For Growth Planning and Reform Commission must be Independent and Professional
I congratulate Ahsan Iqbal for
adding the reform component to the Planning Commission. I wanted to do that but
my good friend Hafeez Shaikh did not believe in reform. But Mr Iqbal must no go
forward and reform the PC. I would like to put forward my thoughts for
discussion as I believe reform without wide discussion is useless.
If we want growth we must
develop a planning process along the same lines of the SBP. This would mean an
independent Planning Commission enshrined in law with a technocratic
leadership. There should be no minister of Planning; the FM should only be in
charge of the MOF. DCPC should be a tenured technocrat with a rank equivalent
to a federal minister. DCPC must be a part of all high level decision-making
bodies to present the considerations of long term growth and development. The
PC should report directly to the PM. Subjects of the PC that are replicated in
the MOF such as Poverty, reform and PSRP should be either dissolved or merged
in the PC.
Members to be professionals
and handpicked by the members collectively with no review from establishment
division. PC HRM and salary scales should be decided on a market basis in line
with the SBP. Like the SBP there should be no secretary of the PC or right of
establishment division to disrupt through unexpected transfers.
Plans should be clearly
studied owned and amended by the cabinet and all the line ministries though
another consultation. All projects, policies and programs, domestic and
donor-delivered should be aligned with planning documents. The onus should be
placed on all stakeholders to align themselves with Plans.
Any new growth plans should be
made through a long and open consultation process in which agencies must
wholeheartedly participate. This will happen if the government backs this
discipline fully. All policies and reforms must be aligned with the Plan and
should pass through the Planning process before submission to a higher forum.
Planning processes and
coordination mechanisms—policy, plan and program consultations-- must be
respected by all agencies at all levels. Cabinet and ECC should not allow these
to be bypassed.
Cabinet must empower the PC to
initiate work on the results based management system that is the centerpiece of
the FEG through periodic meetings to facilitate the process.
The PC must be empowered again
through a cabinet process to lead the work on economic reform on behalf of
cabinet. This will involve in consultation with concerned agencies, identification
of reform initiatives through the results framework. Then through detailed
collaboration with concerned agencies, reform initiatives must be broken into
benchmarks and measures with time lines for achieving them. MOF Would be
involved on working out the financing requirements of the reform and the
linkage between reform and disbursements.
Reports on these reforms,
timelines and financing requirements in collaboration with MOF and other
agencies to cabinets for approval of reform process. Monitoring the reform for
cabinet and periodically reporting to cabinet on the reform. In this manner PC will play the role of a
“reform buddy” for the agency in need of reform and a ‘reform monitor’ for
cabinet.
For better donor coordination
EAD must be merged with the PC. The current fragmented approach has impeded the
emergence of domestic longer term development agenda. We must have a coherent
and unified approach and for that EAD must be a part of the planning
process.
Eventually budgetary processes
should be changed to allow maintenance and smaller projects to move into
regular budgets. Only very few large projects will be reviewed and monitored by
special procedures that will be developed for handling and implementing
them.
The dichotomy of division and
commission which is seriously impeding the work of managing growth must be
removed. Currently all professional staff is in a division which is managed by
a Secretary, Additional Secretary and a Joint Secretary, none of which are
appointed by the DCPC or with input of any member. This leads to several
problems making PC very inefficient.
The turnover in these
controlling positions—Secretary, Additional Secretary and a Joint Secretary—is
very high. At each change, the work of the PC is thrown off balance as these
appointees are from service groups that have little background in economic
policy and reform thinking.
In addition, there is always a
tension between the members and the Admin staff of the division—Secretary,
Additional Secretary and a Joint Secretary. The technical staff too is deeply
frustrated because they are beholden to non-specialists and cannot even be
considered on merit to occupy serious decision-making positions in the PC.
Because the secretary controls
resources and because the work of economic policy and reform is slowed down.
Through the control of the administration—Secretary, Additional Secretary and a
Joint Secretary—and the centralization of resources, the PSDP and the PC are
subject to undue political influence. This seriously affects the way the PSDP
is used. Public investment in the country is rendered seriously ineffective
through this political influence.
PC must be run as a commission by its Deputy
Chairman and its members. The Deputy Chairman must be a professional appointed
on tenure the same as the SBP governor. He in collaboration with his members
through a search process must find the best people on the country for members
and they must all have tenured appointments. No agency should be allowed to
appoint members over the heads of the PC. The portfolios of members must change
with each new “Framework of Economic Growth”. Currently, I suggest we must have
members for the following areas, Public Service delivery, Regulation, Reform,
Energy and Water, Production, Social development, Education, technology and
research, Chief Economist and Economic Policy, Inter Provincial Coordination,
All provincial planning chiefs, 4 prominent academics or from NGOs as associate
non-resident members, 2 prominent members of society.
Comments
Post a Comment