LUMS Article

8/2/2019 LUMS Article

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/lums-article 1/28

Planning in a Decentralized Dispensation

Abdullah Khan Sumbal

INTRODUCTION

Planning is a multi-dimensional and detailed process. Any tendency or predilection to approach it as anactivity is erroneous and can yield counter-productive results. In a decentralized dispensation particularly,

planning assumes a more demanding, occasionally intriguing, dimension and needs to be even more

process-oriented. A well-considered and carefully structured planning system can give sustenance to a

nascent local government (LG) structure. The potential of planning is underscored by a large number of studies and practical experiences of the hands-on practitioners in the developing world. While, it is

important to indicate right at the outset that any discourse on decentralized planning could easily veer away into the realm of the larger debate of Good (decentralized) Governance, it is also worth

acknowledging the fact that effective planning systems constitute the backbone of the Good Governance

paradigm. Effectively the two are not mutually exclusive. The fact, that as entities Planning system andGood Governance initiatives work in tandem, implies that it would not be out of place to state that a

robust and efficient planning system is indispensable for the much cherished and desirable goal of Good

Governance.

It is important that we are able to prescribe a system of efficient and robust decentralized planning and

then contextualize it in the post-Devolution Plan 2001 scenario in Pakistan. Five years is a sufficient period to conduct a brief review of sorts of the planning processes in the devolved governance structures.The Punjab province is supposed to possess greater capacity than its federating counterparts to implement

a reforms agenda or undertake a significant transition process. It will be interesting and thought-

provoking to delve into assessing the actual capability exhibited so far by those involved in planning aswell as to examine the various factors that make or break a planning system. In addition, it is important to

further ascertain with a reasonable degree of certitude the policy issues that support or undermine the

creation and sustenance of a sound, practicable and robust planning structure.

Definition of ‘Planning’ in Development

Planning is defined in a variety of manners. However, we will utilize two definitions that are appropriateand also relate reasonably to the decentralized framework.

1) Albert Waterston defined planning as

“an organized, conscious and continual attempt to select the best available alternatives

to achieve specific goals.” (Waterston, 1965)

1



2) UNDP has defined Planning as the

“deliberate social or organizational activity of developing a strategy of future action toachieve a desired set of goals for solving different problems in complex context. This is

underpinned by power and intention to commit resources to act as necessary to

implement the chosen strategy.” (UNDP, 2005)

A Continual Process

Planning, therefore, involves a continual process that involves making decisions about which problems

(out of an array of problems) should be tackled and in which precise order of priority. Consensus or at the

least a semblance of that is required in making priorities because not all problems can be met at once

given the fact that resource envelope is limited almost as a matter of rule. Lack of effective planning canhave adverse impact on the development process. Planning, it needs to be stressed, is not just about the

steps that are taken prior to implementation of a developmental intervention. Instead, it is a process that

involves the whole spectrum of activities that take place throughout the entire lifecycle of the plan, from

initial conception through formulation and implementation onwards to monitoring and evaluation (OECD,2004). The challenge for local level planning is to move from the composition of long and at times

unrealistic ‘wish lists’ of projects and schemes to integrated development plans which respond to people’sarticulated needs. An efficient and effective system of planning also augurs well for establishing the

hypothesis that decentralization impacts positively on poverty reduction. The condition for this is that

both the background and the process design are appropriate. This is clearly indicated in the Figure 1.

Figure-1--Decentralization and Poverty: Background and Process Conditions (Adapted from OECD, 2004)

Country Setting

Social Institutions

Capacity

Political Power Structure IMPACT

POVERTY

2

DECENTRALIZATION

Willingness & Ability

Transparent &

Participative Process

Elite Capture

Policy Coherence

OBJECTIVE

S



It also needs to be borne in mind that planning does not take place in an ‘ideal world’; rather it is always

set in an existing context. We should also not forget or be oblivious to the fact that planning has technical,

social and political sides to it. It has also been seen as “a negotiated social process” (de Roux, 1998).Planning at the local or decentralized level, in particular, needs to be inclusive(1) and participatory if we

are to tailor the decentralization process in its real spirit and essence. We need to conceive decentralized

planning as an entity that is:

Deliberative i.e. it is well-considered and thoroughly debated

Iterative i.e. its processes or activities are done repeatedly with a view to improving andcorrecting deficiencies

Flexible i.e. it is not fundamentally rigid in the sense that it cannot be altered or tailored to

meet exact requirements or any exigencies or imperatives

Decentralized Planning to be Participatory, Inclusive and Community Driven

The participatory approach, in its very essence, emphasizes ex ante instead of ex post participation. The

benefits of participation are clearly wider than just better project designing and implementation, andimproved service delivery and more resources. Getting involved, in actual terms, means taking

responsibility for the way communities and neighbourhoods change their lives. It is not equal to justcasting an occasional vote in the local elections. It means doing something about existing problems, rather

than just complaining about them and feeling powerless to change them. Participatory planning, in

essence, should add considerably to peoples’ lives and to their feeling of being more in control of their own destinies. Participation may empower citizens to speak up for their rights, articulate their concerns

and express their wishes, fears and grievances. In addition, participatory planning will offer a connect

between ‘voice’ and resource allocation while reducing discretionary allocations and ‘elite capture’.

ADB (2000) adds to this debate by enumerating the following benefits of Participation:

It enhances the design of the project by enabling the project designers to take fulladvantage of knowledge of local technology and other conditions, and adaptation of the project

to the social organization

It enhances programme sustainability as well as cost recovery

It has the potential of lowering information barriers between the public agencies and the

people, and induce useful feedback from users of public services

Some community institutions that are developed during project design andimplementation phases may continue to produce benefits even after the project is completed

It avoids the negative consequences of not consulting the intended beneficiaries, such as

local rejection of sanitation or housing designs, or resistance against cost recovery efforts

Citizens know best what they need and therefore should take part in creating solutions to these needs.

Conventional technical expertise is not a sufficient substitute for this. Alderman (2002), evaluating an

Albanian economic support programme, discovered that communities were better able to improvetargeting by utilizing special information unavailable to the centre. Incorporating local knowledge, it is

argued by Chambers (1994), Ostrom, Lam and Lee (1994), Uphoff (1986) and Narayan (1998) can:

(1) Inclusive would imply a process that is open, participatory and includes all stakeholders.

3



improve targeting

lower the informational costs of delivering anti-poverty programmes

ensure higher quality monitoring of programme implementation

But Mansuri and Rao (2004: 10) assert that such informational advantages are likely to be realized

“…only when there are institutions and mechanisms to ensure local accountability.”

The same argument is continued further byConning and Kevane (2002) as they found out

that although community groups are likely

to possess better information on who the poor are, only communities that have relatively

egalitarian preferences, relatively open and

transparent systems of decision-making, or clear rules for determining who is poor will

tend to be more effective than outsideagencies in targeting programmes to the poor

within communities. So, intra-community targeting and subsequent allocation assumes greater importance in this context. This, in effect, means that analysts are of the opinion that the performance of

decentralized targeting programmes can be significantly constrained by local inequality. Although

decentralized targeting can improve outcomes, it does not automatically solve the targeting problem. Lack of management skills in the community and the absence of training about community participation

techniques imparted to government personnel are other reasons worth noticing that hinder effective

community participation. The box above highlights two best practices of targeting.Khawaja (2001) compared community-driven projects funded by the Agha Khan Rural Support

Programme (AKRSP) to projects in the same villages that had no element of community participation. He

found out that community managed projects were better managed than projects managed by the LG.More interestingly, he also found that community participation in technical issues and decisions reduced

the quality of maintenance, whereas community participation in non-technical decisions had the opposite

effect as it significantly improved the maintenance.

