How are the principles followed by the NITI Aayog different from those followed by the erstwhile planning commission in India? (250 words)
The NITI Aayog and the Planning Commission are both government bodies in India that are responsible for formulating policies and planning for the country’s development. However, the principles followed by the NITI Aayog are different from those followed by the erstwhile Planning Commission in several ways:
• Decentralization: The NITI Aayog follows a decentralized approach to planning, which involves active participation from state governments and the private sector. In contrast, the Planning Commission had a centralized approach and was responsible for allocating resources to the states.
• Flexibility: The NITI Aayog allows for greater flexibility in planning and policy-making, which allows for experimentation and innovation. The Planning Commission, on the other hand, followed a rigid approach and had fixed targets and plans.
• Focus on outcomes: The NITI Aayog focuses on outcomes and performance indicators, which help in monitoring the progress of policies and programs. The Planning Commission, on the other hand, focused on inputs and outputs and did not have a strong emphasis on outcomes.
• Inclusive growth: The NITI Aayog focuses on inclusive growth and aims to address regional imbalances and disparities in development. The Planning Commission also had similar goals, but its approach was often criticized for being top-down and not sufficiently inclusive.
• Emphasis on the private sector: The NITI Aayog places greater emphasis on the role of the private sector in driving economic growth and development. The Planning Commission, on the other hand, had a more state-centric approach and did not prioritize the private sector as much.
In summary, the NITI Aayog and the Planning Commission differ in their approach to planning and policy-making. The NITI Aayog follows a decentralized, flexible, and outcomes-based approach, with a focus on inclusive growth and the private sector’s role. In contrast, the Planning Commission had a centralized, rigid, and input/output-based approach, with a focus on state-centric planning and resource allocation.
