NITI Aaayog Cuts No of Divisions to 15

Yogima Sharma

New Delhi





NITI Aayog has halved the number of divisions in the organisation to 15, a move aimed at rationalisation that comes after the premier think tank reduced its staff by 60%.An official notification dated October 6 shows that the Aayog will have only 15 verticals created by merging some of the less important divisions, doing away with those where there was little work and renaming others to reflect the focus areas of the Narendra Modi-led NDA government.
The Aayog had last month done away with a large number of employees of its predecessor, the decades old Planning Commission, to bring down the overall strength of the institution to less than 500.
Most of the officials that ET spoke to said on the condition of anonymity that the institution is only doing the assignments given to it from time to time mostly by the Prime Minister's Office.
Since there is no day-today work assigned to the Aayog, there is no need of dedicated divisions for all sectors, they said.
“The work area of the Aayog is vast but there is no concrete routine work that we are required to per form. So far we have been only assisting the subgroups and the task forces on some subjects and once that gets over there will not be much work,“ said a senior government official at the Aayog, requesting not to be identified.
As per the notification, a dedicated division of poverty estimation and data analysis has been set up while skill development has been added to education and labour, which have been merged into one division.
Likewise, infrastructure division, which was the most popular division during the previous government's tenure, has been merged with transport and tourism while land resources has been added to agriculture division.
Citing the example of the three sub-groups set up under the governing council of the Aayog, another official said that since work has been completed on all of them the officials concerned are waiting to get some fresh assignment to be delivered in a timebound manner.
A third official of the Aayog said that despite the focus on cooperative federalism most of the states and almost all central ministries are not heeding the advice of the Aayog, making it difficult for the institution to deliver on time.

Source: Economic Times, 14-10-2015

NITI Aayog OKs Revamp of Indira Awaas Yojana

Yogima Sharma

New Delhi:





Plan to build houses for 2.95 crore people over the next 7 years . 2.5 lakh crore at `

The government's think tank NITI Aayog has approved a proposal to restructure the decades old rural housing scheme Indira Awaas Yojana to provide houses to 2.95 crore people over the next seven years at an estimated cost of ` . 2.5 lakh crore, drawn entirely from the Union budget. This paves the way for achieving the Narendra Modi government's goal of providing housing for all by 2022, officials said.The nod to the proposal, approved by the project appraisal and management division under NITI Aayog, is likely to be followed by renaming of the scheme to The National Mission for Rural Housing, officials said.
ET had in July last year reported that the rural development ministry was reworking the scheme to align it with the Modi-led NDA government's vision.
The scheme, which has also been approved by the expenditure finance committee, will now go to the Cabinet for consideration.“The scheme is likely to be approved in two months at most, after which the ministry will declare the list of eligible beneficiaries under the scheme based on the Socio Economic and Caste Census,“ said a senior government official.
According to the official, who did not wish to be identified, the scheme will be funded entirely through the Union budget and the ministry is in the process of mak ing systematic changes to ensure that the money reaches the benefi ciaries on time.
The centrally sponsored Indira Awaas Yojana was funded by the Centre and states in 75:25 propor tion in the plains while the cost was shared in 90:10 proportion in hilly or difficult terrains.
The Cabinet in June gave the go ahead to the National Mission for Urban Housing and once the rural scheme is approved, the pro gramme will be implemented on a mission mode to achieve the robust targets. Launched in 1985, Indira Awaas Yojana has provided houses to 3.25 crore rural families at a cumulative expenditure of about ` . 1 lakh crore.The proposed changes include increasing the size of the houses from 20 sq mt to 25 sq mt, making toilets a mandatory part of the house, increasing the cost per unit from . 1.2 lakh per unit and do. 75,000 to ` ` ing away with the standard block design of houses under the previous scheme. “Under the new scheme the ministry has proposed to encourage local design for houses suiting the geographical conditions and made out of locally available material in place of standard block houses under IAY,“ the official said. The government plans to set up an autonomous registered society to implement and monitor the scheme, and tap into institutional or sovereign overseas funding to implement the project in mission mode.

