve of talent and expertise. I
favour the latter and suggest the Planning
Commission. The Planning Commission
is preferable to the decentralised approach
for both reforming the markets as
also organising non-market production.
To deal with the constraints on market
operations, we require an organisation
that has the full view of the economy and
a system-wide vision and expertise. It is
because of this that the Planning Commission
has an edge. If called upon to
strengthen markets in their jurisdictions,
individual ministries will end up duplicating
efforts in several places and yet leave
gaps in the overall mechanism. Different
rules for separate jurisdictions will leave
loopholes that would undermine and corrupt
the system. Planning Commission
can avoid the waste of duplication and
produce system-wide mechanisms that
avert loopholes. Secondly, the Planning
Commission can pool its expertise to bear
on all the dimensions of a given issue–
economic, legal, political, technical and
so on. To develop a comparable amount
of talent and intellect pool at all important
ministries is simply wasteful.
In case of non-market production, too,
the decentralised approach has serious
drawbacks. Generally more than one
T RANSFORMATIVE PLANNING
It can avoid the waste of duplication
and produce system-wide
mechanisms that avert loopholes
ministry has interest and jurisdiction over
any given social issue. Their approaches
and priorities are generally different and
any given issue will result in a number of
different responses from different ministries.
The responses often lead to turf
wars, delay and lack of transparency about
who is responsible. On the other side, the
fact that the problems fall under different
jurisdictions means that we require an
organisation that can see all aspects from
a systemic and non-jurisdictional view
point and have expertise in all the dimensions
of the problems. Clearly the job suits
an organisation like the Planning Commission
better.
I should however point out that the
Planning Commission would require
some change in its mindset to spearhead
the transition. The organisation was an
instrument for centralised economic decisions,
a culture that politicises economic
decisions. This has politicised the Commission
in the past. Its enviable core of
technical and economic expertise has
rarely been allowed to solve problems for
the country on its own. They have been
led and constrained by political people
rather than experts. To make a transition,
the government should realise that a liberal
market economy has much less need
of political personalities in its economic
establishments, and enable the Commission
to give its best by handing its leadership
to experts.
(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
57