The World Bank’s Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper Sourcebook (Dongier and others, 2001) views

community development as a mechanism for:

enhancing sustainability

improving efficiency and effectiveness

allowing poverty reduction efforts to be taken to scale

making development more inclusive empowering poor people by encouraging ‘Voice’

building social capital

strengthening governance

complementing market and public sector activities

The above-mentioned results are attained in the exact sense and spirit when the community actually

contributes to the planning process. Community-driven development, therefore, achieves all this by

4

Coady (2001) informs that the well-known anti-poverty programme ‘ Progresa’ in Mexico selected poor

households on the basis of census data without any

community involvement. It was more effective at

targeting poor communities than at targeting poor

households within them.

Argentina’s Trabajar 2 Programme (introduced in 1997)

with World Bank support reflected successful targeting

because Programme participants were overwhelmingly

drawn from among the poorest households.

“Voice” refers to the range of

measures—such as complaint,

organized protest, lobbying and

participation in decision-making and

product delivery—used by civilsociety actors to put pressure on

service providers to demand service

outcomes (Goetz and Gaventa,

2001).



basically reducing information problem. This is done through eliciting development priorities directly

from target communities and allowing communities to identify projects and eligible recipients of benefits.

This, in essence, is bottom-up planning. Figure 2 indicates that ideally decentralization, a multi-dimensional process, should create a set of ‘influences’ (Participation, Stability, Efficiency, Targeting and

Equity) that generates positive outcomes (Removal of Voicelessness and Vulnerability, and Better Access

to Services) for the goal of Poverty Reduction.

DECENTRALIZATION AND POVERTY REDUCTION:

A FRAMEWORK Figure- 2

CHANNELS OF INFLUENCE

Mansuri and Rao (2004) emphasize, among others, that the potential gains from community-driven

development are large. It has the explicit objective of reversing power relations in a manner that creates

5

DECENTRALIZATION

ECONOMIC IMPACTPOLITICAL IMPACT SOCIAL IMPACT

PARTICIPATION EQUITY

REMOVAL OF

VOICELESSNESS

POVERTY REDUCTION

EFFICIENT & EQUITABLE

ACCESS TO SERVICES

See Appendix

‘A’ for detailed

run-down on

‘Benefits of

Decentralization’

STABILITY EFFICIENCY TARGETING

DECREASING

VULNERABILITY



agency and voice for poor people, allowing them to have greater control over development management.

It is also expected to make the allocation of development funds more responsive to their needs, improve

the targeting of poverty programmes, make government more responsive, improve delivery of publicgoods and services and strengthen the capabilities of the citizenry to undertake self-initiated development

activities. Participation is believed to have positive impact on sustainability of projects as well; though it

is difficult to establish the causal direction in this respect. It is pertinent to mention here that broader institutional environment plays an important role in the sense that participatory projects are more effective

in more developed countries than in less developed economies. A case in point is brought forward

empirically by Finsterbusch and Van Wincklin (1989) when they conducted a detailed analysis of 52USAID projects with participatory elements. This fact necessitates some modicum of training for the

community; a case, inter alia, made out by Newman and others (2002) while studying water supply

projects. Several studies conducted globally have established that unless communities can lobby for

continuing support for marginal inputs and training, their ability to sustain such projects may be limited(Mansuri and Rao, 2004).

What actually needs to be understood is the fact that a naïve understanding of the concepts of community,

participation and Social Capital can obscure differences that critically influence outcomes (Mansuri andRao, 2004). Economic and social heterogeneity and inequality also needs to be comprehended within this

context. Alesina and La Ferrara (2000) find that participation in social activities is significantly lower inmore economically unequal or more racially or ethnically fragmented communities. Allied to this aspect

is the ubiquitous problem of ‘elite capture’; a situation in which projects benefits are appropriated by

community or local leaders and there is little attempt to include households at any stage. It has beenobserved that even well trained staff is not always effective in overcoming entrenched norms of

exclusion. A great deal has been written on this subject; a frequently quoted hypothesis was presented by

Bardhan and Mokherjee (2000) in which they established that LGs have better information but are less

accountable and thus are more prone to elite capture. They were successful in showing that the probabilityof capture increases with local inequality. Rao and Ibanez (2003) argue, however, that elite domination is

not always elite capture and the fact remains that some degree or form of elite domination is inevitable in

community participation projects, particularly in the rural areas. Substantiating this point, Khawaja (2001)finds that participation by hereditary leaders tends to improve maintenance. Mosse (2001) is skeptical

about the real value of participation in so far as the fact that participatory exercises could often turn out to

be inherently political public events where villager ‘needs’ are often shaped by perceptions of what the project can deliver. He goes on to identify a functional problem; there is a “local collusion” in the

planning exercise. People concur in the process of problem definition and planning because it creates the

required space within which they can manipulate the programme to serve their own (vested) interests.

In any serious participation effort four factors seem to be essential and instrumental (ADB, 2000):

Effective Outreach; provide a realistic opportunity for large numbers of the target population to participate

Equal Access; make it available to all citizens on an equal basis

Significant Policy Impact ; participation should be more than symbolic, more than justtoken representation; it should have a considerable impact on final policy decisions that are

eventually taken

Enactable Policy; the participation effort must be capable of being expressed through anenactable government programme, such as the distribution of funds for projects.

6



The Concept and Value of Social Capital

It is also important to relate this discourse on participation to the concept of Social Capital. The term

Social Capital refers to those features of social organization, such as norms and networks, which facilitate

the flow of reliable information and coordinated actions in the interests of all members of the group.Voluntary cooperation is more convenient in a society that possesses a substantial stock of networks of

civic engagements that foster robust norms of reciprocity and acceptable behaviour (ADB, 2000). The

notion of Social Capital implies that vertical networks, howsoever dense they may be, cannot sustainsocial trust and cooperation, because they are essentially based on hierarchical control, divergence of

interests and thus individual “hoarding of information” (ADB, 2000: 533). On the other hand, horizontal

networks, founded on the twin virtues of equality and reciprocity generate regular information exchange

and build a good deal of trust among the members. Research shows that the density of horizontalnetworks of civic engagement has a positive impact on local economic development (LED), the quality of

governance, and the provision of public services (ADB, 2000); the box below is illustrative of this.

Social Capital thrives on continued positive horizontal

interaction and thus, unlike other forms of capital,increases as it is used, and diminishes when it is

not used or under-utilized. Its hallmark is that it

“restrains individual opportunism” (ADB, 2000:534).

Partnerships and Social Capital reinforce each other. Partnerships between the community and the

government can have a multiplier effect in the sense that they nurture credibility for the government

agencies when they are successful in generating social mobilization and by inclusively extending publicservices to previously unserved areas in cost-effective and sustainable ways. They are also instrumental in

the employees of the LGs acquiring new skills in working with the community. The flip side of this is that

policy makers tend to believe that investing in Social Capital is as straightforward as investing in physicalcapital. Added to this is the problem that the poor have less viable networks that may enable them to cope

with the rigours and vicissitudes of life. Since Social Capital can be “bequeathed”, it can contribute to the

perpetuation of inequality.

