Who and when reached the decision to address the elaboration of the National Investment Plan, how the projects are to be ranked, where was the tender announced, which law is to establish the administration for the implementation of the plan? 

In the last week Minister of Finance promoted a Publication on the National Investment Plan (NIP). Upon that occasion he informed that the Government is going to earmark the budgetary surplus from the budget revision in the amount of over 400 million euros to the NIP, and that the income from the privatization process of over billion euros is to be allocated to the same purposes. Where does the resurrection of the state planning come from? It is well known that that it may well harm the market economy rather than help it, and the experience shows that politicians are keen on spending other people’s money lightly, whereas corruption and privileged quick-buck scheme are almost inevitable. Instead of explaining how it intends to avoid all these pitfalls, the Government offers us ‘’the experience of Ireland, that achieved very high rate of growth’’ trough the implementation of the National Development Plan. Aiming to demonstrate that the very finest European Union experiences’ are being followed, the NIP’s web page contains several links to the National Plans of the several EU member states. There is every intention, however, that this is not the case here. 

EU allocates large funds in order to reduce the gap between its member states. From 2000 to 2006, a sum of 195 billion euros was set aside. Firstly, if any EU member state wishes to apply for the use of the funds it has to demonstrate the social and economic state of the country (good and downsides), to explain what changes would be made if the European Commission grants the funds. The country, moreover, has to have a precise strategy and goals that wishes to achieve. The funds than serve as a basis for the definition of priorities and goals that the Government is ready to achieve (precise activities, the established governing administration, as well as the determination of the short-term goals, and target groups that would benefit or suffer the consequences from the these steps, etc.)

Only than the financial plan is to be elaborated. The entire plan is checked at least three times – before, during and after the realization. The said procedures are slow and complicated, and they have to be made public at each phase. The plan individualize the accountability of the seeded players who are to present the supporting documentation necessary for the decision –making. For instance, Estonia joined the EU structural funds with the adoption of the National Development Plan for 2004-2006, but the preparations began in 2001.

The econometrically model was made which pointed out to the contribution of the individual sectors to the economic growth and than the different scenarios of the investments were tested. The experts tested the credibility of the offered solutions on the scientific seminars.

None of this was done in our country. The public was merely informed that the Government intends to invest, in this and the following year, a sum of 1,674.8 million euros! It remains unclear how this sum emerged in a first place. We know that till 1 July the Project Center of the Ministry of Finance (which, according to the Minister, remains to be established) received 2,920 project suggestions, mostly from the state bodies, although there were 26 suggestions from the private sector! Who, and when reached the decision to approach the elaboration of the NIP, who set up the priorities, when and where was the tender announced, who made the bid, and which law is to establish the administration for the implementation of the plan?

These questions remained unanswered, as well as many others, which point out that our type of planning has nothing in common with the EU strategies. 

This improvisation, nevertheless, is going to cost us a lot. The Government has no intention to ask the Assembly to approve the NIP (the Assembly is simply ‘’informed’’ on the activities and realization of the NIP). Also, the Government itself will not be informed in full on these activities. An inside Steering Committee within the Government is to be established, comprising five Ministers (Finance, Capital Investments, Economy, Commerce, and Science). These five Ministers are to define procedures, establish qualified bodies, elaborate the NIP’s Draft and monitor its implementation. They will elect six Councils to manage the projects. The President of each Council is to be appointed by the Minister who has the majority of projects in that Council, and the President is to chose other members of the Council – ‘’experts and independent persons’’.

Each project approved by the relevant Council (i.e. Minister) will have its own supervisor appointed by the Minister. The supervisor will than chose members of the team. The establishment of the Team for Tender Procedures is under construction, but no one knows who is to establish it. This will define the ‘’strategy in the process of the realization of large-scale procurement’’. The procurement plan within the project is to be forwarded to the relevant Ministry. Minister will establish ‘’small Commissions’’ for procurement which do not exceed a sum of million euros, and ‘’big Commissions’’ tailored for more expensive procurements are to be appointed by all Ministers together.

The Councils and Tender Commissions will have one seat reserved for the representative of the President of Republic. It seams that he is to play the role of a fig leave in the process of decision-making, because the decisive influence is reserved for the Ministers-Coordinators who have given themselves ‘’sweeping powers’’. According to the NIP, the largest number of projects is reserved for the construction of roads (owrth over 400 million euros), and it is clear that the Minister in charge is going to be unavoidable in decision-making.

However, he will not have the decisive role. This position is secured for the Minister of Finance trough the Project Center with the Ministry of Finance. The Center will have the authority to shut down the project at any time – being in the initial or final phase. In other words, NIP further insures the power of the Minister of Finance, but this time, as it seams, without any parliamentary control.

Ph.D., Milic Milovanovic Professor at the Faculty of Economy, Belgrade University, and member of the Council