Planning for our Nation's Future!
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
Session:The Case for National Planning (March 13, 2:30pm)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Planning for our Nation's Future!
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Session:The Case for National Planning (March 13, 2:30pm) |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Abstract: Ad Hoc planning and policy making is no longer acceptable for our nation’s future. Diminishing resources and compounding social requirements are complicating our political process. Single purpose programs and special interest policies are creating continuing "unintended consequences" and require a more carefully thought-out and integrated approach. The Office of the President and Congress must begin to take actions based on an understanding of long and interrelated actions. What we need is: an organized, rational, efficient way to give guidance and direction to the use of federal resources, programs and funds which effect the country’s future. This means an Office of Policy, Planning and Programming in the Office of the President or Administration, to help establish an agreed upon National Growth Plan and related Policies.
INTRODUCTIONAs I followed our national elections for President in 1996 and again in 2000 I waited patiently for the Candidates to describe their plans for the future of our country. I didn’t expect to hear or see a detailed plan, but I did hope for some statement or proposed approach which could become the framework or the process for setting national goals and strategies to help guide the nation in its growth and inevitable change. I would have settled for a statement on how they might go about developing such a plan, or process for getting there, such as: forming a "National Resources Planning Board", or a "Commission on National Growth", or even an announcement instituting an analytical procedure such as a "Planning, Programming and Budgeting System (PPBS). Needless to say, I am still waiting. I heard much agonizing about the solvency of Social Security, about the need to balance the budget, reduce the deficit, preserve our natural resources, overcome oil and gas monopolies, increase energy production, improve education and welfare reform and other issues. Certainly, all of these are important and have serious implication for either a liberal or conservative agenda. But it is all taken out of context — lots of rhetoric, but little reference to what we are or are not capable of doing, who should do it, how we pay for it, set priorities, or about the impact of one effort on the other. But this is not only the Presidents problem. In his book "The Ruling Class", published by The Heritage Foundation in 1993, author Eric Felten also criticizes Congress for not doing its job as our law making body. Instead of establishing spending limits and budget priorities, he says Congress is "preoccupied with politically popular fads and myths, while the important business of Washington --- goes begging". The Foundation’s study concluded that what’s needed is a vigorous reassertion by the President of his own rights and responsibilities against the encroachment of Congress. In other words the President should present his plans and Congress should act upon them. True, but without an organized, comprehensive approach or Plan, the President policies and programs, are no better than the Congressional "Ad-Hoc" approach. NEED AN ORGANIZED APPROACHShouldn’t we expect more from our President and Congress? WHY SHOULDN’T THEY MAKE PLANS FOR OUR COUNTRY’S FUTURE? What’s wrong with a candidate stating what is his long-range vision, and how he will achieve it. That he will create an office, a commission, or a task force to develop a comprehensive process for analyzing our problems, and come up with a set of policies and programs, or a Strategic Plan or a Plan of Action, and to form an office to oversee an ongoing planning process? In any case, the time has come for our federal government to plan and coordinate its national policies and programs in the same way it expects states, regions and cities to plan theirs. We no longer have the luxury of using up resources in a helter skelter way. Since its inception, the United States has grown and prospered. It has done so in a political, social and economic climate, which has permitted maximum freedom of choice. In previous eras our energies were focused primarily on the rapid exploitation of our abundant natural resources, which seemed unlimited at the time. Today, we are concerned with limited and in some cases diminishing natural resources, an energy crisis, diminishing oil and gas reserves and open space, increasing conflict with our dependency on foreign oil and more recently on energy sources. At the same time, growing international trade is creating labor and security issues, and brings pressure for more immigration for needed labor on one hand, versus cutting off immigration because of too large an influx and demands for social services. These matters are further complicated by demands to grant subsidized housing, healthcare, education and welfare services, efficiently and equitably to all our people Today, we need to be concerned with limited and in some cases diminishing resources. We must direct our energies to maximize growth, but in the context of conserving resources and enhancing our environments. This means a more rational use of our resources, both material and human, to achieve realistic goals. It also means a more rational and organized use of federal intervention through its hundreds of programs and regulations. When Congress does act it is piecemeal and frequently creates more problems than it helps. In 1995 the Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations released a report on the impact of Federal government "mandates" on State and local government. They studied only 14 of more than 200 separate mandates involving 170 federal laws identified by states, resulting in 3500 separate federal court decisions. More than 100 federal laws were identified, which required actions by state and local governments which they would not otherwise have taken. "The mandate issues examined in the report," says the Commission, "arose because American federalism no longer has a clearly defined responsibilities for federal, state and local governments. One result of this lack of defined roles has been increased federal involvement in activities historically considered to be state and local affairs." No one questions the influence and importance of federal regulatory actions; procurement policies; government facility siting decisions; housing and transportation aid programs; public works assistance; resource management; tax laws; and research and development programs. But each action, however worthwhile by themselves, are designed to accomplish only a single objective and must be considered in light of their respective impacts on other programs. WHO SHOULD DO THE PLANNING?In the 1960s and 70s, the federal government began to recognize the impacts of its actions and single purpose functional programs on local development decisions. Consequently, federal guidelines were set to establish local planning as a prerequisite for many functional programs, and federal money to encourage local planning was made available to states, cities and regions.