It is also important to understand that the planning process needs to be formalized through a planning

cycle. The planning cycle introduces an element of method and purpose to the various activities that

constitute the process itself. In a decentralized dispensation, the planning cycle should provide anenabling framework for making planning an inclusive and bottom-up process. Its various steps or phases

should be underpinned by participatory elements right through. It has been observed that participation of

the community at the front end of the planning process, when needs are assessed and priorities are beingset, is not sufficient and what is more important is to ensure the creation of an accountable, inclusive

process within the broader frame of political representation at all stages in the planning and service

delivery cycle (Porter and Onyach-Olaa, 1999). The planning process, itself, can be viewed as a cyclicalchain of activities that results in tangible outputs of infrastructure and service delivery facilities. This

factor leads us to a brief discussion about the nature of planning as appropriating it the quality of ‘bottom-

up’ is not enough.

7

In rural Tanzania, for instance, villages with

high degree of participation in village-level

social organizations have a higher adjusted

income per household than villages withlower stocks of Social Capital. (ADB, 2000).



Planning Should Be ‘Integrated’

Equally important is to have a system of integrated development planning. Integrated DevelopmentPlanning is not an ideal type. It is basically founded on the concept of bottom-up planning. Integrated

Planning ensures cross-sectoral linkages; essentially implying that all the different sectors in the LG must

be interlinked in such a mechanism that yields synergies and prevents wastage of resources.

Integrated Development is believed to have several

benefits for a LG; some of them are as follows:

It helps the LG in allocating limited resources in

the most effective and efficient manner

ii. It prevents losses occurring due to differentsectors working at cross-purpose

iii. It makes it more likely that development would

be sustainable in the long-term

iv. It assists councilors and officials to be effectiveleaders and managers of development in their

area, as it gives a holistic picture and controlover the resources and needs

v.It facilitates in building broad public support for development projects. (LGPM, 2006)

vi. It helps to speed up delivery of services as it provides deadlock-breaking mechanisms to ensurethat projects and programmes are efficiently implemented

vii. It introduces an element of realism in resource allocation since the needs are assessed in

accurate and precise terms in a bottom-up manner

To be effective, a system of integrated decentralized planning needs a set of actions which includes the

following (Edralin, 2000):

a) Determination of the critical level of government in the country to which planning

decisions would be centralized

b) Defining the appropriate planning and decision-making functions at each governmentallevel

c) Matching planning functions with adequate allocation of financial resources at each

level

d) Establishing a suitable planning organization at each levele) Training the planning personnel at each level in the tasks of decentralized planning

f) Developing a data collection and information system at various levels

g) Establishing an effective two-way communications system for information exchangeh) Establishing suitable organizational structures for coordination; establishing linkages for

integrated development

i) Instituting regular information flows j) Decentralizing decision-making power and authority to the lower levels

k) Organizing decentralized monitoring and evaluation system at the appropriate level

l) Organizing and facilitating participation at various levels of LG

8

Integrated Development Planning has two

connotations; one that of a system that

yields cross-sectoral linkages and

synergies; and secondly that which

facilitates the integration of provincial

policy priorities into local decisions and

actions.

South Africa’s Integrated DevelopmentPlanning (IDP) has five distinct phases:

Analysis, Strategies, Projects, Integration

and Approval. It helped restructure asystem that had collapsed under the

bourgeoning burden of apartheid.



There are three sets of issues that are thought to be critical in designing and implementing decentralized

planning:

1. The Institutional Structure

The need to understand the fundamental structure of government, the role of each level in

decentralized planning

The need to decide as to which level precisely should act as the primary unit for planning

The need to clearly define the powers and responsibilities of LGs

The need to provide LGs with some autonomy in planning and decision-making

The need to ensure LG accountability

The need to ensure that LGs exercise their powers and responsibilities; in countries with

strong centralized traditions and weak legal systems, LG prerogatives might be undermined by

powerful central government influence (Edralin, 2000)

2. The Planning and Budgeting Processes

The need to link the decentralized planning process to the budgeting process

A related issue is that the time lines meant for the local planning process should

correspond to the local budgeting process

The requirement to coordinate and integrate the decentralized planning process with

central or provincial planning

3. The System of Inter-governmental Finance

The need for LGs to have access to sufficient aggregate resources from different fundingsources

The need for LGs to generate substantial own-source revenues (OSR)

The need to have a consistent, predictable and transparent system for shared taxes andinter-governmental transfers; even when there are formulas for funds distribution, there is no

effective link between local OSR and resource transfers from the central or provincial

government

The above-mentioned three issues have institutional significance and are closely linked with the larger

governance debate. This, now, brings us to the discourse centered around the close and inextricable

relationship between decentralized planning and Good Governance. Good Governance has seven maincharacteristics:

1. Participation- organized involvement of empowered stakeholders

2. Responsiveness- empathic, enabling and facilitating attitude

3. Transparency- information-sharing, open practices, clear decision-

9

Good Governance is epitomized

by predictable, open and

enlightened policy-making, a

bureaucracy imbued with

professional ethos acting in

furtherance of the public good, the

rule of law, transparent processes

and a strong civil society

participating in public affairs.

World Bank



making procedures

4. Efficiency- maximum results/ output with minimum input

5. Equity-impartial and equal treatment of cases, financial resourcesand people

6. Accountability- holding both local political leadership and the

local bureaucracy answerable for their actions and decisions7. Gender Sensitivity and Mainstreaming - intended to increase

women’s participation in politics and management; also in oversight of the public sector

The Figure below indicates that attaining all the Characteristics of Good Governance is possible

through immaculate planning in the decentralized setting.

RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN GOOD GOVERNANCE &

DECENTRALIZED PLANNING ------- FIGURE- 3

10

DECENTRALIZED

PLANNING

P a r t i c i p a t i o n

T r a n s p a r e n c y

Efficiency Eq u i t y

A c c o u n

t a b i l i t

y

G e n d e r

S e n s i t i v

i t y /

M a i n s t

r e a m i n

g

GOOD GOVERNANCE

Responsiveness



Figure 3 illustrates the close relationship between Good Governance and Decentralized

Planning. The six Characteristics of Good Governance equally hold true and are required

for effective Decentralized Planning. ‘Decentralized Planning’ is linked to each of theCharacteristics by dotted lines, which signifies the fact that while the Characteristics are

those of Good Governance, it can be established that they also contribute to or benefit

from (we are not establishing the causal relationship here) Decentralized Planning.

The Accountability factor has been stressed as imperative by many analysts. While, it is many-sided,

accountability among different levels of local and provincial or central government is as important asthe accountability of leaders to the constituents (Porter and Onyach-Olaa, 1999). Accountability

contributes significantly to the sustenance of a decentralized planning and service delivery systems.

Figure 4 puts things in the correct perspective as it establishes the point that a system of

accountability or that of checks and balances is indispensable for pro-poor outcomes.

A FRAMEWORK FOR REALTIONSHIPS OF ACCOUNTABILITYFigure- 4

Source: Amended and Developed from: Nazmul Chaudhry and

Shantayanan Devarajan (2006)

11

Policy Makers/ Planners

LG Providers

Poor People

Decentralized

Planning



While the role of Civil Society(2) is of significance during all the phases of the Planning Cycle, the

Monitoring & Evaluation role expected from it also contributes considerably to the accountability efforts.

The international best practice cited in the box below testifies to this fact.

Capacity Building and its Relationship with Decentralized Planning

In the words of Gaventa (2001)

“Rebuilding relationships between citizens and their local governments means working both

sides of the equation—that is, going beyond ‘civil society’ or ‘state-based’ approaches, to focuson their intersection through new forms of participation, responsiveness and accountability”

(Gaventa, 2001).

