participatory budget
TRANSCRIPT
Participatory Budget Expenditure Tracking
(PBET)
The Uganda Experience
Participatory Public Expenditure Management
CycleBudget
Formulation
Performance Monitoring
Budget Review & Analysis
Expenditure Tracking
Civic Engagement
PUBLIC EXPENDITURE TRACKING
What?
Why?
How?
WHAT?
“Of every rupee spent on the poor, only 15 paise actually reaches them”
Rajiv Gandhi
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.
PETS: Leakages In Other Countries
Country Year Fund Sample Leakage (%)
Ghana 1998 Non-wage 126 49
Tanzania 1998 Non-wage 45 57
Peru 2001 Utilities 100 30
Uganda 1995 Capitation grants 250 87
Zambia 2001 Discretionary grants 182 76
Zambia 2001 Fixed grants 182 10
HOW?
PET: Some Tools• Public Expenditure Tracking Surveys (PETS):
Uganda, Zambia, • Participatory Social Audits (Jan Sunvai):
Rajasthan, Delhi, Uttar Pradesh• Right To Information Movements: Rajasthan, Goa,
Delhi Public Budget Hearings • Citizen Juries• Civil Society Monitoring of performance of public
agencies • Investigative Journalism
WHY?
Method 1
Method 2 (Using PBET)
15 Paise
85 Paise
100 Paise
100 Paise
100 Paise 100 Paise
667 Paise
557 Paise
Uganda: The SituationMany improvements since early 1990s• Macroeconomic stability• Stable growth (>7%)• Resource shift from defense to social
sectors (education 3X)But
No observed increase in pupil enrollment
Why?“Allocations don’t reach the destination”
(Corruption & Mismanagement)
“Prototype” PETS – Uganda 96
MISSIONHOW MUCH MONEY THAT LEFT THE
EXCHEQUER REACHED SCHOOLS IN 1991-95?
• 250 primary schools in 19 districts selected
• Focus on capitation grants• Data on income, expenditure,
enrollment collected by former teachers• Standardized forms were used
PETS: KEY STAGES
1. Identify scope, actors and purpose2. Design of questionnaires3. Sampling4. Execution of survey5. Data analysis6. Dissemination7. Institutionalization
PETS Uganda: The Findings• Only 13% of allocations actually reached
schools in 1991-95• Poor schools received nothing!!! Median = 0%
– 73% schools – more than 95% leakage; – 10% schools – less than 50%
• Enrollment rates increased by 60% but had not been reported due to systemic disincentives
• Salaries went up by 200% while expenses on instructional materials went up by 20%
• Local governments were retaining grants
PETS UGANDA: The Process
Advocating andnegotiating
change
Rallying supportand building coalitions
Going public
Building an information/evidence base
Mobilizing around entry point
Government Action
Improve information flow +
Make transfers transparent
Findings were disseminated through a mass information campaign (signal to local governments)
MORE REFORMS
– Publish and broadcast transferred amounts– Mandate schools to post amounts on
notice boards monthly– Accountability and information
dissemination provisions in Local Governance Act, 1997
– Require districts to deposit grants to schools in their accounts
– Delegate procurement from center to schools
The Final Impact
Source: Reinikka and Svensson (2001), Reinikka and Svensson (2003a)
Follow-up Surveys in Uganda
Year/Survey Sector Focus
1996 PETS Primary education & health
Delays & leakages 1991 - 1995
1998 PETS Primary education Compliance with guidelines for accountability for UPE funds
1998 Integrity Survey
Multi sectoral Corruption and client experiences in the use of public services
1999 PETS Primary education Headcount and school mapping exercise with tracking component
1999 PETS Primary education Delays and leakage 1998 & 1999 with assessment of compliance
2000 QSDS Primary health care
Incentives and efficiency in the delivery of health care
2002 PETS Primary health care
Delays and leakage; compliance with grant procedures & regulations
Public Expenditure Tracking Surveys (PETS)
Strengths:• Provide concrete evidence of
mismanagement or leakage of funds by local governments
• Process empowers poor giving them confidence and self-respect
• Significantly lowers corruption and leakages
Limitations:• No legal guarantee/binding for punishing
guilty • No safeguards for whistleblowers• Government backlash/resistance
PET Critical Success Factors1. Political context and culture 2. Access to information 3. The role of the media 4. Civil society capacity 5. State capacity 6. State-society synergy 7. Institutionalization
PETS In Other Countries
• Tanzania (1999 and 2001)– Tracking of pro-poor expenditures in priority
sectors at all levels
• Ghana (2000)– Expenditure tracking based on data collected at
facility, district, and central level
• Honduras (2000)– Survey looking at ghost workers, absenteeism,
and “job-migration”
• Georgia, Peru, Bolivia, Laos, Zambia, Chad, Mozambique, Rwanda, Madagascar, Nigeria.
Uganda: Lessons Learnt
• Access to information reduces local capture
• Inexpensive policy actions + mass media campaign = Improved targeting of programs
• Poor are least likely to claim their entitlements from district officials so benefit most from such exercises
Questions?