Granted, these are not easy tasks, but if we really seek to preserve our natural and human resources and achieve balanced national growth and economic development, then we need to know where we are heading. AN EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF PLANNING AND POLICY COORDINATIONWhat is needed is an office to organize and manage an ongoing, comprehensive program or process for establishing and monitoring national policies and programs for our countries future growth and development, while preserving our human and natural resources. This will require a highly visible planning presence to serve as the frame of reference and basis for high-level Executive and Congressional decision making. To do this the President should establish a permanent office for the planning and coordination of federal policies and programs for domestic development. This office, staffed with a proper interdisciplinary mix of planners and other professionals, could, under the direction of the President, bring together the needed resources and authority to make sure that limited federal dollars are spent in a coordinated way. Through this mechanism, national goals and policies can be developed in an open and democratic manner. The President, his cabinet and the Congress would have before them a range of choices, which they can then act upon within the traditional political framework of this country. This seems logical, and yet it is surprising how little interest there seems to be in "National Planning", not only by the politicians and the general public, but by the planning profession too. Perhaps it is the overwhelming scope and complexity of national planning when compared to the problems of dealing with state, regional and local planning. Or perhaps it is the ideological issue of a planned society versus freedom of choice. Or perhaps it is indifference due to our perception that we can’t do anything about the current situation anyway. However, I believe that it is probably due to a lack of agreement on a clear definition of what we mean by "National Planning." WHAT KIND OF PLANNING?I’d like to begin by describing national planning as a "methodology" — a process to better organize and manage our tremendous national resources, with the objective of improving the workability and livability of our nation and its respective communities. We should not envision a "National Plan" as a document or a final statement of forms and shapes. We should view national planning with a small "p" as a "plan to do something". We then can see the need for national planning in a different light. If we are able to focus not on the plan, but on the characteristics of research and planning leading to coordinated policies an programs to address our future goals, we can begin to appreciate the need to organize our national, state and local resources through anticipated planning. We probably agree that corporations make plans, and that many departments of the federal government also plan. Yet we have no overall or coordinated planning activity at the federal level, either in the Office of the President or in Congress, to assist them in their decision-making and to put issues in some logical frame of reference. OMB was at one time called the Office of Planning and Budgeting, but unfortunately the planning portion soon got changed to Management which seemed more acceptable. According to Otis L. Graham, Jr., in his book "Toward a Planned Society — from Roosevelt to Nixon", the first steps to national planning began during mobilization for war in 1917-18, where the word planning was first applied at the federal level, to actions called for by the President. Graham says, "For approximately 16 months the national government commanded the major economic and manpower resources of the country", to support an expeditionary army. Graham then traces national planning efforts from Roosevelt through Nixon’s administration and argues that the process was constantly evolving and periodically changed to take different forms under different presidents. He points out that the "New Dealers located a set of strategic points where the society and its direction might be influenced — not only the gross size of the economy, but natural resources, including especially energy and land use, population distribution, manpower, public credit, science and technology, and incomes". Then, year later, by implementing the National Defense and Interstate Highway programs, President Eisenhower, almost inadvertently, set in motion one of the most powerful national planning tools yet seen in peacetime. In retrospect however, many believe that it was single purpose and didn’t take into consideration impacts on related development, particularly in urban areas. On the other hand President Kennedy began an effort to institutionalize a corporate planning mechanism called "planning. programming and budgeting systems (PPBS), which had the right idea, but few know of any results. President Nixon made his attempt at national planning in his 1970 State of the Union address, when he said, "For the past 30 years our population has been growing and shifting. "The violent and decayed central cities of our great metropolitan complexes