Decentralised planning approach during XI th Plan in Kerala
Kerala’s unique experiment in democratic decentralization involved the transfer of
around a third of the plan funds to the Local SelfGoverning
Institutions during the ninth plan period. This was given a statutory basis by the second State Finance Commission. During the tenth plan when the fiscal problems faced by the state led to a curtailment in the plan outlay compared to what was envisaged, the proportion of plan funds transferred to the LSGIs also went down. Also the third State Finance Commission has fixed the
devolution in each year instead of the percentage allocation. In the eleventh plan which envisages a stepup of plan outlays, the proportion of plan funds transferred to the LSGIs
should also show an increase. What is more, starting with this plan, the district level plan
of the LSGIs will be fully worked out and shown separately along with the state plan document.
Decentralized planning, pioneered by Kerala, marks a point of departure for the country as a whole. It has made the composition of plan projects much more attuned to the wishes of the people. And even though it may not have done away with the level of corruption compared to the earlier years, it has had a favourable impact. These are major achievements. At the same time however serious lacunae remain in the functioning of decentralized planning. One is the failure of many LSGIs in the submission of proper accounts in time. The other is the tendency of the LSGIs to simply replicate small local projects. The vigour of decentralized planning should have by now led to submission of imaginative schemes by more than one LSGI to implement
LSGI. In such a case there would be a plethora of schemes, of a new orientation, all planned
from below. This unfortunately is yet to happen. One reason for this may be change in
recent years in the concept and norms on which local level planning was based ten years
ago. Without the patronage and sufficient transfer of personnel from the state, LSGIs and
their leadership were at a disadvantage. This state of affairs must change if democratic
decentralization is to live up to the original dream underlying its inception. At the administrative level, two issues in particular need to be addressed urgently. One relates to greater integration between the LSGIs and the institutions transferred to their jurisdiction. The current level of integration is woefully inadequate. The second concerns the link between the sectoral plans drawn up for the state as a whole and the district plans drawn up by the LSGIs of the type mentioned above. If this is to be achieved, there has to be an initiative from the State to prepare its plan at the district level in consonance and in consultation with the district plan of LSGIs and to ensure that its offices actively cooperate in the implementation of the integrated district plan of the LSGIs and the State.