Pointless controversy

A minor storm seems to be building up over the Planning Commission's decision to include representatives of the World Bank and other international bodies, including the consulting firm McKinsey, in the business of reviewing the progress of the 10th 5-year Plan.

Why the idea should be controversial is a mystery because the representatives of these institutions have been part of various informal consultative processes for decades, with extensive policy discussions being the norm in every ministry that receives multilateral aid.

All that the Planning Commission has done is to include three or four representatives of these bodies on some 18 or 20 consultative committees, each of which will have some 20 members drawn from a variety of fields, including sundry non-governmental organisations. These committees will not therefore have any uniformity of views, and something useful may emerge from airing different perspectives.

If three or four out of a total of nearly 400 experts being consulted are from the World Bank or McKinsey, nothing earthshaking has happened. Indeed, the World Bank and McKinsey will have to express their opinion in open session with all the other members present; in that sense, the process has now been made more structured and transparent and this should have been welcomed instead of criticised.

And if anyone is concerned about the Official Secrets Act, there are no great secrets in the Planning Commission, for one. For another, there are numerous non-governmental people on the same consultative committees, and they too have not taken any oath of secrecy.

Nor can the argument be that the Planning Commission is not in need of external advice, because the government has no monopoly on wisdom. Indeed, it has long been the argument that the Commission had become a dumping ground for unwanted bureaucrats and second-rate subject experts, and that the Commission should involve larger numbers of external experts in its deliberations.

This is what is now being done, and takes the Commission back to its heyday in the 1950s and 1960s, when experts (including leading international economists like Friedman, Kaldor and Rosenstein-Rodan) of every hue were in and out of the Commission and taking part in all manner of consultative and policy exercises.

It is also well known that the World Bank is deeply involved in sectoral lending, for everything from power to transport, and from education to health care, and has people who have specialised in these key infrastructural and social development areas, while also enjoying the benefit of multi-country experience.

Listening to them before making up one's mind on what should best be done can only help matters; the final decision is in any case going to be the Commission's, and this body presumably is not going to be swayed by one or two voices out of the hundreds that will be heard.

Likewise, McKinsey has done a fair amount of pro bono work in areas like agri-business and retailing, and has also done some macro-forecasting. One of its reports was presented formally to the then Prime Minister, Mr Vajpayee.

As a leading consulting firm, McKinsey has some knowledge of management issues and the best ways of translating intention into policy and practice. And since the history of Indian planning has been of intentions not being translated into effective programmes, some management expertise is just what the doctor ordered.