Participatory Budget


Published on

Published in: Business, Education
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • Good afternoon… A session after lunch is not the most conducive for getting attention – but I will try my best to prevent you from dozing off  . In this session we gather here to learn more about PBET, the third phase of the PPEM cycle and more specifically about the experiences in Uganda and Rajasthan. While I will dwell on the Uganda initiative, Dr. Cherian will narrate his experience in Rajasthan. But before I dive down into the presentation, I would like to ask you a few initial questions. I would like to add that if there is something that you do not understand or if I am going to fast or slow, please feel free to interrupt me and let me know. Yes, so back to the questions… The participants are to be provided with the following handouts: 1. PETS – note on methodology 2. SDV Learning Note of Uganda 3. PETS Questionnaire (Handout a copy of pages 222-243 of the “International Course on PETS in Education” document) 4. Presentation slides
  • Participatory Budget

    1. 1. Participatory Budget Expenditure Tracking (PBET) The Uganda Experience
    2. 2. Participatory Public Expenditure Management Cycle Budget Formulation Performance Monitoring Budget Review & Analysis Expenditure Tracking Civic Engagement
    3. 3. PUBLIC EXPENDITURE TRACKING <ul><li>What? </li></ul><ul><li>Why? </li></ul><ul><li>How? </li></ul>
    4. 4. WHAT? <ul><li>“ Of every rupee spent on the poor, only 15 paise actually reaches them” </li></ul><ul><li>Rajiv Gandhi </li></ul><ul><li>Participatory Budget Expenditure Tracking (PBET) involves the use of civil society to track how the public sector spends the money that was allocated to it. </li></ul>
    5. 5. PETS: Leakages In Other Countries 10 182 Fixed grants 2001 Zambia 76 182 Discretionary grants 2001 Zambia 87 250 Capitation grants 1995 Uganda 30 100 Utilities 2001 Peru 57 45 Non-wage 1998 Tanzania 49 126 Non-wage 1998 Ghana Leakage (%) Sample Fund Year Country
    6. 6. HOW? <ul><li>PET: Some Tools </li></ul><ul><li>Public Expenditure Tracking Surveys (PETS): Uganda, Zambia, </li></ul><ul><li>Participatory Social Audits ( Jan Sunvai ): Rajasthan, Delhi, Uttar Pradesh </li></ul><ul><li>Right To Information Movements: Rajasthan, Goa, Delhi Public Budget Hearings </li></ul><ul><li>Citizen Juries </li></ul><ul><li>Civil Society Monitoring of performance of public agencies </li></ul><ul><li>Investigative Journalism </li></ul>
    7. 7. WHY? <ul><li>Method 1 </li></ul><ul><li>Method 2 (Using PBET) </li></ul>15 Paise 85 Paise 100 Paise 100 Paise 100 Paise 100 Paise 667 Paise 557 Paise
    8. 8. Uganda: The Situation <ul><li>Many improvements since early 1990s </li></ul><ul><li>Macroeconomic stability </li></ul><ul><li>Stable growth (>7%) </li></ul><ul><li>Resource shift from defense to social sectors (education 3X) </li></ul><ul><li>But </li></ul><ul><li>No observed increase in pupil enrollment </li></ul><ul><li>Why? </li></ul><ul><li>“ Allocations don’t reach the destination” </li></ul><ul><li>(Corruption & Mismanagement) </li></ul>
    9. 9. “Prototype” PETS – Uganda 96 <ul><li>MISSION </li></ul><ul><li>HOW MUCH MONEY THAT LEFT THE EXCHEQUER REACHED SCHOOLS IN 1991-95? </li></ul><ul><li>250 primary schools in 19 districts selected </li></ul><ul><li>Focus on capitation grants </li></ul><ul><li>Data on income, expenditure, enrollment collected by former teachers </li></ul><ul><li>Standardized forms were used </li></ul>
    10. 10. PETS: KEY STAGES <ul><ul><li>Identify scope, actors and purpose </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Design of questionnaires </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Sampling </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Execution of survey </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Data analysis </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Dissemination </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Institutionalization </li></ul></ul>
    11. 11. PETS Uganda: The Findings <ul><li>Only 13% of allocations actually reached schools in 1991-95 </li></ul><ul><li>Poor schools received nothing!!! Median = 0% </li></ul><ul><ul><li>73% schools – more than 95% leakage; </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>10% schools – less than 50% </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Enrollment rates increased by 60% but had not been reported due to systemic disincentives </li></ul><ul><li>Salaries went up by 200% while expenses on instructional materials went up by 20% </li></ul><ul><li>Local governments were retaining grants </li></ul>
    12. 12. PETS UGANDA: The Process Advocating and negotiating change Rallying support and building coalitions Going public Building an information/ evidence base Mobilizing around entry point
    13. 13. Government Action <ul><li>Improve information flow </li></ul><ul><li>+ </li></ul><ul><li>Make transfers transparent </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Findings were disseminated through a mass information campaign </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>(signal to local governments) </li></ul></ul>
    14. 14. MORE REFORMS <ul><ul><li>Publish and broadcast transferred amounts </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Mandate schools to post amounts on notice boards monthly </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Accountability and information dissemination provisions in Local Governance Act, 1997 </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Require districts to deposit grants to schools in their accounts </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Delegate procurement from center to schools </li></ul></ul>
    15. 15. The Final Impact Source: Reinikka and Svensson (2001), Reinikka and Svensson (2003a)
    16. 16. Follow-up Surveys in Uganda Delays and leakage; compliance with grant procedures & regulations Primary health care 2002 PETS Incentives and efficiency in the delivery of health care Primary health care 2000 QSDS Delays and leakage 1998 & 1999 with assessment of compliance Primary education 1999 PETS Headcount and school mapping exercise with tracking component Primary education 1999 PETS Corruption and client experiences in the use of public services Multi sectoral 1998 Integrity Survey Compliance with guidelines for accountability for UPE funds Primary education 1998 PETS Delays & leakages 1991 - 1995 Primary education & health 1996 PETS Focus Sector Year/Survey
    17. 17. Public Expenditure Tracking Surveys (PETS) <ul><li>Strengths: </li></ul><ul><li>Provide concrete evidence of mismanagement or leakage of funds by local governments </li></ul><ul><li>Process empowers poor giving them confidence and self-respect </li></ul><ul><li>Significantly lowers corruption and leakages </li></ul><ul><li>Limitations: </li></ul><ul><li>No legal guarantee/binding for punishing guilty </li></ul><ul><li>No safeguards for whistleblowers </li></ul><ul><li>Government backlash/resistance </li></ul>
    18. 18. PET Critical Success Factors Institutionalization State-society synergy State capacity Civil society capacity The role of the media Access to information Political context and culture  7.  6.  5.  4.  3.  2.  1.
    19. 19. PETS In Other Countries <ul><li>Tanzania (1999 and 2001) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Tracking of pro-poor expenditures in priority sectors at all levels </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Ghana (2000) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Expenditure tracking based on data collected at facility, district, and central level </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Honduras (2000) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Survey looking at ghost workers, absenteeism, and “job-migration” </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Georgia, Peru, Bolivia, Laos, Zambia, Chad, Mozambique, Rwanda, Madagascar, Nigeria. </li></ul>
    20. 20. Uganda: Lessons Learnt <ul><li>Access to information reduces local capture </li></ul><ul><li>Inexpensive policy actions + mass media campaign = Improved targeting of programs </li></ul><ul><li>Poor are least likely to claim their entitlements from district officials so benefit most from such exercises </li></ul>
    21. 21. Questions?