161
been categorised as developmental and consequently not treated in detail in the plan documents. On the other hand, one could also argue that it is not important at all for social security to be treated as a "developmental" sector and featured in the development plans. It is necessary to examine this viewpoint in some detail.
The case for integration
5. In the large majority of Asian countries, development planning has come to be firmly established as an accepted means of accelerated economic and social development. A plan document which embodies the results of developmental planning exercises is invariably regarded as a vital instrument for systematic co-ordination and stimulation of developmental efforts, both economic and social. The fact that development plans are invariably subjected to public scrutiny and debate and often approved by national legislatures before they become operational, raises their status in the eyes of political leaders, administrators and the general public. The sectoral programmes which fall within the ambit of development planning, automatically attain a degree of priority and some respectability. The plan projects and programmes seen to attract greater public attention as compared to non- developmental programmes. Their performance has a greater chance of being followed and evaluated while their non-implementation or tardy progress usually becomes a matter of some public concern. Thus, the integration of social security planning within the framework of development planning processes becomes at once significant.
6. In the current situation prevailing in most developing countries of Asia where the priorities of all sectoral programmes are determined in relation to plan priorities, there are definite advantages in establishing a functional linkage between social security planning and development planning processes. Under such a positive tie-up the following might be expected:
(i)
the pace and pattern of social security development are co-ordinated and synchronised with development in other social and economic sectors. The energing social security priorities attain a greater degree cf rationality;
(ii)
the innovations in social security and
their implications are better
(iii)
understood;
the contribution of social security to national development gets rationalised vis-à-vis its welfare contributions.
The planners' problems
7.
But what then are the reasons for the failure of social security to attract the attention of development Flanners to a degree, adequate enough to persuade them to incorporate social security components in the plan frame? Numerous problems are cited:
(i) for the purpose of planning, it is necessary to define the goal of social security. Precise definition of the goal of social security seems to be difficult;
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
(v)
social security programmes are heterogenous in character in that they combine a wide variety of schemes (e.g. social insurance, public assistance and public service), each having an entirely different pattern of relationship with economic sectors and social development sectors such as health, education, housing, etc.;
since a good part of social security involves "transfers" a nd not SO much of "public expenditure", the techniques of allocative planning are irrelevant;
targets and achievements under social security do not lend themselves to precise quantification as compared to those under health, education, housing and welfare;
the machinery and professional expertise in the central planning bodies and planning cells of operating ministries and departments are not adequately developed to handle cross-sectoral planning encompassing all social sectors including social security;
E-1195-21:5