India cannot transform with new ideas without having a paradigm of planning for development. In this context, discuss the relevance of NITI Aayog. (200 words)
Refer – The Hindu
Enrich the answer from other sources, if the question demands.
IAS Parliament 6 years
KEY POINTS
· The GoI replaced the Planning Commission with NITI Aayog as a means to better serve the needs and aspirations of the people of India.
· The NITI Aayog was formed to bring fresh ideas to the government. Its first mandate is to act as a think tank.
· It can be visualised as a funnel through which new and innovative ideas come from all possible sources and flow into the government system for implementation.
· By collecting fresh ideas and sharing them with the governments, it pushes frontiers and ensures that there is no inactivity, which is quite natural in any organisation or institution.
· But, India cannot transform with new ideas without having a paradigm of planning for development.
· India requires planning that addresses social justice, reduces regional and gender inequalities, and ensures environmental sustainability.
· The implication for a complex country like India that became an industrial economy late is that planning would, and should, remain a central function of the state in the medium run.
Global experience
· The Chinese state ensured that after its market-oriented economic reforms began, its State Planning Commission became more powerful in the state apparatus.
· The result was growth and poverty reduction on a scale unprecedented in history.
· Similarly, in all East Asian and Southeast Asian countries, industrial policy was planned and executed as part of five-year or longer-term plans.
· It was precisely because these countries had planning institutions which went hand in hand with industrial policy that they managed to steer policies through turbulent times in the global economy, thus sustaining growth.
Suggestions
· If NITI Aayog is to implement such a strategy within a planning framework in India, two major changes in governance structures are needed.
1. Planning will have to become more decentralised, but within a five-year plan framework.
2. Bureaucracy will need to change from generalist to specialist, and its accountability will have to be based on outcomes achieved, not inputs or funds spent.