This proposition, given by Gaventa, requires the LGs to work purposefully towards building the

capacities of all the three actors that have been identified (state, market and civil society) at what is called

at “both ends of the street”. Capacity Building is intrinsically linked with the ideal of Good Governance.By their very nature and constitution, LGs are mostly lacking in capacities that are required for LED. LGs

need support from the higher levels of government but it does not absolve them of endeavouring

themselves to work on developing “intersections” as proposed by Gaventa (2001). What is desirable is to build institutional capacity within LG whilst at the same time working towards a more aware and active

civil society which is prepared and reasonably equipped to engage and work meaningfully with the LG.

Table 1 gives a summary of what is essentially required for such an engagement or partnership. It may,

however, be kept in mind that the list it provides is largely indicative and not exhaustive.

Table-1

(2) Civil Society consists of groups and organizations, both formal and informal, which act independently

of the state and market to promote diverse interests in society. Civil Society acts as a bridge between the

state and the citizens (LGPM, 2006).

12

The Local Government Code of 1991 in the Philippines establishes a Local Development Council

(LDC) for every province, city, municipality and barangay. The primary responsibility of the LDCs isto draft comprehensive multi-sector development plans. At least one-fourth of the total membershipof the LDCs has to be from the NGOs (POs—Peoples’ Organizations) and private sector. LDCs have

become vehicles for these civil society organizations to mobilize people in the barangay to claim from

government minimum basic services, to prioritize projects and, in particular, to monitor and evaluate

them. A national network of NGOs, known as the BATMAN projects, has worked to strengthen localgovernment and civil society interaction, and to strengthen participatory approaches such as

Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA) in barangay development planning (Goetz and Gaventa, 2001).



Capacity RequirementsCategory Capacity Requirement

Local Government To be responsive

To build capacity in human, financial,capital and natural resource management

To build capacity in planning and planningtechniques

To put structures and systems in place

which promote transparency and

accountability

To learn how to work together

To understand their mandated duties

To comprehend that development is not just brick and mortar and has a ‘soft’ side

to it

To judge and capitalize on the SocialCapital of Civil Society

To understand the language of Civil

Society (IDS, 2003)

To understand the dynamics of Public

Private Partnerships (PPP)

Civil Society To engage in citizen learning (IDS, 2003)

To engage in citizen education

To understand their responsibilities

To understand the work procedures of

LGs To comprehend that development is a

multi-dimensional process

To understand the planning and project

management techniques

This detailed academic analysis establishes that decentralized planning inevitably needs all the

characteristics (with varying degrees of course) of Good Governance. This can be attributed to the fact

that the planning discourse is related closely to the larger debate about the role of state (3). The debateconcerning the role of the state revolves, in turn, around the issues of governance and, hence, the Good

Governance paradigm figures quite prominently in this context. We will now focus on Pakistan’sexperience (essentially that of the Punjab province) of decentralized planning and ascertain the very

reasons that hinder the development of a robust and effective devolved planning system in our scenario.

(3) This fact is borne out, among others, by Todaro and Smith (2004).

13



PUNJAB’S EXPERIENCE OF DECENTRALIZED PLANNING

The Devolution of Power plan that was unfolded in 2001 necessitated a massive systemic change in thegovernance structures that existed at that point in time. It was predicated on the notion that among other

subjects to be devolved, planning and service delivery were the most critical to LED. These two, planning

and service delivery were the proverbial ‘make or break’ elements in devolutionary scheme of things. Itwas expected that Punjab would perform better than its federating counterparts because of relatively

“better” capacity and manpower. Five years down the line, there are many questions that rankle the mind

of policy makers and provide a good deal of food for thought to the analysts. Decentralized planning has been the area of focus for the Provincial Government (PG) working for introducing serious capacity

building interventions with a view to introducing elements of quality and effectiveness in local public

sector planning. This has not been easy as various offices are involved in planning; the central of course

being that of EDO (F&P)’s. The Sectoral Offices, in particular those of Health, Education, Works andServices (W&S) at the District level and those of TMO, TO (I&S) and TO (F&P) at the Tehsil level are

crucial in the scheme of things and need to be focused on in any effort aiming at capacity building.

However, the offices of EDO (F&P) at the District level and that of TO (F&P) at the Tehsil level need

consistent training and capacity building. Coupled with this and equally desirable is the need that thesetwo offices, primarily, are given support through continuity and substantially long tenures. Frequent

transfers and postings disrupt the capacity building initiatives and do not augur well for institutionalizingimprovements in planning and service delivery. It has been observed that frequent changes at the EDO

level, both in the F & P and sectoral offices, disrupted the process of formulation of Annual Sector Plans

(ASPs) under the Punjab Devolved Social Services Programme (PDSSP)(4). A new set of officers startsfrom the scratch and goes into that almost inevitable process of un-doing or amending or at the least

reviewing things done by the previous incumbents. This applies generally to the whole of the public

sector but more so to the decentralized system as processes are still not totally institutionalized therein.

Meaningful training and capacity building efforts go to waste or at least under-achieve in situations of tenure instability. Capacity Building has to be formalized and institutionalized and, in particular, that

pertaining to the planning side. The development of Punjab Local Government Planning Manual

(LGPM), that has only recently been published, is a step in the right direction. It should give the planningedifice a strong and robust dimension. The fact, however, remains that it has seen the light of day well

into the fifth year of Devolution and the planning paradigm in its absence has been devoid of real

institutional underpinnings; resultantly the planning processes have either been hackneyed or unsystematically innovative.

A Combination of (Hackneyed) Traditional Practices, Institutional Memory & Unsystematic

Innovations

The last point made needs elaboration. Planning in the technocratic mode has been prevalent since long.

A combination of traditional practices and institutional memory has evolved into planning processes thatare top-down in nature but have delivered sporadically. Doing away with such processes needs an

institutionalized formal effort. Unsystematic innovations, while might get good results here and there, are

essentially erratic and need far too many adjustments than what would give planning sustenance androbustness. The experience, so far, also suggests that planning is still done in the ‘scheme’ mode. This

again is counter-productive as such a mode of planning tends to preclude the possibility of proper and

formal needs assessment and, as a consequence of this, participatory and inclusive planning can suffer.

(4)This is based on personal knowledge acquired while working at the PDSSP.

14



So, while there is adherence to the project cycle, there is little, if any, commitment with the planning

cycle. A scheme or project based mode of planning is more vulnerable to elite capture. It must be clarified

here that this argument in no way suggests that schemes are not useful but they must be conceived anddeveloped within the planning cycle framework instead of being developed and designed in isolation

through an essentially politico-technocratic mechanism. There is a clear and obvious disconnect between

schemes formulated and the needs assessment done through the planning cycle. Continuing with the pre-dominantly scheme mode of development could impact negatively on the planning cycle methodology

itself. This is primarily the reason behind the little emphasis placed on needs assessment in the LGs so

far; the exception being the ‘Perception Survey’ conducted by the City District Government, Faisalabad.

Planning Cycle under the Punjab Local Government Planning Manual, LGPM (2006)

This brings us to the important aspect of the Planning Cycle. There is very little understanding or utilization of this as a concept. It would not be an exaggeration to say that planners at the LG level are

disinterested in trying out “sophisticated” or “overly modern” concepts and precepts of planning. It is at

times believed that these precepts are useful only in developed polities or advanced settings. The

skepticism was evident on many an occasion; the ones that one would like to mention were thoseexpressed during a consultation workshop organized by the Punjab Resource Management Programme

(PRMP) in March, 2006 and in a workshop held by the PDSSP in May, 2005 for sectoral plans i.e. theASPs. This skepticism needs to be removed and there is no reason to believe that it cannot be.

