Expert Comment

Case for rights-based planning

The recently released approach paper to the Eleventh Plan titled Towards Faster and More Inclusive Growth acknowledges that higher economic growth per se is insufficient to develop human capital or expand peoples’ capabilities. It forthrightly states that unless growth benefits all, it is unlikely to be sustainable. Hence the emphasis on inclusive growth.

This is a welcome admission especially since policymakers mesmerised by higher GDP growth rates of recent years have typically ignored the quality of growth. The Approach Paper identifies seven challenges to make economic growth more broad-based and inclusive: providing essential public services to the poor; regaining agricultural growth dynamism; improving manufacturing competitiveness; developing human resources; protecting the environment; improving rehabilitation and resettlement practices, and improving governance. No one can quarrel with these generic statements. But the real problem is not identification of what to do, but spelling out how to do it.

The number of people arguing that the periodic exercise of drafting five-year plans is an exercise in futility, is growing. Nothing changes. Little happens. By the Planning Commission’s own admission, India has fallen far short of attaining its Tenth Plan goals, nor is the country likely to achieve any of the Millennium Development Goals by 2015. The State has failed miserably to redeem its promises to the people. However such cynicism while understandable, is not reason enough to belittle the importance of planning. The challenge is to make the Eleventh Plan more effective than its predecessors.

Over the next five years, how can we translate the plan into a "new vision of growth that will be much more broad-based and inclusive" and catalyse faster reduction in poverty to bridge the many divides persisting in society? In my opinion, adopting a consistent rights-based approach is the only way to make growth inclusive. It brings many important values and outcomes in its wake.

First, the human rights approach establishes accountability. All partners and stakeholders are seen as duty-bearers with a set of responsibilities for collective public action. If a policy or intervention fails, it is not sufficient to find fault or pass the buck. In the rights approach, it becomes vital to understand why an intervention failed, who was responsible, and what action needs to be taken collectively to meet targets and commitments. This requires a new evaluation ethos not to be found in most assessments of the Planning Commission or government.

Second, a human rights perspective focuses on processes as well as outcomes underlying policy formulation and programme implementation. Processes ought to be participatory, transparent and respectful of the rights of the poor and voiceless in society. Again, little thought and effort go into process design to ensure good outcomes.

Third, the human rights approach has a strong element of protection built into it. This is important because protection requires special attention be paid to the rights and security of the poorest in society. Unfortunately, India’s human development database is so poor that assessing progress of socially disadvantaged groups is practically impossible. It has never been a priority.

Lastly, the human rights approach demands radical — rather than incremental — thinking about the manner in which programmes for the poor are conceptualised and implemented. The conventional approach has been to think incrementally. For example, a typical plan may aspire to move from immunisation coverage of say 50-100 percent over a five-year period by targeting a 10-percentage increase every year. A rights-based approach would require us to think differently. The first step would be to identify groups that constitute the left-out 50 percent without immunisation coverage. The next step would be to devise innovative, practical interventions to target these groups directly and immediately. Of course this isn’t easy. Accessing remote communities is expensive and difficult. New strategies and partnerships will be required. Estimates of resource requirements are likely to be different, but more realistic. But because it’s not rights-driven, the Approach Paper fails to propose anything new.

However there’s no need for pessimism. The Indian economy and society in general is experiencing a different and vibrant economic and political climate. Economic growth has never been so high. Pressure for greater decentralisation of power to state governments and panchayats is continuing. Great improvements in information technology and communications are beginning to influence public action. There is a new openness in government that is amenable to the contribution of NGOs and the private sector towards development.

In short, the preconditions for making a success of the Eleventh Plan couldn’t have been better. Now is the time for India to adopt a ‘rights’ approach to planning. This is the best option if the rhetoric of ending poverty, discrimination and inequality is to become reality over the next five years.