Public Expenditure Tracking in Uganda (and elsewhere)

Document Sample
Public Expenditure Tracking in Uganda (and elsewhere) Powered By Docstoc
					Public Expenditure Tracking in
   Uganda (and elsewhere)

 Budget Management and Financial Accountability
                   Washington, DC
                    March 2004

       Magnus Lindelow (
                     The World Bank
        The Ugandan experience
   Many improvements since 1992
      macroeconomic stability and growth
      shift of public resources from defense to roads and social
   Poverty Eradication Action Plan (PEAP)
   Poverty reduced from 56% in 1992/93 to 35 % in
   Strong budget management
      MTEF, Poverty Action Fund (PAF)
   Sector level performance did not keep up
    Uganda Education PETS (1995)

   Data collected from different levels of
    administration, including 250 schools
   Only 13 percent of intended capitation grant actually
    reached schools (1991-95).
      Large schools with wealthier parents and qualified teachers
      were able to obtain more of their budget allocation.
   Other findings
      Enrollment trends differed from published data.
      Importance of parental contributions.
               Impact and follow-up
   Mass information campaign by
                                                        Leakage of non-wage
    Ministry of Finance (the press,                   capitation grant to schools
      A signal to local governments
      Lower the cost of information to parents     80%

   Follow-up PETS in education in 2001            60%
      Ministry of Education initiative and local
      shows a major improvement (18%               20%
   Broadening agenda: other sectors and                   1991-1995        2001
    broader focus (service delivery,
    integrity, etc.)
        Why new tools to analyze public
        spending and service delivery?
   Uganda survey stimulated similar surveys in other countries
   Limited impact of public spending and external aid on
    growth and human development (WDR 2004)
       Inappropriate allocation of resources
       Resources do not reach service delivery units
       Poor quality of service delivery
       Services are not used by the population
   New approaches to aid delivery (budget support, PRSCs,
       fiduciary and accountability concerns
   Lack of reliable data in many developing countries
     PETS and Service Delivery Surveys
   Diagnostic tool for understanding             Surveys to date
    problems in budget execution              Completed    Ongoing
   Data collected from different levels of
    government, including service delivery    Uganda       Ethiopia
                                              Tanzania     Nigeria
    units                                     Ghana        Brazil
   Reliance on record reviews, but also      Rwanda       Laos
    interviews                                Mozambique
   Variation in design depending on          PNG
    perceived problems, country, and          Honduras
    sector                                    Peru
   Growing focus on service delivery and
    use of “hybrid” survey approaches         and more…
    But tracking is often difficult…
   Data availability
       E.g. tracking not possible in health sector in Uganda 1995
   Data quality
       Reliance on records, but books may be “cooked”
   Multiple flows and different levels of execution
       Schools and health facilities receive many resources in-kind
   Undefined or changing allocations/norms
       Often much discretion over resource allocation in budget
   Different focus in some surveys
       Timing of transfers, bottlenecks in budget execution, the use
        of discretion in resource allocation, etc.
        An illustration from Mozambique
   Context and issues
       National Health System: health sector                     Central
        dominated by public providers                Resource                  Vague
       Providers receive budgets and in-kind        allocation              guidelines
        transfers                                                 Province
       Vague allocation criteria and guidelines             ?               ?
       Fragmented and unreliable reporting
   Diagnostic survey
                                                             ?               ?
       90 health facilities, 35 districts offices
       Record reviews and staff interviews                       Facility
       Exit poll to capture user perceptions
              Delays and bottlenecks
   Delays in budget transfers to                           12
    districts                                               10
       Budget norm: January                                8

                                            No. districts
       Delays => low levels of budget
        execution (32%) and service
        delivery problems                                   4

   Other systems weaknesses                                2
       Up to 90 day delays for re-                         0
        stocking of drugs



       Stock-out of drugs or material in
        60% of facilities                                        Receipt of 1st budget transfer
       Equity in resource allocation
   Push-based system of         Number of tablets distributed to
                                    facilities per outpatient
    drug distribution
                                                Min.   Mean   Max.
     Basedon outpatient
      numbers                   Aspirin          1.1    4.6   16.8
   In practice, very           Cloroquin        1.2    4.1   12.9
    different…                  Cotrimoxazol     0.0    2.7   7.8

   Also “irrational” or        Mebendazol       0.5    1.6   6.2
    inequitable allocation of   Metronidazole    0.0    0.8   3.3
    other resources             Paracetamol      0.0    2.6   7.8
Strengths and weaknesses of approach
   Useful tool for diagnosing and understanding problems in
    budget execution and service delivery, and monitoring
    changes over time
   Validation of administrative data (financial and output)
   Process of designing and implementing survey is useful for
    understanding PEM and service delivery system
   But…
       surveys only provide part of the answer (intra-sectoral allocations,
        link with outcomes, etc.)
       Surveys should supplement rather than supplant routine
        information, control, and integrity systems
       Surveys are not audits
       Surveys provide information but don’t necessarily result in change