Increasingly, one feels that office holders in the LGs are a liitle more amenable to the requirements of

detailed, evidence-based planning as mandated by the LGPM and the ASP (sector-wide planning)methodology of the PDSSP (both follow the same Planning Cycle- something done on purpose; the only

difference being that the ASP planning cycle is smaller and ends at the Sectoral plan stage). The Punjab

Local Government Planning Manual, LGPM (2006) has also given a detailed system of Integrated

Development Planning. The Integrated Planning system follows a planning cycle which has seven steps:

1. A detailed and focused Local Situation Analysis (LSA) that gives an objective

assessment of the conditions of infrastructure and service delivery at the local level2. Developing a Vision for the LG

3. Sectoral Assessment for each of the sectors

4. Preparation of Sectoral Development Plans after a process of intra-sectoral prioritization5. Formulation of an Integrated Development as a consequence of inter-sectoral

prioritization

6. Developing an Integrated Annual Development Plan and allocating budgets

7. Monitoring & Evaluation System; with the requisite corrective measures

The most important to thing to note is that the contents of the LGPM are linked to the PLGO, 2001 andthe Punjab Local Government (Budget) Rules, 2003. This was done by design. The reason being that

nothing in the LGPM should be in conflict with the over-arching legal framework and that the planning

processes were linked to the budgetary process through the Budget Rules, 2003. This helps in things nothappening at cross-purposes with each other as desired by an ‘integrated’ framework. The LSA is not

merely a collection of facts and figures, but includes an evaluation of the data by the stakeholders. So,

stakeholder consultation (taking place under the dynamics of ‘participation’) begins right at the outset.

While compilation of data (both primary and secondary) is a technocratic task, the stakeholder

15



involvement in data evaluation is significant as it feeds into the sectoral assessment. After LSA, the

Nazim is supposed to give his Vision for development. A Vision is essentially the guiding image for

attaining the main developmental goals and helps the LG development team stay focused.

At the sectoral level the concerned EDO, the head of the Sector office is also supposed to give a Vision

under the LGPM (2006) although it is not mandated by law as such. This is useful in making sectoral

activities aligned with the LG Vision given by the Nazim.

Objectives of Stakeholder Consultation as laid down by the LGPM (2006)

Needs Orientation

Appropriateness of Solutions

Community Ownership

Empowerment

The term “stakeholders” is defined clearly in the Rule 11 of the Budget Rules, 2003 and is accepted by

the LGPM (2006) duly. It consists of an array of relevant people and bodies as should be the case in aninclusive system. The tools for Stakeholder consultation are also given. LSA, if done properly and

thoroughly, should lead to good and precise Sectoral Needs Assessment. Needs Assessment also requires

considerable input from the stakeholders. This, in effect, is to make the process as inclusive as possible. Needs Assessment reports are compiled by all the sectors after a methodical intra-sectoral prioritizationexercise is undertaken. Here, the competing priorities within the sector vie against each other. The overall

policy context is important here. For instance, the LGPM (2006), rightly, ascribes a lot of importance to

the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) and since all three of the health-related MDGs relate moreto the preventive health care side, intra-sectoral prioritization would be mindful of this and assign greater

priority to preventive health care as the MDGs are espoused by the National and Provincial policy

guidelines too. This clearly points out the fact that provincial policy guidelines are of immenseimportance too and they are needed more when the decentralized dispensation is in its nascent stages. The

same point has also been underscored by ADB (2005).

The sectoral assessment is augmented by Local Council guidelines and is formalized into a Draft Sector Plan which is then taken to the Annual Sector Planning Meeting (ASPM) for approval. The ASP

methodology of the PDSSP gets momentarily delinked from the LGPM at this stage. The Planning Cycle

of the LGPM, however, is desirous of a more rigorous effort of inter-sectoral prioritization wherecompeting sectoral needs are assessed keeping in view the overall resource envelope. The LGPM (2006:

54) desires, and there can be no two opinions about it, that the inter-sectoral prioritization should

“…reflect the synergies among the various sectors.”

16

Vision is required under Section 18 (a) of the PLGO,2001 and Rule 32 of the Budget Rules, 2003.



After considerable input from many aspects, the ‘Draft Annual Integrated Plan’ is prepared. A copy of

that is placed at Appendix ‘B’. After its approval through a clearly defined process, it is implemented atthe sectoral level. The Planning Cycle does not terminate at the implementation stage rather has another

vital element in its execution and that is of Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E). M&E must be indicator-

based and the LGPM (2006) provides a useful list of sectoral indicators that are simple, measurable andrealistic. The Volume –II of the LGPM (2006), inter alia, provides the techniques of assessment, appraisal

and M&E processes.

The LGPM (2006) Planning Cycle illustration follows:

Figure-5

17



L o c a l S i t u a t i o n

A n a l y s i s

V i s i o n S t a t e m e n t

S e c t o r a l A s s e s s m e n t

D r a f t S e c t o r a l P l a n

D r a f t I n t e g r a t e d

D e v P l a n

A D P

C o u n c i l A p p r o v a l

P o l ic y G u i d e l i n e s

B u d g e t a r y A l lo c a t io n

I n t r a S e c t o r a l P r io r i t iz a t io n

S t a k e h o l d e r C o n s u l t a t i o n

D D C

I n t e r S e c t o r a l P r io r i t i z a t i

C o u n c i l G u i d e l i n e s

N e e d s A s s e s s m e n

R e s o u r c e A s s e s s m e n t

This Planning Cycle was developed and refined after a series of consultations, workshops and owes its

final form to the Problem Tree exercise done consultatively in March, 2005. The ‘Problem Tree’ is being

reproduced below with a view to further clarifying some aspects of the multi-dimensional nature of the

decentralized planning process.

18



Figure-6

We need to analyze and relate the academic discourse covered earlier with the situation on ground anddraw some vital conclusions as a consequence(5).

(5) This is based on sharing of experiences with those working in the LG system, the elected LG

representatives and the information shared at forums like workshops, seminars and meetings held in the

last two years.

19



A Continual Process?

This aspect is, essentially, related to the fact whether the planning system in practice is linked with the

planning cycle or not. In actual terms, we can say that the planning system has suffered as there was not

any formal, clearly defined planning cycle nor was planning exactly linked with the budget cycle. Thiswould become increasingly more convenient when the LGPM (2006) would be implemented. If the

LGPM is not implemented in its true form and spirit, then the predilection to approach planning as an

activity undertaken before the close of the financial year would take stronger roots and eventually takeover. And that would be a body blow to the bottom-up planning ideal as the latter can only flourish when

planning is conceived and approached as a continual process. In addition to this, vertical programmes are

handled in a more technocratic manner and they tend to disregard the existence or need for a planning

cycle.

Extent or Degree of being Participatory, Inclusive and Community Driven

The situation on ground highlights that participatory and inclusive processes have not taken roots. Thereis lip service to participation but very little effort by way of encouraging the community to participate and

contribute at the various stages of planning. It is difficult to discern for sure as to where exactly is the LGsystem on the ladder of participation (IDS, 2003). The

performance is uneven at the least and there are large gaps

between the LGs in their positions at the ladder. Once theLGPM gets implemented, it would be very important

to analyze the state of affairs in more precise terms and

come up with a strategy to monitor the performance

in terms of participation. In practical terms, if participationhas to take roots, there must be implementation of LG

projects through modalities that maximize the involvement

of end-users or beneficiaries as managers or monitors.

