Paper II, Unit 5: Plans and Priorities
The dated institutional language is part of the syllabus.
The dated institutional language is part of the syllabus. Understand the Planning Commission and NDC historically, then explain how strategic policy coordination and federal consultation changed with NITI Aayog.
Official wording of this unit: see the Paper II syllabus (unit 5).
Syllabus phrases and how to read them
| Syllabus phrase | Meaning and preparation focus |
|---|---|
| Planning machinery; Planning Commission; NDC | Study composition, functions, resource allocation, plan appraisal and Union-State bargaining in their historical setting. Do not write about these bodies as if their earlier arrangements remain the present system. |
| Indicative planning | Explain coordination through signals, priorities, information and incentives in a mixed economy. It is not the absence of planning or command allocation under another name. |
| Union and State plan formulation | Understand negotiation over priorities, resources and implementation capacity. Examine the gap between aggregate objectives and sectoral or territorial needs. |
| 1992 amendments; decentralised planning | Read the 73rd and 74th Amendments with local planning institutions, representation and social justice. The amendments were enacted in 1992 and came into force in 1993. |
| Contemporary extension: NITI Aayog | Compare strategic advice, cooperative and competitive federalism, monitoring and policy learning with the former allocation-oriented arrangement. NITI replaced the Planning Commission in 2015; do not transfer every old power to the new institution. |
Planning is a problem of collective choice and coordination under scarcity. A technically sound plan fails if implementing agencies lack funds or authority; local consultation fails if it cannot affect allocations. Examine how priorities become executable commitments.
Paper I: public policy, incrementalism and development administration. Example: a district needs assessment should shape departmental budgets; a district plan that merely collates centrally designed schemes provides little local prioritisation.
Why can decentralised planning remain weak even where local elections occur regularly?
See βThe constitutional architecture of local governmentβ on the page Paper II, Unit 11: Rural Development.
π£ Join our community