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.