Romeo (1999) points out that local politicians’ aversion to participatory planning is a major cause for the

participatory mechanisms never taking roots and getting assimilated in the LG culture. The local bureaucracy also is no less averse to participation usually. When participatory mechanisms are

incorporated into planning procedures, the result may be a surge in demand for social infrastructure and

welfare subsidies or projects. Local leaders fear the unleashing of such a local demand as their own and

their core team’s priorities get upset. There is considerable evidence of this problem in the Punjab as wellwhich impedes any efforts directed at making the process more inclusive. However, there are exceptions

to this trend; TMA Chiniot, for instance, being a case of good leadership and having put in place a more

diverse participatory process. Leadership by example is necessary and it should involve being open andtransparent and doing the proverbial ‘walk the talk’.

As discussed earlier as well, the planning process should not only be front-loaded with the element of community participation and involvement right at the beginning i.e. at the identification stage to be more

precise. Participation and community involvement should run right through the various stages of the

planning cycle. Participation and community involvement augur well for the accountability concerns also.

There has been little focus on M&E and the non-functional status of the sectoral Local Council

20

The ‘ladder’ of participation has 3 steps:

Consultation (asking and listening directly),

Presence and Representation (more

intensive, regular engagement through

institutionalized mechanisms) and Influence

(visible when governments begin to act on

demands coming from below).



Monitoring Committees(6) has further impeded the process. The Monitoring Committees should start

working in right earnest now as by-laws (prepared by the PDSSP) are available for their functioning. The

community oversight and M&E roles can get further bolstered if the detailed forms designed for M&E inVolume- II of the LGPM (2006) are employed efficiently. The degree of importance attached with

participation is such that now it is considered as an end in itself and not just a means to development.

As Figure-6 (Problem Tree) indicates clearly the fundamental problem or the ‘core’ problem that afflicts

the LG planning system of lack of proper needs assessment. Now, we have already discussed and

hypothesized that needs assessment is not, or should not be, a technocratic process. It should be based ona participatory process, with a large enough stakeholder involvement. The fact that the Problem Tree

exercise, participatory in its own right, highlighted that needs assessment is deficient implies that

participation itself is amiss as a critical link in the planning system. Furthermore, it is also important that

participation is not in name alone or is not token, but is meaningful and geared to achieve clear objectives.It should never assume the dimension of just going through the motions; for once it becomes so, even

genuine participation happening elsewhere in the LG tends to be viewed skeptically.

It is a widely-held opinion that almost all of the stages in the Planning Cycle are devoid of participativeelements in the true sense of the concept. Planning is still largely technocratic. Local Councilors are also,

more often than not, involved in a perfunctory manner. The office holders of the LGs, in private, do nothesitate in confiding that the Council process is usually hijacked by a clique (for want of a better word)

around the Nazim or the Naib Nazim. Therefore, there is a pressing need for good examples or models

and they are available. It is also very difficult to differentiate between elite capture and elite domination,in particular, when we are trying to study and analyze the process of grassroots planning in our milieu.

Elite domination is inevitable no doubt in the decentralized system, as averred by Rao and Ibanez (2003),

but it should not be confused with strong leadership; the latter, of course, being a virtue. There can also be

‘manufactured’ participation with people from communities being made to participate as proxies for eliteinterests. Romeo (1999) presents another interesting (valid too, it must be said) argument and that is the

ill-preparedness and the cultural resistance of the deconcentrated (pre-devolution in the Pakistani context)

bureaucracy might have been among the decisive factors to allow the local elite to capture thedecentralization process. The important thing to note is that bureaucracies are resistant to change; many

within them enjoy and personally benefit from the old system and, therefore, are very resistant to adopting

more participatory ways of doing things. On the other hand, performance of the bureaucracy could alsohave been affected by the aspersions cast on it in Pakistan that it failed to exhibit a real commitment to the

decentralization process. Within this context, it must be said that participation, also, pre-supposes clarity

of roles in such a way that all actors know exactly as to who is supposed to do what. This, evidently, is

deficient in the case of the Punjab and would only come when participation is systematically applied as a practice.

Participation needs to be streamlined and regulated in a manner that ensures that ‘participation fatigue’ does not occur. This implies that while participatory planning is iterative in nature, it should not be made

repetitive in a manner that people stop participating willingly or turn up just to register their presence and

then leave quickly. There must be concerted efforts for removing cultural barriers that stand in the way of LG partnerships with citizen groups. The passive attitude of communities has to be addressed as well and

it is advisable that they should be involved right at the outset in developing a shared vision. A potential

(6) Monitoring Committees of the Local Council are required to be made functional under Section 138 of

the PLGO, 2001.

21



problem, however, with participatory planning is that it could yield plans that run counter to established,

larger economic and political interests like those of multi-national corporations or the military (Logolink,

2002).

Participation’s Problem with Sectoral Planning

As for the planning paradigm itself, sector-wide approach, in particular, tends to at the least overlook, if

not actually circumvent, the requirements of an inclusive, participatory decentralized planning. The

reason, primarily, is that it tends to be more technocratic and mechanistic with the sector EDO or theconcerned TO leading the process conveniently(7) at times by using consultants, thereby increasing the

chances of elite domination if not outright capture. Let us, very briefly, take the example of devolved

health sector planning. If it is done in accordance with the Planning Cycle, it tends to become a little

demanding for most of the stakeholders as sectoral needs assessment, collection and analysis of data and benchmarks, intra-sectoral prioritization (between the curative and preventive health care sides) need a

good deal of comprehension. Appendix- ‘C’ provides copy of a Health sector ASP template designed in

the PDSSP. It demands such an array of information that its very understanding and comprehension by

non-technocrats can get compromised. Making it simpler and stakeholder-friendly, on the other hand, isdifficult as the technical information sought is necessary for the desired ‘evidence-based planning’ effort.

So, obviously, while there isabsolutely no point in starting to think in terms of

doing away with the planning cycle framework,

it should still induce the policy-makers to think seriously about enhancing the level of understanding

and comprehension of the stakeholders through

capacity building and training efforts. The need

for capacity building is indicated by Romeo (1999)when he asserts that decentralized planning is

not a linear process and attaining quality and

effectiveness depends in a large measure on thegradual build-up of the capacity of local leaders

and administrators. And this build-up, in turn, is dependent upon the willingness of the national or the

provincial authorities to invest in a long-term effort for the creation of such local capacity. It goes withoutsaying that the LGPM’s development and enforcement requires to be followed up by extensive training

and capacity building programmes. What is important to remember is the fact that relatively weak

capacities in most of the communities allow for only ‘consultative’ participation at best. Table-2 gives a

summary of results based on a detailed analysis on ascertaining the element of needs assessment done inthe scheme mode in the ASPs developed by the LGs for the PDSSP in the Health and Water Supply &

Sanitation sectors. It clearly indicates a preference for the scheme mode of addressing the assessed needs

in both the sectors despite the fact that the PDSSP template did not ask for needs assessment to beundertaken in the form of schemes or projects. It was designed in a manner that expected needs to be

assessed (with costing) for the whole sector with respect to facilities, infrastructure, equipment and

manpower or personnel. This was done by most, but the proclivity of using scheme-based model of planning, at the same time, showed the typical mind-set explained briefly earlier.

(7) ASPs formulated in the EDO/TMO offices in the first year of the PDSSP were of reasonably good

quality but did not have the clear participatory element in them.

