SUBHAV SHUKLA/PTI

Montek Singh Ahluwalia, Deputy Chairman of the Planning Commission, at the National Consultation on People’s Mid-term Appraisal of the Eleventh Plan in New Delhi.

“WITH this level of Plan expenditure, I am confident that the total Plan expenditure would be very close to 100 per cent of the expenditure envisaged in the Eleventh Five-Year Plan.” This was the only reference that Finance Minister Pranab Kumar Mukherjee made to the 11th Five-Year Plan in his 2010-11 Budget presentation.

The assertion sought to give the impression that the government was on course to fulfil the goals and objectives of the 11th Plan to a large extent. However, a mid-term “people’s appraisal of the 11th Five-Year Plan”, carried out by a clutch of non-governmental organisations led by the Centre for Budget and Governance Accountability (CBGA) and the Wada Na Todo Abhiyan (WNTA), in association with the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), makes it evident that the Finance Minister’s claim is far from correct.

In fact, the appraisal points out that the actual Budget allocations from 2007-08 to 2009-10 does not compare favourably with Budget outlays recommended by the 11th Plan. Even the United Progressive Alliance (UPA) government’s so-called flagship programmes – the National Rural Health Mission (NRHM), the Total Sanitation Campaign (TSC), the Swarnajayanthi Gram Rozgar Yojana (SGSY) and the Mid-Day Meal (MDM) scheme – have received less than 50 per cent of the outlays recommended by the Planning Commission. The NGOs also point out that the 2010-11 Budget does not propose any dramatic increase in allocations to make up for the deficiency of the earlier years. The appraisal is that progress is slow in meeting a range of Plan targets, especially in terms of social indicators.

The appraisal involved not only a quantitative assessment of the Plan, both in terms of allocation and expenditure by various Ministries and departments, but also a qualitative social audit of the programmes announced and implemented by the government in the past few years. The appraisal was done through a number of procedures, including ground-level data collection and interactions with people from 100 select villages in all the 28 States, 10 State-level consultations and five regional-level consultations, culminating in a national-level consultation in New Delhi in the first week of February.

Planning Commission members, including Deputy Chairman Montek Singh Ahluwalia, Dr Syeda Hameed, Arun Maira, Mihir Shah and Abhijit Sen, responded to the points thrown up by the appraisal at the national-level consultation and agreed that corrective measures needed to be taken at the earliest.

The wide-ranging exercise, spread across the States, focussed specially on key areas such as health care, water and sanitation, women and child development, rural development and local governance, education and employment. The appraisal’s primary finding through interactions at the grassroots was that there was a disconnect between the planning process and the ground situation and that the benefits of schemes for the disadvantaged sections did not reach the intended beneficiaries. The feedback also revealed that information about various policies and schemes was not reaching the beneficiaries and that people, in general, want greater involvement in the planning process.

The appraisal suggested a bottom-up approach and more stringent monitoring to ensure that the benefits reached those for whom they were intended.

The study on the health sector pointed out that the increase in health expenditure had been in the range of 10 to 12 per cent while the Planning Commission promised to increase this by 30 per cent. The appraisal pointed out that the Health Ministry seemed to have set for itself unreachable goals while steadfastly ignoring the promise to enact the Right to Health Bill. Highlighting some of these goals, it said the Infant Mortality Rate (IMR) was a case in point. Between 1991 and 2010, it was pointed that the level of IMR in India was high compared with even Bangladesh and Nepal. The present IMR is 55 per 1,000 live births, while the target is to reduce it to 28.

Similarly, the government has proposed to spend 2 per cent of the gross domestic product (GDP) on health while the present level of expenditure is 1 per cent. However, both expenditures are well below the World Health Organisation’s recommendation of 5 per cent of GDP.

The appraisal also pointed out that while a major portion of households’ health expenditure was on medicines, schemes such as the NRHM failed to ensure provision of medicines. Moreover, the government, it said, did not keep the promise it made time and again to put a ceiling on the prices of medicines. It suggested that programmes such as the NRHM be expanded in order to provide a comprehensive health service and simultaneously involve support to traditional and modern facilities and knowledge systems.

Questions about the efficacy of public-private partnerships (PPP) in health were also raised. It was pointed out that the cost of emergency response service facilities provided under the PPP is five times higher than the cost of services provided by others. Global experience showed that the private sector was not capable of providing services in the social sector, the appraisal maintained. On the other hand, the role of the government in health and education was globally accepted. In view of these facts, the appraisal suggested that the idea of PPP in the health sector should be reviewed.

The appraisal highlighted the poor status of child development programmes, especially the dysfunctionality of the Integrated Child Development Services (ICDS) and government schools. The appraisal pointed out that nearly 45 per cent of tribal children dropped out from the fifth or sixth grades. Children of seasonal migrants were next on the list of dropouts, it said, adding that the States had very little information on seasonal migrants.

The appraisal suggested greater involvement of the panchayati raj institutions in matters related to education, especially in ensuring the accountability of teachers. It stated that the government should keep in mind that education was not only about curriculum and textbooks but also about evaluation.

K.V. RAMANA

The appraisal found emergency medical services provided under public-private participation much more expensive than other such facilities.

The appraisal of the National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme (NREGS), rated as a huge success, held that while the allotment met the projections in the Plan outlays, qualitatively the project had a long way to go to become a satisfactory model. It was pointed out that while public response to the scheme was overwhelming, awareness levels about the implementation of the programme were still low. The most disconcerting fact, the appraisal said, was the highly uneven participation of women in the scheme. Although people were paid minimum wages, there were instances of non-payment and delay in payments, a factor caused essentially by a lack of awareness.

The appraisal also pointed out that pregnant women and aged people were not covered under the National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (NREGA). Some of the features of the NREGA-2, renamed as the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme (MGNREGA), were also assessed. It was pointed out that though there was some value addition in the MGNREGA, it sometimes suffers from the lack of redress mechanisms at district and block levels.

Responding to the appraisal, Mihir Shah said the Planning Commission did a mid-term review of plans and that, as part of this, the administrative cost of 6 per cent involved in the NREGS was going to be renamed as the professional support cost in the MGNREGA. He also mentioned that the NREGS was the only scheme of its kind in which there was no provision of capacity build-up and that it was a matter of concern that no State government was using more than 3 per cent of the scheme funds.

“No demand for job is being recorded, as the State governments want to pay allowances. No data on work are gathered. At block levels there is no one to measure work.” Mihir Shah also said that for the successful implementation of schemes such as this, the panchayati raj institutions should be further empowered.

Montek Singh Ahluwalia said that planning was no longer viewed as a government activity; it was an inclusive process in which the voices of many should be heard. He also added that the “11th Plan has shifted the focus away from purely concentrating on growth, as increasing the country’s growth rate amounted to only 3 per cent of the total number of things we should be focussing on”.

He also called on the participants of the appraisal to focus not merely on the Planning Commission but on increasing awareness among people across States and putting greater pressure on the State governments to deliver social services envisioned in the Plan.

Syeda Hameed said the targets were not achieved owing to a lack of resources and not owing to a lack of will and sincerity in the Planning Commission. She also held that “processes like the people’s appraisal would help ensure that the commission’s own mid-term appraisal process remains alive and the views of people seep into the 12th Five-Year Plan process”. While the view is indeed valid, the question remains whether this is possible if the Finance Minister fails to hear the voices calling for an “inclusive process”, as witnessed in Budget 2010-11.