The levels and types of planning

An important aspect in planning is the relationship between ‘policy-making’, ‘planning’ and ‘implementation’. Although planning and policy-making cannot be easily separated, policy decisions tend to precede planning decisions in the same way that goals have to be formulated before the policies to attain them can be implemented and planned.

However, policy-making is influenced by the political economy framework within which planning is articulated; that is levels and type of planning will be influenced by a number of political economic factors. These include the broader domain within which the state operates and the reality that, “all societies have ‘structures’ and states have to obey their logic and adapt to its compulsions” (Kaviraj, 1991:p.73, as cited in Byres, 1994:p.l4). Then there is the question of the relative autonomy of the state, because as Byres (1994:p.22) argues, such an autonomy “in principle allows planning as a possible means of hastening capital transformation, in circumstances in which capitalist classes have

not yet become dominant” and, as we shall discuss in Chapter V in the case of Oman, the high degree of autonomy enjoyed by the state during the First FYP was crucial in igniting the development process, while the subsequent emergence of vested interests frustrated to a certain extent the objectives of the Second FYP. Of course classes other than capitalist, may hinder or facilitate efficient development. Each situation has to be subjected to a

concrete analysis and not posited a priori^.

Therefore, one of the most significant implications of the inter-relationship between planning and policy-making is the fact that planning cannot be considered in isolation from the political ideology of the government in power and the social structure of

the society. Factors such as these have direct impact on the role, methods and

organisation of planning and on the contents of the plan, with the result that there are inevitably enormous variations from one country to another. For example, the role and nature of planning in a one-party African state such as Tanzania or Zambia, may be very different from the highly populated and unequal society of India, while the situation in India is entirely different from that in Oman.

The same differences apply to levels and types of planning. In terms of types of planning, Waterston (1982; Chapter 2) identifies four broad categories. These are: (i) war­

time planning; (ii) town and country planning; (iii) anticyclical planning; and (iv)

development planning. Whilst the three most common levels are project planning, sectoral planning and integrated area planning or regional planning. These levels are reflected in the varieties of the plans.

There are many varieties of development plans^. Those that are used in socialist countries are ‘comprehensive’ plans which are prepared in greater detail in order to provide a basis for the mandatory quotas and instructions issued to state agencies for

’ For example, the present Sultan’s father was clearly antagonistic to change; he was the ruler of a Sultanate; the present Sultan is the ruler o f the Sultanate of Oman— but he is very favourably disposed to change and towards planning to secure this as efficiently and profoundly as possible.

^ See Waterston (1982: Chapter 5) for a detailed survey of varieties of development plans.

implementation. These plans are typically divided into sectoral and regional plans which have to be integrated in the national plan.

Comprehensive plans in mixed economies, generally, rely on broad aggregate targets which are conceived as indicators rather than binding targets. The degree to which comprehensive development plans of countries with mixed economies are divided into detailed sectoral and regional programmes varies greatly among countries and among sectors in a country. These may also vary in the same country over time, depending on the stage of development \ Generally, the sectors of the plan in which public investment predominates are worked out in greater detail than those in which private investment prevails.

As a rule, plans in mixed economies such as Oman are binding on the public sector where government has direct control, but not on the private sector where persuasion in the form of incentives is mainly relied upon to influence the size and composition of private investment within a plan^. Public investment programmes although covering only a part of

an economy, are generally considered to be the development plans. As Waterston

(1982:p.ll0) states “most national development plans are public investment plans”.

Similarly, Yukawa (1988;pp.21-22) indicates, many countries with mixed economies adopt the project-by-project approach to planning at the beginning of their development. However, such an approach can lead to great difficulties in co-ordination, as Oman’s experience^ discussed in Chapter V shows. Therefore, it may be desirable to replace this approach with integrated public investment planning, combining individual

^ The evolution of development planning, in Oman, as we shall see in Chapter V, through the successive five-year plans, in its scope and coverage, resembles this typology.

^ The French plans have been called mandatory in the public sector and “indicative” in the private sector (Waterston, 1982;p.ll7).

^ Oman adopted the project-by-project approach between 1970 and 1975, at the start of its development process. However, the failure of co-ordination between these projects on one hand and between the implementing ministries and the treasury on the other, led to a severe financial crisis in 1974. This led to adoption of formal plarming in Oman (Oman, 1976a).

projects into sectoral programmes and then into an investment plan for the public sector, as has been the case in Oman’s successive five-year plans. As a country moves into a more advanced stage of development, comprehensive planning — the most complete form of development planning — becomes feasible. Development plans differ as much in duration as in form, but they may generally be classified as short-term, medium-term, or long-term. Short-term plans are typically for one year, while medium-term plans are for periods ranging between three and seven years, with five years as the most common case,

and long-term plans for periods of ten to twenty years {ibid.).

Lewis (1951), Tinbergen (1967) and Yukawa (1988) suggest that planning should start with a perspective plan, incorporating the country’s long-term perspectives and development objectives. “Perspective plans are recommended because they can promote fundamental transformations in the social and economic structures which economic development requires by its very nature and which a shorter-term plan would not be able

to bring about” (Yukawa, op. c/7. : pp. 21-22).