Source: Economic Times, 29-09-2015

NITI Aayog to woo talent with good pay perks

New Delhi PTI





To attract talent, the Centre's think-tank NITI Aayog has proposed paying over 30% more than the pay offered by the erstwhile Planning Commission to young professionals on its payrolls.NITI Aayog has replaced the decades-old Planning Commission and is being seen as one of the most ambitious projects of the Modi government to overhaul governance and policymaking practices in the country .
Inviting applications from `young professionals', NITI Aayog has now offered salaries in the range of Rs 40,00070,000 per month, along with an annual increment of Rs 5,000 in the monthly pay.
This is more than 30% higher than the pay package of Rs 31,500-51,500 offered by the Planning Commission.
Besides, NITI Aayog has also brought down the age limit for such positions to 32 years, from 40 years prescribed earlier by the Planning Commission.

Slimming Down

Reduce Centrally sponsored schemes, specify their objectives and timelines.

-A Niti Aayog taskforce chaired by Madhya Pradesh Chief Minister Shivraj Singh Chouhan has apparently recommended that 25 per cent of the funds under Centrally sponsored schemes (CSS) be made available to states as untied monies. If this recommendation is accepted, states would receive a total of Rs 42,000 crore during 2015-16 itself. This recommendation should be viewed in the context of the fairly substantial changes proposed to the CSS policy framework, as well as the 14th Finance Commission (FFC) recommendations on devolution of tax revenues. At this juncture, states have taken stock of what they have lost on the swings and gained on the roundabouts. Although every Central finance commission makes recommendations that are perceived by some states as being less beneficial, the recommendations of the FFC have resulted in a solid 10 percentage point increase in devolution of divisible tax revenues. This is untied money. States could put this money to good use in their own priority areas — be it health, education or early childhood care. It is for this reason that many Central ministries witnessed a sharp decline in CSS allocations. To some extent, allocations have now been raised from the original 2015-16 budget level. The taskforce’s reported recommendation that programmes on health, education and employment be implemented by all states is welcome. It is also appropriate to reduce the number of CSS to 25-30, as against the current 67. This approach would have a desirable impact on the states’ ability to tailor their development efforts to their requirements. Reduction in the number of CSS would also enable better fiscal management in the states. As far as untied funds to the extent of 25 per cent go, the taskforce should indicate broadly how this money can be spent. According to some reports, the earlier dispensation of 10 per cent as untied money left many states wondering what to do. The list of 25-30 CSS would also need to be drawn up carefully, so that crucial areas are not left out. A good starting point is to look at the problems that stare us in the face: Rural poverty and unemployment and the resultant lack of income and livelihood security; productivity and drought-proofing of agriculture; lack of access to affordable and sustained healthcare; problems of both quality and access to elementary and secondary education, including the lack of trained teachers, high absenteeism, reluctance to transfer funds, functionaries and powers to enforce accountability to panchayats and lack of schoolrooms and physical infrastructure. Issues relating to malnutrition need serious attention and intervention. At the other end of the spectrum are problems relating to internal security and the quality of policing. Drawing up this list of 25-30 CSS is as important as the issue of their funding. They need to be adequately funded — Central government funding, state government funds and local government resources have to be factored in. Inadequate funding or midstream lack of clarity will result in idling or misutilisation of available monies. Another problem that has led to poor implementation of even flagship schemes is the hiring of personnel. Many schemes provide for hiring staff on a contractual basis. But many states have hesitated to do so as they are afraid of being saddled with manpower costs if the Centre decides to discontinue the scheme. What states most dislike is the frequent introduction of schemes and their abrupt cessation. This taskforce is a good forum to work out the list of CSS, the precise outcomes these should attain, the period of time in which this should happen and lastly, a solid system of account-keeping and early audit. Impact-assessment by independent agencies is already part of the system and could be further institutionalised. If the Centre and states can work together to prepare a roadmap, fully involving local governments and factoring in contributions of corporations, India could hope to provide good education, health, nutrition, skill development and jobs, as well as a secure environment in which its citizens can flourish. The writer is a former member secretary, Planning Commission. -

