Anda di halaman 1dari 2

Pros

Cons

1. There is a demand for a new institution which is


more federal and effective. State governments, instead
of the Planning Commission are at better position to
do investment because they have better local level
information.
2. India is such a diverse country that a centralized
planning cannot work that effectively. In fact, it adds
to the incompatibility as the Centre encroached upon
the states domain enumerated in the Seventh
Schedule of the Constitution, wherein most
matters crying for social and economic planning are
entrusted with the states.
3. The main point being the utilization of the youth
power will come up with new creative and innovative
ideas and a fresh outlook which could be more
practical for the present era, rather than the old
literature being followed blindly.
4. The Planning Commissions function as a think tank
was to be carried out keeping the whole country in
focus. Its members were drawn from various fields,
thus bringing in diverse expertise. The purpose was to
develop a national plan as a template for
developmental activity. However, by the late 1960s,
the Commission had assumed executive functions
which were not part of its original mandate.
Somewhere, the Union government gave up its role
and the Commission took over itself to clear respective
state plans. Chief ministers had to rush to the
Commission to clear their annual plans. The finance
ministry delegated the role for clearing states plan to
the body. This was against the spirit of federalism as
the Commission does not derive any authority
from the Constitution.
5. The commission lacked experts with extensive
knowledge in the concerned domain. Off late, the
Commission has emerged as more of a
rehabilitation centre for those who get defeated at
the polls and are allotted high posts
6. Present conflicts:
A.
Planning
Commission

commission

Vs.

1. The Planning Commission also serves as a link


between the Centre and the states. The allocation of
resources between various states is done by it.
Scrapping it would disturb the co-ordination.
2. If states are left free to follow their own planning
priorities, it is a given that some states will be winners
and others will lose out. The problem of regional
inequalities threatening national integration is one
example. There may be states that are handicapped
due to geographic reasons where requisite investment
may not take place. Regional disparities may rise to a
level that they become a political issue.
To overcome this problem of imbalance in the
development, a balanced approach is required on
the part of the government. The Planning Commission
allocates the resources to the less developed states, so
as to provide them equal opportunity for development
and bring them at par with the rest of the country.
3. There would be much time, money and energy
required to set up a new arrangement and build
systems & controls around. There is also a question of
what will happen to the 12th five year plan. Surely,
ceasing this will mean some loss of investment or the
funds.
4. One of the functions of the Planning Commission
was to make sense of the way the schemes were used to
run. The Commission ran by a formula for allocation of
funds to particular schemes. The Finance Commission,
as of now, cannot do this, unless the Constitution
allows it. Also, you cannot turn the Finance
Commission into a permanent body, because the
Constitution specifically provides for it to be a
temporary body. It comes into existence, for two years
it does its job, and then it is reconstituted.
5. Nobody is going to join a Planning Commission if it
is only a think tank. People join the government
because we they contribute to the policy. One would
like to go to a pure think tank where (s) he is not
subjected to political pressures and where (s)he paid a
whole lot more.

Finance 6. Planning Commission does not become irrelevant


just because it came into being through a Cabinet

decision. The country has created several institutions


B. Planning commission Vs. NDC: Right now, over the decades through acts of Parliament or Cabinet
NDC is bereft of such advice and whatever inputs the resolutions, and many of them are working
Planning Commission gives it are taken with a pinch of satisfactorily.
salt. In effect, NDC is an organ where grievances
against the Planning Commission are aired, openly.
7. Given the complexity of federal structure of
decision-making between states and centre and the
C. Planning commission Vs. Finance Ministry: social reality of high poverty, high malnutrition and
The Planning Commission deputy chairman saw his high deficit of access to basic services such as health
role as thinking big, and usually that demanded a lot of and education, the idea of planning and an
money to be invested by the government. The finance institutional framework to deal with these challenges
minister saw his primary task as keeping expenditures may still be relevant.
and the fiscal deficit down.
D.
Planning
commission
Vs.
State
Governments: State govt. had to urge to the
planning commision for allocation of funds.If the
central ministries can deal directly with the state
governments without going through the bottleneck of
the Planning Commission. This will certainly
streamline governance and bring more accountability
into the whole process.
7. IEO suggestion: Independent Evaluation office was
formally launched in February 2014, attached to the
Planning Commission, under a governing board
chaired by the commissions deputy chairman to
monitor and evaluate the efficacy of the governments
flagship programmes.
It suggested that Planning Commission be replaced by
a Reforms and Solutions Commission, staffed, not by
generalist bureaucrats, but by experts. The
Commission should report to the prime minister and
have a defined relationship with Parliament.