Streamlining development administration

The implementation of the annual development programme (ADP) has never been without troubles. Poor coordination among various government agencies, delayed release of funds, political interference etc., are factors that have constrained the implementation of development projects at the expected pace.
The size of the ADP has grown steadily over the years, but the efficiency level concerning the execution of public sector development projects has not improved much. Multilateral donors in particular have been very often complaining about both quality of projects and the pace of implementation of the same. It is not that the government has not paid attention to such allegations. Yet the situation has not improved much.
It has been observed time and again that until the third quarter of a financial year the rate of implementation of the ADPs remains poor, ranging between 30 per cent and 35 per cent. But in the final quarter of the year, the executing agencies demonstrate unusual agility and speed to push up the rate of ADP implementation to at least 90 per cent.
It remains a mystery as to how the public sector agencies, which are infamous for poor efficiency level, complete nearly two-thirds of work in just three months of a financial year.  Moreover, this happens against the backdrop of downsizing of the ADPs because of the slow rate of its implemen-tation.
Allegations have it that the executing agencies of development projects overlook the quality of projects while remaining engaged in the expeditious implementation of projects in the final quarter of the fiscal. Moreover, many agencies with a view to showing better performance in implementation of projects manage the funds allocated against projects released before the expiry of a financial year and implement the projects concerned later.
The implementation, monitoring and evaluation division (IMED) is not equipped with necessary manpower and logistics to carry out its designated tasks up to the desired level. So, it is difficult to get a clear picture of the actual rate of project implementation, quality of work and utilisation of funds allocated against projects. Under the circumstances, misappropriation and wastage of resources allocated every year against development projects are suspected.
Inclusion of politically motivated projects remains yet another problem for the state-level development planners. Lawmakers and ministers do often push forward politically motivated yet unimportant projects in their respective constituencies. This creates problem in the case of allocation of resources for priority projects.
That politics gets precedence over other factors in ADP implementation has been established again.
According to media reports, this year the rate of ADP execution during the first four months of the current fiscal was the lowest in six years. The rate was only 9.28 per cent on year-on-year estimate, mainly due to slow progress in implementation of foreign-funded projects.
However, the performance of the ministries of local government and education has been unusually satisfactory in the first four months of the current fiscal. Both the ministries reportedly spent nearly 25 per cent of their respective annual developmental allocations during the period. However, the performance has much to do with the upcoming national elections.
The local government ministry spends most part of its development funds on roads, culverts and bridges in rural areas. The period immediately preceding any election is considered the best time to spend money on those infrastructure projects by the men in power to get votes. The same is happening in the case of education ministry. Fresh allocation of development funds to schools and colleges is another way of motivating voters during election time. But the risk factor usually remains associated with such spending is its misuse. No one takes into cognizance such a possibility for the money belongs to the state, not to those who allocate or utilise the same.
It is generally believed that at least 40 per cent of the funds spent annually on development projects are either wasted or misappropriated. The so-called move to ensure transparency and accountability in the spending on development projects through the introduction of public procurement rules has not been able to cut wastage of development funds. Moreover, the avowed objective of ensuring transparency in government procurement is yet to be established.
There is no denying that the quality of the development administration of the country has not improved much because of the lack of competent and efficient people in the trade concerned and the prevalence of widespread graft-taking at all levels. Unfortunately, there has not been any serious move to induct skilled development administrators and combat corruption in the public sector development activities. It is high time the government took appropriate initiatives to streamline the development activities to ensure better results from a substantial fund it spends on ADP every year.  
[email protected]