This review of planning in Venezuela is of interest to specialists on that country, but it should also appeal to Latin Americanists in general and to readers with a concern for planning. While it includes a description of Venezuelan development plans, Levy’s main focus is not on the plans themselves. He views planning as a decision-making process embracing political and administrative, as well as more narrowly defined economic variables. The book therefore includes a chapter on the general political and economic setting and a chapter describing the budgetary process, so important for implementing that part of the plan dealing with the public sector. These chapters are followed by one on the planning process itself and another on the impact of planning. The latter, in particular, gives the author an opportunity to develop his views on the nature of planning. Levy closes with a general discussion on the nature, usefulness, and scope of planning. Though the book is timely and useful, its major points might have been driven home more forcefully had this last chapter taken the form of a general discussion at the beginning of the book, thus setting the stage for the study of the planning experience.
Levy concludes that CORDIPLAN has been effective. The agency’s analysis of the situation has contributed to a more intelligent understanding of Venezuela’s economic situation, of its problems, and of policy alternatives, lifting discussion to a higher level and calling the public’s attention to measures needed to develop the country. CORDIPLAN has also promoted a more satisfactory degree of coordination than previously existed between various public bodies. Further, through its influence on project formulation and the investment programs and through other means, the planning mechanism has led to a more efficient use of resources by the public sector. Levy emphasizes, and this reviewer agrees, that CORDIPLAN’s effectiveness is not attributable merely to technical virtuosity, but also to its political adeptness and to the agency’s realization that what matters is agreement on measures as well as on objectives. Its effectiveness was also enhanced by another fact: the agency recognized that it had been superimposed on an existing administrative structure whose performance could be modified but gradually. Last but not least, the support of the presidency has been a significant factor. Nevertheless, one of Levy’s criticisms needs to be emphasized—contacts with the private sector must be reinforced at various stages of the planning process.
The Venezuelan planning experience is by no means typical for Latin America. The writing of plans flourished there in the early 1960s, partly in response to the request for programs under the Alliance for Progress. Typically, the plans which emerged contained a diagnosis and a set of macroprojections and goals. They specified few concrete projects or suggestions as to how these goals might be achieved, however, nor did they, in most instances, identify with sufficient clarity and detail the bottlenecks and the areas that should receive priority attention. Also the resulting documents by no means represent widespread, conscious agreement by a sufficient number of those who influence actual decisions or carry them out.
All this work has not been completely useless, but the feeling is now widespread that planning should be approached differently. Already it is taking a more meaningful form in a number of countries. Levy’s views are winning increasing support—that a decision-making process should fit into the existing political, administrative, and economic context, while the plan document itself is merely one instrument useful to that process.
