· 125
There are definitions which identify planning with decision making, while there are others which make a clear separation between these two roles.1
If we adopt a holistic approach to the study of society with different scientific disciplines reflecting only different aspects of the same social reality, ve aust come to the conclusion that any decision making at the societal level is essentially a political act and, as such, must be distinct from planning, which can only be conceived as a technical preparation of the information base for decision making. At any rate, at the present stage of our knowledge of social analysis, по planning technique has yet been developed which would permit an "objective" measurement of social goals by some generally acceptable criteria and a subsequent listing of such goals according to an "objective" order of priorities. Decisions in these matters, hence, must be taken by those who, through the working of the political institutions of a country, have been given the responsibility to govern.
2.
The determination of social goals and
the question of ends and means
Another difficult issue which often confuses the role to be played by social planning is the problem of determining what are the actual planning targets and what are the means of attaining them.
It seems fairly obvious that all economic targets can be interpreted as being means towards the achievement of certain social objectives. The complication arises at the moment when certain social targets are considered both as means towards achieving some other social targets and ends in themselves. Thus, for instance, as ve have mentioned previously, popular participation in development planning is considered by some not only as a necessary means towards fulfilment of a plan but also as an end in itself. The same may be said about the working of a national system of medical care, which represents a means in relation to the objective of health maintenance but, at the sa me time, is an end in itself, in so far as it satisfies a basic human right to access to medical treatment.
This is not the only difficulty in formulating social goals. If an attempt is made to define them in relation to social needs, the problem encountered by the planner will be the relativity of the concept of need. The question as to what constitutes a social need at any given period of time is extremely difficult to At present, the mechanism of detecting such needs is the political system of a country which brings them forward in the form of demands formulated at the political levels by political parties, trade unions or different pressure groups within the population.
answer.
There is, however, no guarantee in the working of the system that it is the most urgent social needs that will be brought in this way to the attention of the public and of the Government. The categories cf population which are most in need of help are not necessarily those which are in the best position to make their voice heard. The whole process of turning into legislative action a need or an aspiration of a group of persons in the population is not well known and may often be haphazard.
The difficulties which beset the identification of social needs must not, however, lead us to the conclusion that such study is meaningless and the formu- lation of social goals should be left entirely in the hands of political decision makers. On the contrary, in line with what has been said above, this study must be advanced so as to provide more information and define with more precision the issues on which the political decision will have to be made.
3.
The determination of social priorities and the limits of rational planning
able
be
Assuming that, in spite of the difficulties mentioned above, planners will to define in sone meaningful vay targets for different sectors of social policy, the question may be asked whether they will be in a position to advise сп
• Cf. V. Rys: "Social Security and Social Planning in Contemporary Society" in "The_Planning of Social Security", Studies and Research, No. 2, ISSA, Geneva, 1971, PF. 16-17.
E-1195-2G:5