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 an activity 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 and Good 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 thoughtprovoking to delve into assessing the actual capability exhibited so far by those involved in planning as well 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 appropriate and 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)

2)

UNDP has defined Planning as the deliberate social or organizational activity of developing a strategy of future action to achieve 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 can have 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 peoples articulated 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. DECENTRALIZATION

OBJECTIVE S
Willingness & Ability Transparent & Participative Process Elite Capture Policy Coherence

Country Setting Social Institutions Capacity Political Power Structure

IMPACT

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

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 and correcting 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, and improved 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 just casting 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 full advantage 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 and implementation 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 improve targeting 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.

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.
Coady (2001) informs that the well-known anti-poverty The same argument is continued further by programme Progresa in Mexico selected poor Conning and Kevane (2002) as they found out households on the basis of census data without any that although community groups are likely community involvement. It was more effective at to possess better information on who the targeting poor communities than at targeting poor poor are, only communities that have relatively households within them. egalitarian preferences, relatively open and Argentinas Trabajar 2 Programme (introduced in 1997) transparent systems of decision-making, or with World Bank support reflected successful targeting clear rules for determining who is poor will because Programme participants were overwhelmingly tend to be more effective than outside drawn from among the poorest households. agencies 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 Banks Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper Sourcebook (Dongier and others, 2001) views community development as a mechanism for: Voice refers to the range of enhancing sustainability measuressuch as complaint, organized protest, lobbying and improving efficiency and effectiveness participation in decision-making and allowing poverty reduction efforts to be taken to scale product deliveryused by civil making development more inclusive society actors to put pressure on empowering poor people by encouraging Voice service providers to demand service building social capital outcomes (Goetz and Gaventa, strengthening governance 2001). 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

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 multidimensional 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 DECENTRALIZATION

See Appendix A for detailed run-down on Benefits of Decentralization

POLITICAL IMPACT

ECONOMIC IMPACT

SOCIAL IMPACT

PARTICIPATION

STABILITY

EFFICIENCY

TARGETING

EQUITY

REMOVAL OF VOICELESSNESS

DECREASING VULNERABILITY

EFFICIENT & EQUITABLE ACCESS TO SERVICES

POVERTY REDUCTION
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

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 public goods 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 52 USAID 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 nave understanding of the concepts of community, participation and Social Capital can obscure differences that critically influence outcomes (Mansuri and Rao, 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 in more 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 been observed 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 probability of 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 just token 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 an enactable government programme, such as the distribution of funds for projects.

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 sustain social 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 horizontal networks 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).
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 with lower stocks of Social Capital. (ADB, 2000).

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 public services 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 physical capital. 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 an enabling 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 being set, 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 cyclical chain 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 bottomup is not enough.

Planning Should Be Integrated Equally important is to have a system of integrated development planning. Integrated Development Planning 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:
Integrated Development Planning has two connotations; one that of a system that yields cross-sectoral linkages and synergies; and secondly that which It helps the LG in allocating limited resources in facilitates the integration of provincial the most effective and efficient manner policy priorities into local decisions and It prevents losses occurring due to different actions. sectors working at cross-purpose South Africas Integrated Development It makes it more likely that development would Planning (IDP) has five distinct phases: be sustainable in the long-term Analysis, Strategies, Projects, Integration iv. It assists councilors and officials to be effective Approval. It helped restructure a and leaders and managers of development in their system that had collapsed under the area, as it gives a holistic picture and control bourgeoning burden of apartheid.

ii. iii.

over 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 ensure that 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 governmental level c) Matching planning functions with adequate allocation of financial resources at each level d) Establishing a suitable planning organization at each level e) 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 exchange h) 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

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 funding sources The need for LGs to generate substantial own-source revenues (OSR) The need to have a consistent, predictable and transparent system for shared taxes and inter-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 main characteristics:

1. 2. 3.

Good Participation- organized involvement of empowered stakeholders Governance is epitomized open and Responsiveness- empathic, enabling and facilitating attitude by predictable, enlightened policy-making, a Transparency- information-sharing, open practices, clear decisionbureaucracy imbued with
professional ethos acting in furtherance of the public good, the rule of law, transparent processes, 9 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 resources and people 6. Accountability- holding both local political leadership and the local bureaucracy answerable for their actions and decisions 7. Gender Sensitivity and Mainstreaming- intended to increase womens 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

GOOD GOVERNANCE DECENTRALIZED PLANNING

Pa rt ici pa tio n

Responsiveness
er / end tivity ming G si a Sen instre a M

Tra nsp are ncy

Efficiency

Equity

ity bil nta cou Ac

10

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 the Characteristics 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 as the 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 ACCOUNTABILITY

Figure- 4

Policy Makers/ Planners

Decentralized Planning

LG Providers Poor People

Source: Amended and Developed from: Nazmul Chaudhry and Shantayanan Devarajan (2006)

11

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.
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 is to draft comprehensive multi-sector development plans. At least one-fourth of the total membership of the LDCs has to be from the NGOs (POsPeoples 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 local government and civil society interaction, and to strengthen participatory approaches such as Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA) in barangay development planning (Goetz and Gaventa, 2001).