For cooperative federalism

The views expressed by Chief Ministers at the maiden meeting of NITI Aayog’s Governing Council last weekend, demanding greater freedom to frame their own development plans, vindicate the thought process that went into conceiving the body that has replaced the 60-year-old Planning Commission. Promoting cooperative federalism and giving States greater freedom in designing their development plans were two of the key objectives behind the setting up of the NITI Aayog. Chief Ministers, cutting across party lines, demanded that they be given such freedom, with Kerala Chief Minister Oommen Chandy pointing out that schemes such as Jan Dhan Yojana or Beti Bachao were of little relevance to his State which already boasted of superior metrics in both fields. Similarly, Rajasthan’s Chief Minister demanded that the number of Centrally-sponsored schemes be reduced to 10, while Haryana Chief Minister Manohar Lal Khattar wanted such schemes to be dispensed with altogether. If these demands prove something, it is this: there can be no one-size-fits-all approach to development in a diverse country like India. And no longer can development be orchestrated from the Centre alone; it is as much the preserve, prerogative and responsibility of the States. Thus, the NITI Aayog will stop with making recommendations; implementing them will be the responsibility of the States.

An important decision made at the meeting was to constitute a subgroup of Chief Ministers who would study the 66 Centrally-sponsored schemes to assess whether they should be continued, transferred to States or dropped altogether. While doing this assessment, care should be taken to ensure that socially important inclusion schemes are not either downgraded or dropped. There could be examples of schemes that may not have national relevance but have resonance with particular States; these should be identified with due care and alterations should be made only after a consensus is evolved in the Governing Council. In this regard, it is encouraging to note that inclusion of the vulnerable and marginalised sections and redressing identity-based inequalities are at the top of the seven guiding principles for the Aayog as laid out in an e-book published by the government. This should also reassure those who see the body’s mandate as promoting a free-market economy which could come at the cost of the less-developed States. Of course, the true test of this government’s commitment to inclusive policies will come in the Budget’s allocations to social sector schemes. All the lofty ideals of the Aayog will come to naught if the government, forced by fiscal considerations, decides to set aside lower sums for social spending.

Keywords: NITI Aayog Governing Council meeting, Modi government, Planning Commission successor

Unanswered questions

The key takeaway from the meeting that Prime Minister Narendra Modi had with State Chief Ministers to discuss the contours of the new body that will replace the Planning Commission was this: that power and planning should be decentralised and States should be empowered to plan, design and manage schemes based on what fits them best. This is a point on which consensus appeared to have emerged even as the Chief Ministers diverged along party lines over whether the existing body should be revamped or be replaced with a new one. The decision to offer a greater say to States in planning and managing schemes seems to have been born from Mr. Modi’s own experience as Gujarat Chief Minister when he made presentations to the Plan panel and felt the need for a better platform to articulate the views of his State. In line with this consensus, Chief Ministers would be included in the body on a rotational basis to give it a federal character. Mr. Modi’s remark on ‘bottom to top’ planning is a comment on how New Delhi cannot tailor the development plans of States as each State has unique needs and problems. A second point that appeared to have gained recognition was that expertise and knowledge resided as much outside the government, if not more so, and that these needed to be tapped by roping in the private sector into the new body.

