Test case for development

When the four-party alliance government took over the reins of government in October, 2001, immediately thereafter, the planning commission set in motion the process of preparing the draft sixth five-year plan. The commission wrote letters to all ministries and divisions to send draft proposals by April 30, 2002. Some ministries prepared drafts and sent the same to the commission. Everyone thought that the sixth five year plan would be finalised by June 30, 2002. Nothing happened because availability of donor funds were tied to finalising the poverty reduction strategy paper (PRSP) in light of millennium development goals (MDG). The government set about the task of preparing PRSP. In the process, the finalisation of the sixth five year plan was put on hold.

PRSP and TYRP
An interim PRSP was prepared in April 2002 and it was finalised in March 2003. This document is titled: A national strategy for economic growth, poverty reduction and social development. PRSP avers that it will "form the core of the TYRP providing the basis of annual budget which will help maintain consistency between the development strategy and the Plan, on the one hand, and between the Plan and the Annual Development Programme (ADP), on the other".

Tap here to add The Daily Star as a trusted source

Why decide now?
The budget speech of the finance and planning minister of June 2003 also highlights government's commitment to what it calls "Three-year National Strategy for Economic Growth, Poverty Reduction and Social Development'. The budget (2003-2004) as a policy as well as an operational document was approved. The question is why decide on TYRP now?

Past experience
The historical antecedents of TYRP can be traced to 1990. Available evidence indicates that in November, 1990 a three-year (FY 91-93) rolling programme was prepared by the planning commission. This was done reportedly to satisfy the wishes of the development partners. It was then called a programme and not plan. Now it is called a plan in PRSP.

In December 1992, the planning commission took the initiative to publish what it called "Three Year Rolling Investment Programme" covering FY 1993-95. This document asserts that "since fiscal 91, Bangladesh Government have been formulating Three Year Rolling Investment Programme (TYRIP) as a vehicle for reflecting short term development programmes and projects in the public sector". It further asserts that TYRIP "has been found to be useful for forward planning by the GOB and by the development partners as well". The point that has been left unsaid is that in 1990, the TYRP was adopted for two reasons. First, as part of the pressures from the development partners. Second, due to non-availability of Taka funds for which pruning of projects had to be undertaken.

What is the difference between then and now?
There is hardly any difference between TYRIP of earlynineties and the one to be prepared now. No TYRP has yet been prepared. Since October 2001, all that have been prepared are ADPs which are not for three but of one year's duration. Previous TYRIPs were believed to be donor-driven. The present one is also the same as it is linked to PRSP.

Forced choices for plans of short duration
Available evidence indicates that after the first five-year plan was launched in 1973, its implementation was badly affected by flood and drought in 1974 and change of government in 1975. There was a large number of spill over projects, which needed to be implemented. It was thought that these could be implemented in course of next two years (1978-80). The basic rationale of the Two-Year Plan was to implement as many spill over projects as possible during this two-year period so that the second five year plan could be formulated later within the framework of a twenty-year perspective plan (1980-2000). It was based on this understanding that the second and the third five-year plans followed.

It was in usual sequence that fourth five-year plan was to be launched in July 1990. The draft was also finalised and circulated. However, as explained in the TYRIP document of 1992 for both domestic and global events, it was not considered appropriate for the caretaker government either to approve the draft formulated by the previous regime or prepare a new one. What has been left unsaid is that five-year plan being a major document on economic and social development policies, caretaker government decided not to get involved in the task.

After the elected government was installed in 1991, disruptions were caused by a devastating cyclone so that, as suggested by the development partners, the government opted for TYRIPs.

Examples of South Asian region
It is believed that other countries of South Asia have not discarded the time tested mechanism of five-year plans. These countries are recipients of foreign aid. They have also prepared PRSP. Why Bangladesh is opting for TYRP then?

The rationale of TYRIP and TYRP
As stated earlier, TYRIP was claimed to be a vehicle for reflecting short term development progrmmes and projects in the public sector. It was found to be useful for 'forward planning'. It can also be argued that all plan documents are useful for forward or advance planning. If TYRIP was for short term planning of programmes and projects in 1990's, how come TYRP of 2004 is for medium term planning, the duration being the same? There is evidently a lack of clarity in perceptions then and now.

Confusing approach
This lack of clarity is further compounded by the fact that the time-frame for achieving the MDG is 2015, which is a longer time horizon than TYRP. It is possible, however, to argue that by its very name, TYRP will be a rolling process. Whether 'a rolling stone will gather moss' is another issue but in the development domain, it may well create uncertainties.

Is forward planning best served by TYRP?
The documents of TYRIPs of the early nineties clearly show a list of projects of a three-year duration. The programmed activities of the projects thus has to last for three years. When it comes to the implementation state, the mechanism is ADP, which is of one year's duration. Neither TYRPs nor five-year plans are approved by the parliament. These are approved by the national economic council (NEC) on the recommendations of the ECNEC. In contrast, ADP being development budget, is approved by the parliament.

In explaining the mechanism of TYRP, the Finance Minister told the journalists that indicative figures of allocation of funds would be provided for each sectoral/sub-sectoral ministries/divisions. Under five-year plan mechanism, similar indicative sectoral outlay is provided although not specific to ministries or divisions. However, it is not difficult to have an idea of ministry specific allocations.

Resistance from senior officials
Reports have it that in course of the meeting held to introduce or reintroduce TYRP, some senior officials had expressed reservations to discard five year plans. Their reservations or perceived resistance in this regard has been explained by an official of the planning commission. In his view, the seniors favour five-year plans as they are accustomed to that kind of planning process. This may not be the whole truth. Many of the senior officials had gone through the process of three-year plans if not the two-year plan. In the view of many, if two or three-year plans in the past were forced choices, the present one is also one such forced choice. By the time TYRP is formulated, the next budget will come leaving hardly two years to implement the programmes and projects in TYRP. It will, however, roll in the shape of ADP.

Not of any practical significance
Knowledgeable persons believe that the whole ball game of TYRP will not have any practical significance in terms of improving the planning process. At the end of the day, whether you call it TYRP or five-year plan, it is the resource constraint and the uncertainties associated with internal and external resource mobilisation that will determine the practical outcome of any method of planning.

If the internal resource mobilisation is not sufficient to reach a level of say 80 percent of the funds required for development, Bangladesh would continue to remain a test case of development for the aid-giving agencies. One missing link in the planning process is the so-called perspective plan. Does it exist?

A M M Shawkat Ali, PhD is ex-Secretary, Ministry of Agriculture.