22

In a consultative workshop, a few EDOs, in

the light of their experiences, asserted that

stakeholder participation looked “good on

paper alone” and that whatever littleimprovement had been made in planning was

because of keeping the planning process

simple and “non-complicated”. Another view,

shared by the political leadership as well, was

that a lot of participation was actually

“tabahi” (nemesis) for planning.



Table-2 Percentage of ASPs giving Needs Assessment in the form of Schemes

Sector Number of ASPs

giving Needs

Assessment (also) in the

form of Schemes

Total Number

of LGs

Percentage

Health 29 35 DistrictGovernments

82.85

Water Supply

& Sanitation

26 34Programme

TMAs(8)

76.47

Source: PDSSP

Source: PDSSP

Participation, Inter-sectoral Prioritization and the Issue of Allocative Efficiency

Beyond the sectoral level planning in the Planning Cycle, political participation, if not exactly

participation of the civil society organizations (CSOs), becomes less arduous and demanding. Yet, the

stakeholders at the Problem Tree exercise forum, again, identified inter-sectoral prioritization as a weak link and worded half of the core problem as “absence of systematic inter-sectoral prioritization”. The

(8) PDSSP, in accordance with its Programme Framework requirements, deals with 34 TMAs, called the

Programme TMAs, all over the Punjab.

% age of Health and Water Supply & Sanitation Sector ASPs giving Needs

Assessment in the form of

Schemes.

H Health

Water Supply &

Sanitation76.47

82.85

0 20 40 60 80 100

Series1

23



word “systematic” is very significant here; it would imply that while inter-sectoral prioritization is less

intricate as a process, yet it is not done methodically and is open to misuse or abuse. And more so, it is

not reflective of the synergies among the various sectors. The bottom line is that competing prioritiescannot be ranked technocratically or politically alone as doing that would have the deleterious impact of

either exclusionary policies(9) taking root or elite capture getting further entrenched. Consequently, the

fundamental argument in favour of decentralized planning, that of Allocative Efficiency, gets thrown outof the window. With a view to redressing this problem, it is advisable to ensure that the Council Process

is strengthened and given its due democratic position. In addition to this, inter-sectoral coordination also

needs strengthening and a modicum of formalization. The LGPM precepts and techniques should help inthis regard.

Another aspect, linked to the afore-mentioned argument, which needs consideration, is that community-

based participatory approaches are not a panacea when they reinforce capture by local and traditionalelites who more often than not have a leading role in structuring the policies of local communities

(OECD, 2004). This aspect is related to the bigger problem of the capacity of local actors and the culture

of accountability and legal enforcement. In countries with low education levels combined with a history

of weak government accountability (Pakistan being one of them) participation of the poor is unlikely,making it more difficult to initiate a pro-poor decentralization process (OECD, 2004).

There is very little understanding of the concepts of participation and community-driven development, let

alone commitment to the two. NGOs, too, are unaccustomed and sometimes reluctant to work within the

formal public sector planning system. It would not be a sweeping statement, here, that whatever elementof ‘participation’ there is, it is devoid of the four essential factors enumerated by ADB (2000) for making

participation effective and result-oriented i.e. Effective Outreach, Equal Access, Significant Policy Impact

and Enactable Policy are lacking in different degrees. For this to be realized, a real and substantive

cultural change is required. The democratic ethos needs to undergo a change and egalitarian and inclusive processes need to be consciously built in; not an easy task by any means!

Participation and Pro-poor Targeting — Any Confluence?

As for the aspect of targeting poor households being more important than targeting communities is

concerned (Conning and Kevane, 2002), there is no empirical data available to establish this hypothesis but it goes without saying that targeting is ineffective and is severely constrained by the extent of

hidden local inequality. Effective and accurate targeting needs high-quality participation and inclusive

inputs which are not available in our midst. So, pro-poor initiatives planned or formulated by the LGs,

usually, get the form and appearance of wish-lists instead of becoming clear targeted interventions. And“encouraging ‘voice’” stays as the most important slogan, without tangibly getting translated into

something more concrete and solid. However, it is

believed that the MDG-focus of the PG shouldresult in a few positive outcomes. There is also

an emerging renewed emphasis on the

Punjab-Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper (P-PRSP). This is also required since it contained a

commitment to pro-poor expenditures over the

(9) Exclusionary policies are those which work against the efforts of introducing a semblance of inclusive,

as well as participatory, planning and development.

24

It was discovered during the processes of developing

the LGPM and the ASPs that a few LG officers and

the local political leaders were skeptical about the

utility of a sophisticated and modern planning

process being introduced. Some of them felt that

“such innovations” had failed in the past and there

was every reason to keep things “simple”! While

they believed that budget cycle was serious business,

a few of them were not sure about the need or utility

of the planning cycle. Some of them had serious

doubts about the capabilities and intentions of the

NGOs and the communities. More importantly, they

thought that targeting was a “technical thing” anddid not require stakeholder consultation.



medium-term. With the formulation of the

Medium-Term Development Framework (MTDF)

and its incorporation within the Provincial ADP,it is a positive sign that sectoral MTDF targets

have been set which are in line with the

pro-poor (10)

MDG-focus of the PG. This will alsoget help from harmonization of provincial and LG

planning and budgeting cycles which is done also

with a view to ensuring that local needs and priorities do feed back into the provincial budget (Odero, 2004). At this stage of our discourse, it is

pertinent to reiterate that decentralization policies are more successful when they are part of a broader

agenda of government reforms. In West Bengal (India), decentralization reforms were linked to

comprehensive and unusually successful land reforms and accrued in a good deal of benefits. So, policycoherence and understanding of background are imperative (OECD, 2004); as depicted in Figure-1 as

well.

What Von Braun and Grote (2002) said about the effectiveness of decentralization in general applies toPakistan and the Punjab as well. They came to the conclusion that decentralization serves the poor only

under specific conditions. Unchecked authority and inadequate incentives at the local level encourage“rent-seeking(11) behaviour” by government officials. Credible sources in the PG and outside believe that

corrupt and rent-seeking practices have touched an all-time high in the Punjab post-devolution. Add to

this the element of “local collusion” (Mosse, 2001) which is also present and the problem accentuates.All this could be attributed to the proverbial ‘teething problems’ but could also be viewed as a serious

systemic disorder. Poor human resource, at places, aggravates the predicament. Professional staff is often

reluctant to serve and live in remote areas. Staff that is available is often poorly trained, demotivated and

have low levels of capacity; something with which is borne out by, among others, Hardingham (2003).Again, the onus largely is on the PG to ensure that officers with greater integrity and better track record

get posted to important slots in the LGs. Coupled with this is the need for officers of the LGs to receive

extensive training in community mobilization and community participation. And this applies equally tothe F&P office as well as the sectoral offices(12). Step-by-step guidelines explaining participatory

processes should be made available to the LG practitioners. For starters, serious work should be

undertaken for participatory curriculum development and piloted in a few LGs for training purposes.

Value of Social Capital—Over-assessed and Over-stated?

The twin aspects of economic and social heterogeneity and inequality stand in the way of effective participation in Pakistan, like in other developing countries. There is no evidence yet that Social Capital

in the Punjab’s case has helped in restraining “individual opportunism.” It seems, instead, what the critics

keep arguing too, that politically motivated opportunism has got a new place under the sun. SocialCapital, in the sense of density of horizontal networks of civic engagement, exists and contributes too.

But, LG policy makers and planners are at a loss to understand its presence and its true potential. Many of

(10) Pro-poor interventions, more than anything else, need effective planning.(11)Rent Seeking implies the efforts by individuals and businesses to capture the income arising from price

distortions and physical controls caused by excessive government interventions such as licenses, quotas,

interest ceilings and exchange control (LGPM, 2006).(12) In general, however, F&P office needs greater focus and attention in terms of capacity building for

more effective planning.