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 equationthat is, going beyond civil society or state-based approaches, to focus on 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

Capacity Requirements
Category Local Government Capacity Requirement To be responsive To build capacity in human, financial, capital and natural resource management To build capacity in planning and planning techniques 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 Social Capital of Civil Society To understand the language of Civil Society (IDS, 2003) To understand the dynamics of Public Private Partnerships (PPP) 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

Civil Society

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 debate concerning 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 Pakistans experience (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

PUNJABS EXPERIENCE OF DECENTRALIZED PLANNING The Devolution of Power plan that was unfolded in 2001 necessitated a massive systemic change in the governance 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. It was 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 and Services (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 these two 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 institutionalizing improvements 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 starts from 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 planning edifice 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 that are 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 and robustness. 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 and developed 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 predominantly 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 those expressed 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. the ASPs. 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 level 2. 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 prioritization 5. 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 and the 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 not happening 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.

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

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 an inclusive 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 prioritization exercise 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 more to 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 immense importance 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 where competing 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

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 at the 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 indicatorbased and the LGPM (2006) provides a useful list of sectoral indicators that are simple, measurable and realistic. 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 itu a tio n A n a ly s is

V i s io n S t a t e m e n t S t a k e h o ld e r C o n s u l t a t i o n R es o u rc e A s s e s s m e n t

Needs Assessm ent S e c to r a l A s s e s s m e n t I n t r a S e c t o r a l P r i o r i t iz a t i o n C o u n c il G u i d e l in e s D r a ft S e c to r a l P la n B u d g e ta r y A llo c a tio n I n t e r S e c t o r a l P r i o r i t iz a t i o n

D r a ft In te g r a te d C o u n c il A p p r o v a l D e v P l a n DDC P o li c y G u i d e l i n e s

ADP

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 and draw 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. This would 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 take over. 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. There is 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 LG system 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 the The ladder of participation has 3 steps: LGPM gets implemented, it would be very important Consultation (asking and listening directly), to analyze the state of affairs in more precise terms and Presence and Representation (more come up with a strategy to monitor the performance intensive, regular engagement through in terms of participation. In practical terms, if participation institutionalized mechanisms) and Influence has to take roots, there must be implementation of LG (visible when governments begin to act on projects through modalities that maximize the involvement demands coming from below). 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 teams priorities get upset. There is considerable evidence of this problem in the Punjab as well which 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 and transparent 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

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 in Volume- 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 on a 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 participative elements 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 not hesitate 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 elite interests. 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 the decentralization 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 also have 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). Participations 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 the concerned 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, is difficult as the technical information sought is necessary for the desired evidence-based planning effort. So, obviously, while there is In a consultative workshop, a few EDOs, in absolutely no point in starting to think in terms of the light of their experiences, asserted that doing away with the planning cycle framework, stakeholder participation looked good on it should still induce the policy-makers to think paper alone and that whatever little seriously about enhancing the level of understanding improvement had been made in planning was and comprehension of the stakeholders through because of keeping the planning process capacity building and training efforts. The need simple and non-complicated. Another view, for capacity building is indicated by Romeo (1999) shared by the political leadership as well, was when he asserts that decentralized planning is that a lot of participation was actually not a linear process and attaining quality and tabahi (nemesis) for planning. effectiveness depends in a large measure on the gradual 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 without saying that the LGPMs 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 in the 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 be undertaken 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

Table-2
Sector

Percentage of ASPs giving Needs Assessment in the form of Schemes Total Number of LGs 35 District Governments 34 Programme TMAs(8) Percentage

Health Water Supply & Sanitation

Number of ASPs giving Needs Assessment (also) in the form of Schemes 29 26

82.85 76.47 Source: PDSSP

82.85

Health

76.47 0

Water Supply & Sanitation

20 40 60 80 100 % age of Health and Water Supply & Sanitation Sector ASPs giving Needs Assessment in the form of Series1 Schemes.

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.

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 priorities cannot 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 out of 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 in this regard. Another aspect, linked to the afore-mentioned argument, which needs consideration, is that communitybased participatory approaches are not a panacea when they reinforce capture by local and traditional elites 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 element of 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 should It was discovered during the processes of developing the LGPM and the ASPs that a few LG officers and result in a few positive outcomes. There is also the local political leaders were skeptical about the an emerging renewed emphasis on the utility of a sophisticated and modern planning Punjab-Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper process being introduced. Some of them felt that (P-PRSP). This is also required since it contained a such innovations had failed in the past and there commitment to pro-poor expenditures over the
was every reason to keep things simple! While they believed that budget cycle was serious business, (9) Exclusionary policies are those which work against a few of them were not a semblance the need or utility the efforts of introducing sure about of inclusive, as well as participatory, planning and development. of the planning cycle. Some of them had serious doubts about the capabilities and intentions of the NGOs and the communities. More importantly, they 24 thought that targeting was a technical thing and did 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 also get 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, policy coherence 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 to Pakistan 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 to the 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 CapitalOver-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 Punjabs 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. Social Capital, 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) (11)

Pro-poor interventions, more than anything else, need effective planning. 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 Public Health 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 in this. 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 and understanding 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. The Integrated 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 the integrated 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 and stipulations, 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 on grants 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 worldrenowned 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. Pakistans 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, being closer 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 the community, 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 with inaccurate targeting would tend to result in greater inequities. Accountability, it must be said, is the make or break factor in decentralized governance. As strongly and candidly 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 be attainable 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 and gender 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 are demanding goals and need sustained efforts. Good and effective decentralized planning contributes to moving towards the goal of Good Governance by targeting the latters seven characteristics (highlighted in Figure 3). Pakistans experience with devolution suggests that none of the characteristics has unfolded itself 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. The LGPM 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 even when 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. This transformation 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.

28