Implementation-driven of Development Planning Model

Document Type : Research Paper

Authors

1 Prof., Department of Public Administration, Faculty of Management and Accounting, Allameh Tabataba'i University, Tehran, Iran.

2 Ph.D. Candidate, Department of Public Administration, Faculty of Management and Accounting, Allameh Tabataba’i University, Tehran, Iran.

3 Prof., Department of Economic Planning and Development, Faculty of Economics, Allameh Tabataba’i University, Tehran, Iran.

4 Associate Prof., Department of Public Administration, Faculty of Management and Accounting, Allameh Tabataba’i University, Tehran, Iran.

10.22059/jipa.2025.387853.3623

Abstract

Objective
Despite Iran’s long history of national development planning and the considerable investment of human and financial resources, the country has not successfully realized the goals outlined in its plans. A major barrier to progress is the lack of a shared understanding of what development entails, which has created ambiguity around how it should be achieved. Over time, development planning has been approached differently by various governments—some have lacked the will to create a development plan, while others have refused to implement plans prepared by previous administrations. These issues stem from a lack of both commitment and capacity among governments to pursue and sustain development agendas. As a result, the actual outcomes of development plans in Iran have fallen short of expectations, highlighting weaknesses in both the planning process and implementation capacity. With the aim of addressing these shortcomings and promoting the realization of development goals grounded in theory and comparative study, this research seeks to propose a model of development planning that prioritizes implementation. The intended outcome is not merely the production of another plan document, but the achievement of tangible developmental results. This can only be accomplished by designing feasible plans and evaluating implementation outcomes to determine the degree to which goals have been met. Therefore, the purpose of this research is to propose an implementation-oriented development planning model in which the process of planning is valued as much as the content itself.
Methods
This research adopted a qualitative and comparative approach supported by documentary analysis. The data were analyzed using content analysis methodology. Key components of the planning process—formulation, implementation, monitoring, evaluation, and the nature of the programs—were studied in Iranian development planning documents. Following a theoretical review, these components were pathologically examined in the Iranian context and then compared with their counterparts in China, Malaysia, and India.
Results
Findings based on the pathology of Iran’s planning process reveal several critical issues: centralization and lack of participatory processes in planning, fragmentation and incoherence in both programs and their implementation, a lack of attention to execution, political interference, inadequate expertise in plan formulation and approval, and an overall absence of oversight and accountability in program implementation. These indicate a significant lack of implementation capacity in Iran. In contrast, the countries studied—China, Malaysia, and India—demonstrated growing implementation capacity through institution building, adherence to the rule of law, participatory planning, and the coherence and continuity of development initiatives, all of which contributed to their developmental successes.
Conclusion
The model proposed by this study to enhance governmental capacity for development planning—both as a goal and as a tool for program implementation—is a spiral model. This model builds government capacity through implementation achievements at each stage and continuously refines plans and processes based on ongoing evaluations. Programs are designed through participatory problem-solving and are prioritized based on implementation feasibility. Implementation and monitoring are conducted with the active involvement of stakeholders, and achievements are evaluated to derive lessons that inform future reforms and programs. Government capacity is defined through four essential components: administrative, legal, financial, and executive capabilities—each of which is vital as both an end goal and a means to support development. In this model, the program document is not the endpoint of planning, but part of an integrated, participatory cycle of planning, implementation, and evaluation aimed at achieving sustained and meaningful development.

Keywords

Main Subjects

References

 
Andrews, M., Prepchet, L. & Woolcock, M. (2019). Development as Empowerment of Government, Evidence, Analysis, Practice. (With an introduction by Ahmad Midari). (Jafar Khizkhahan and Masoud Daroudi, translators). (2th Ed.). Tehran: Daily Publications. (in Persian)
Braun, V. & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative research in psychology, 14, 77-101.
Chimhowu, A. O., Hulme, D. & Munro, L. T. (2019). The ‘New’national development planning and global development goals: Processes and partnerships. World development, 120, 76-89.
Fukuyama, F. (2014). America in decay: The sources of political dysfunction. Foreign Affairs, 93, 5.
Fukuyama, F. (Ed.). (2008). Falling behind: explaining the development gap between Latin America and the United States. Oxford University Press.
McNabb, D. E. (2008). Quantitative and Qualitative Research Methods in Public Administration and Nonprofit Organizations (Volume 1), (Reza Vaezi and Mohammad Reza Azmandian, translators), Tehran: Saffar Publications. (in Persian)
Mehrotra, S. & Guichard, S. (Eds.). (2020). Planning in the 20th century and beyond: India's planning commission and the NITI Aayog. Cambridge University Press.
Migai, J. A. (2023). An Assessment of the Implementation of Results Based Management Approach in the Public Sector: a Case Study of the National Treasury, Department of Government Investment and Public Enterprises (GIPE) (Doctoral dissertation, University of Nairobi).
Motavaseli, M., Momeni, F., Lajevardi, R. & Ranjbar, M. M. (2018). Rationality and Chaos in Planning: An Emphasis on Goulet's Theory of Rationality. Economics Research, 18(69), 193-225. doi: 10.22054/joer.2018.8868 (in Persian)
Motvaseli, M., Beigi Harcheganei, E. & Farmahini Farahani, B. (2020). Application of Elinor Ostrom's Institutionalism in Development Planning. Program and Development Research, 1(3), 10-35. doi: 10.22034/pbr.2020.109231 (in Persian)
Munro, L. T. (2020). The resurgence of national development planning: how did we get back here?. International Development Planning Review, 42(2), 127-138.
Namey, E., Guest, G., Thairu, L., & Johnson, L. (2008). Data reduction techniques for large qualitative data sets. Handbook for team-based qualitative research, 2(1), 137-161.
North, D. C. (1990). Institutions, Institutional Change and Economic Performance, Cambridge University Press, New York.
Ubels, J., Acquaye-Baddoo, N. A., & Fowler, A. (Eds.). (2010). Capacity development in practice. Earthscan.
UNDP (2009). Handbook on planning, monitoring and evaluating for development results, United Nations Development Programme.
Vaezi, R., Shams, L. & Maleki, M. (2021). Comparative and Development Administration (concep, Theories and Models) Tehran, Saffar. (in Persian)
Journal of Public Administration
Volume 17, Issue 2
2025
Pages 430-455

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics