Get documents about "Public Expenditure Tracking in Uganda (and elsewhere)
Document Sample
Public Expenditure Tracking in
Uganda (and elsewhere)
Budget Management and Financial Accountability
Washington, DC
March 2004
Magnus Lindelow (mlindelow@worldbank.org)
The World Bank
The Ugandan experience
Many improvements since 1992
macroeconomic stability and growth
shift of public resources from defense to roads and social
sectors
decentralization
Poverty Eradication Action Plan (PEAP)
Poverty reduced from 56% in 1992/93 to 35 % in
2000
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
posters)
100%
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
40%
implementation
shows a major improvement (18% 20%
leakage)
0%
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,
etc)
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
Zambia
Variation in design depending on PNG
perceived problems, country, and Honduras
sector Peru
Bangladesh
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
process
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
District
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
6
execution (32%) and service
delivery problems 4
Other systems weaknesses 2
Up to 90 day delays for re- 0
stocking of drugs
April
June
Jan.
Feb.
March
May
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
Related docs