25



the hands-on local practitioners are unable to mobilize community participation, even when the

community is not docile, because they have very little understanding of community mobilization and

community participation. The relevant example in this connection is that of the engineers of the PublicHealth Engineering Department working in the I&S Department of the Tehsil/Town Municipal

Administrations (TMAs) who are supposed to encourage and enlist the support of the community through

formation and activation of water-user committees but keep on struggling and mostly get bogged down inthis. So, once again the disconnect between the theory and practice is obvious and needs to be addressed

with all the seriousness it deserves. There is a pressing need for advocacy NGOs to communicate existing

framework and requirements of participatory planning at the local level where both information andunderstanding are limited.

The Degree of ‘Integration’

A fairly reasonable level of integration is there but to assess the exact level of integration (in both its

connotations) is difficult. Cross-sectoral linkages are identified but building of synergies over them is not

visible. Provincial policy priorities are given due importance. In an odd case or two, there have been

problems in this regard but those too were cases having political dimensions or undertones. TheIntegrated framework of the LGPM would give further strength to the process of integration itself. For

instance, the LGPM has ensured that planning cycle is linked up with the budgetary process as all the planning steps and stages are supported and substantiated by legal provisions from the Budget Rules,

2003. Integrated Planning avoids generation of a ‘shopping list’ or ‘wish list’ of schemes or projects. On

a note of caution, it is also important that the plans generated are not voluminous or bulky. Once theintegrated planning system is in place, there is reason enough to make availability of funds conditional to

implementation of the integrated planning process itself as well as the planning cycle. And in case of any

deviation from the plans, freezing of funds should be an option. Similarly, adherence to the planning

cycle should result in financial incentives for the LGs.

A two-way communications system for information is there by default and it needs nurturing in an

environment of mutual trust. For its part, the PG needs to check its propensity to issue directions andstipulations, which should ideally be kept to a minimum, as advised by Huque (1990).

The OSR issues also critically influence the planning paradigm (World Bank, 2004). LGs dependent ongrants and bail outs are never well-placed to carry out development planning with independence and in

accordance with their own priorities. Most of the LGs talk incessantly about a resource crunch but many,

paradoxically, under-utilize their development funds given in a fiscal year. This, again, primarily, is an

aspect relating to the issue of capacity or the lack of it to be more precise.

The Debate on Good Governance-Decentralized Planning Relationship

Good Governance is something that cannot simply be imbibed from international best practices or world-

renowned models of modern management and transplanted into our LG system. Institutionalizing such a

huge change is more than an onerous task. It takes both time and tremendous effort to achieve the ideal of Good (Local) Governance. It is, no doubt, a painstaking effort. But, what can be said unequivocally is the

fact that the (seven) main characteristics of Good Governance also constitute the chief elements of a

decentralized planning strategy. Figure – 3 holds good in almost every local situation. Pakistan’s

experience with devolution clearly and evidently suggests the academic viability of this hypothesis. While

26



Good Governance is the larger (over-arching) goal, decentralized planning with all these seven attributes

would contribute immensely to that hitherto elusive goal of Good Local Governance. And all these

features or attributes are more conveniently achievable at the LG level than at any other higher level of government. Participation, after our earlier discourse, is already an established factor; its existence is

patchy and a host of politico-cultural variables have hindered its spread. The academic reasons presented

for this hold true for the Punjab. Responsiveness is more convenient at the LG level as the LG, beingcloser to the people, is in a position to respond more promptly and effectively to local demands while

formulating plans. As for assessing the levels of responsiveness, there is a need for some in-depth,

indicators-based analysis. The M&E forms given in Volume-II of the LGPM can serve as a starting point.Judging the level of transparency in the official business and planning processes and impacting it is also

easier at the local level as the LG is far more accessible to the beneficiary of a service than any other level

of government. Official business conducted at distance, in the Federal or Provincial capital, is shrouded in

mystery and subject of speculation frequently. The LG, because of its proximity to the people and thecommunity, cannot hide behind business procedures. LGs are supposed to provide demand-based services

as efficiently as possible and have to do this in as cost-effective a manner as possible since resources are

limited. The fact there are wide-spread impressions of corruption and rent-seeking rife in the LGs shows

that the public proximity-transparency equation gets disrupted easily when a general systemic disorder of some magnitude exists. And equity concerns are to some extent taken care of by targeting and pro-poor

orientation of LG planning. Yet, elite capture or its milder variant, elite domination coupled withinaccurate targeting would tend to result in greater inequities.

Accountability, it must be said, is the make or break factor in decentralized governance. As strongly andcandidly put across by Porter and Onyach-Olaa (1999):

“We argue that the key is not participation, but creating an accountable, inclusive process

within the broader frame of political representation at all levels and stages in the service planning and delivery cycle.”

They insist that participation be regarded as part of a broader process of inclusive planning and allocation.Accountability is, then, the key to inclusive planning and allocation. Accountability of political leaders to

their constituencies is the main reason for popular participation and then there is the requirement of

accountability between the different tiers of government. Within the context of decentralized planning,accountability needs to be addressed in two different frameworks; ex ante and ex post. This would also

help us in ascertaining the situation with respect to two other characteristics- participation and

transparency. The PG, on its part, should put in place an effective system of outcome indicators-based

M&E for the LGs. The last characteristic of Gender Sensitivity or Mainstreaming is also more likely to beattainable at the local level since eliciting women participation in development planning at that level is

easier and more practical. Greater female political representation in LGs is a good beginning but it needs

to be built on. Female participation as stakeholders in needs assessment and women councilors’involvement in Local Council Monitoring Committees can result in tangible improvements. Another

important factor is having a set of gender sensitive indicators for planning to achieve the characteristics of

Good Governance. UNDP (2006) provides useful insight into developing a master list of pro-poor andgender sensitive indicators which should help in monitoring, measuring and evaluating planned

developmental interventions at various stages.

27



Conclusion

In summary, we can say that an effective and efficient system of planning and Good Governance aredemanding goals and need sustained efforts. Good and effective decentralized planning contributes to

moving towards the goal of Good Governance by targeting the latter’s seven characteristics (highlighted

in Figure 3). Pakistan’s experience with devolution suggests that none of the characteristics has unfoldeditself in its true colours to impact positively on Governance. Giving these attributes practical dimensions

is not easy but, it is believed, that the LGPM is a major step in that direction as formalizing and

institutionalizing planning processes and aligning them with a larger paradigm is very important. TheLGPM takes into account the paradigm change the world of development has witnessed and its precepts

are correctly aligned therefore. If the process-oriented and planning cycle-based system does not get

implemented in its entirety for any reason, decentralized planning in the Punjab would continue to move

in fits and starts, without much direction.

To reiterate, these seven aspects, put together, constitute a sound, principles-based system for

decentralized planning. The situation, on ground, shows clearly that there are systemic short-comings

therein. These short-comings will go away only with time as decentralization proceeds incrementally evenwhen it is implemented in one go. Capacity, innovation, creativity and discipline all come with time.

Skills required for a flexible, non-linear and essentially political process cannot be learnt quickly. Thistransformation will be realized gradually and over an extended period since it depends on structural

changes in the socio-political distribution of local power; a view also shared by Porter and Onyach-Olaa

(1999). We should remain mindful of the fact that such changes cannot be induced by improving local planning practices and institutions alone.

LUMS Article

Documents

Transcript of LUMS Article