are the most conspicuous area of failure in American life today. "I propose that before these problems become insoluble, the nation develop a National Growth Policy." Unfortunately he didn’t get a chance to carry this out. Then, President Jimmy Carter in an environmental message to Congress in 1977 said: "I am directing the executive agencies of the U. S. Government to make a one-year study of the probable changes in the world’s population, natural resources and environment through the end of the century. This study will serve as the foundation of our longer-term planning". The report was entitled "The Global 2000 Report" It was a popular report when issued but died with Carter’s departure. In 1991 he said: "I would like to see the Global process revived. "It was killed when I left Washington because of political aversion to long-term planning with an emphasis on the environment." There were good intentions in all of the above actions. However, turning miscellaneous programs into national policy, Graham said, has been the unfinished work of both liberals and conservatives, particularly as the management of social problems has become so acute. "Planning, Graham said, "assumes that modern industrial society requires public intervention to achieve national goals; assumes that such intervention must touch all fundamental social developments; must be goal oriented, and effectively coordinated at the center; must be anticipatory rather than characterized by ad hoc solutions dictated by crisis." Interestingly a recent New York Times article written by Richard Haass referred to "Bill Clinton’s reactive government as ADHOCRACY." It is my belief that we should begin to focus our attention on the 21st Century and prepare to understand and begin to articulate the need for and role of a strategic planning effort at the national level. This means trying to agree on some definitions and some national goals. We can than focus on those goals (like the Interstate Defense Highway System) with specific policies, programs and budgeting processes to use our national and local resources to achieve those goals by using minimum, but strategic intervention to stimulate public and private actions at the federal, state, regional and local levels of government. Consequently it is time to stop our piecemeal approach and instead, plan a more rational use of federal intervention through its hundreds of policies, programs and regulations. Federal Aid for welfare assistance, without considering other related problems and opportunities, is only one of the many programs, which are victims of the rule of "Unintended Consequences" which permeates so many federal programs. Since we are experiencing enormous changes in how government and business in the U.S. and the world are operating, this is an excellent time for the federal government to step back from its ad hoc mandates and petty interventions and instead try to establish a framework for setting agreed-upon national goals, objectives and policies, as the basis for financial and programmatic intervention. Graham wrote that: "Many are still frightened at the idea of planning. They do not see that freedom is narrowed by chaos and shortsighted interventions; that freedom may be preserved and even enlarged only by social action which is rational and comprehensive and tries to see the whole". We concur! And it should be an open process, which involves and educates both the politicians and the public. I’m optimistic and believe that national planning, or strategic planning or whatever we choose to call it, is not an anathema. It could be well received by both liberal and conservative politicians and large segments of our society, if properly explained for what it is: an organized, rational, efficient way to give guidance and direction to the use of federal resources, programs and funds which affect the country’s future. This guidance can come without the need to adopt heavy-handed mandates, which become bureaucratized and self-serving. To achieve this, I believe that we need clearer statements of where we should be going as a nation and how to accommodate our population growth and the economic and physical growth that follows. In short, we need a better rationale for how to spend our tax dollars in a more efficient and effective way to achieve agreed-upon goals. Webster’s dictionary defines "a plan" as "a method for achieving an end" or "a detailed formulation of a program of action"; and "to plan" is "to arrange the parts of" or "to have in mind." Surely a civilized nation like ours with an annual budget in the trillions of dollars, should have something in mind.
Author and Copyright InformationCopyright 2001 by Author John E. Hirten, FAICP is currently serving as Executive Consultant to the General Manager of San Francisco’s Municipal Transportation Agency. Previously, among other assignments, he has served as Director of Transportation for the City and County of Honolulu, Assistant Secretary of the U.S. DOT, Deputy Administrator of Urban Transit Administration, and was the interim Executive Director of American Institute of Planners (AIP), prior and during the merger with ASPO. OfficeTel: 415 — 923 — 2649 E-mail: jehirten@aol.com |