There is, however, not much clarity on the traditional role of the Planning Commission, including its job of sitting in on expenditure committee meetings. Will it mean the end of the planning process itself? If not, who will formulate and monitor the annual and five year plans as the Commission was doing? Sunday’s meeting also failed to tackle the issue of who will allocate and transfer funds from the Centre to the States for Centrally-sponsored and Plan schemes, with Finance Minister Arun Jaitley stating that further consultations would be held on this issue. The Planning Commission has also been a veritable think-tank producing studies and policy reports that different Ministries relied upon in their decision-making. The body was staffed largely by academics and bureaucrats at the top, and an attempt to enlist expertise from the business sector did not go very far. If the new body has to be a public-private think-tank, as the Prime Minister seems to want it to be, it should have the ability to attract top-drawer talent and also network with research bodies and universities in India and abroad. Interestingly, unlike the existing Planning Commission, the new body is likely to have a statutory role, giving greater weight to its functions and powers. At this stage, many unanswered questions remain, and a great deal more of conceptual thought needs to go into the making of the new body that is to come into being by the end of January.

Dec 09 2014 : The Economic Times (Delhi)

How to Revamp the Planning Commission





Let the Centre stop borrowing for the states

The Planning Commission itself has been working on changing with the times, for some time. It has been pruning and merging centrally-sponsored schemes, focusing on scenario building and incentive funds for good economic conduct, such as in the power sector, rather than on sectoral allocations. But all this has not fundamentally changed the nature of the commission as an overlord of central funds whom the states resent but must heed if they want those funds. The way to radically overhaul the Planning Commission is for central funds to devolve to the states almost entirely through the Finance Commission mechanism, instead of half the funds going through the Planning Commission as of now.In the kind of federal autonomy that the states seem to desire, there is no room for the Centre to borrow just for lending on to the states. The states have their areas of constitutionally given responsibility and sources of revenue, soon to be supplemented and fortified with a goods and services tax. If they want to finance projects they cannot fund with their own resources, including the central devolutions that are their due, they have the freedom to tap the bond market. The states cannot expect the Centre to borrow money and pass it on to them without asking questions about how the money would be spent and later monitoring compliance with stated intent. The best way to end such central intrusion into federal autonomy is to end central Plan assistance out of borrowed funds. Non-borrowed resources will be devolved through the Finance Commission, in any case.
Once the commission divests itself of the function of allocating Plan funds across states and schemes and subsequent monitoring, it can focus on creating long-term policies for different sectors of the economy and drawing up alternative frameworks in which these policies find coherence. The task of constantly suggesting updates for regulatory frameworks for different sectors can also be performed by the agency . Let it become a think tank, and stop being an ATM for the states.

Aug 16 2014 : The Economic Times (Delhi)

Don't Mourn the Planning Commission





Its role had evolved to suggesting policy coherence

Incremental changes in quantity add up to reach a tipping point, whereupon a further quantitative change leads on to a change in quality -this goes back to Hegel.
The Planning Commission had been undergoing such a process of change for some time: the state-funded investment in a Plan period in any sector has steadily been falling, as a proportion of the total investment the commission envisaged in the sector. Policy coherence and coordination, as well as incentive structures to channel private, including foreign, investment to desired sectors have, on the other hand, gained in its work output. Prime Minister Narendra Modi now wants to replace the planning body with a think tank, whose focus, presumably would be on policy choices to the exclusion of investment outlays. It reflects the reality of evolution in the commission's working.How would Plan allocations to states and schemes of the kind the commission used to carry out in the past continue? Outright scrapping of the procedure, so that federal transfers are limited to those recommended by the Finance Com mission, would be ideal. More realis tic would be the rump of the commis sion still playing a role in these sche mes. Of course, public-private part nership would get a boost in schemes to build toilets, given the new thrust placed on sanitation by the Prime Minister. Sewerage would still need to be built by the state.
It is welcome that the new government is building on the electronic banking infrastructure, comprising the Aadhaar project and the National Payments Corporation, to offer every household a bank account. The big plans the PM announced for education, healthcare and governance, besides financial inclusion, that leverage ubiquitous broadband all depend on data charges remaining low. This calls for a spectrum policy that prioritises citizen access over maximising state revenue from spectrum sales. Clearly , we need calibration of the tradeoffs between spectrum price and spectrum-enabled economic activity and growth. Who best to do this, other than the Planning Commission or its successor?