Public Expenditure Tracking

1
Public Expenditure Tracking Service Delivery
Surveys

• The 2003 ICGFM-WBI Workshop
• Washington, DC
• November, 2003
• Magnus Lindelow
• Development Research Group, The World Bank

2
The presentation

• Why new tools for public expenditure analysis?
• What are Public Expenditure Tracking Surveys
  (PETS)?
• Examples (Uganda, Mozambique, and more)
• Strengths and limitations of PETS

3
Why new tools to analyze public spending and
service delivery?

• 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) gt fiduciary and accountability
  concerns
• Are budget allocations pro-poor?
• Are budget outturns consistent with allocations?
• Do expenditures result in intended outputs and
  outcomes?
• Lack of reliable data in many developing countries

4
Public Expenditure Tracking and Service Delivery
Surveys

• First Public Expenditure Tracking Survey (PETS)
  carried out in Uganda in 1996
• Since then, a large number of PETS and related
  surveys have been implemented
• Scope and nature of surveys have differed, but
  common theme is link between public spending and
  development outcomes

5
The Approach

• Approach has varied considerably depending on
  context and focus
• Multilevel focus, but frontline providers
  (schools or health facilities) as main unit of
  observation
• Multi-angular approach for validation of data
• Representative sample
• Data collected through interviews and record
  reviews
• Some surveys include detailed surveys of
  frontline provider, including availability/adequac
  y of inputs, quality, staff and user interviews,
  etc.

6
What a PETS can and cannot do

• Issues that PETS can address
• Outturn consistent with allocation (leakage?)
• Consistency of records between different levels
  (leakage?)
• - Actual allocation of resources across districts
  and facilities (equity and efficiency?)
• Delays in financial transfers or distribution of
  material

Resource flowMoneyDrugsEquipmentSchoolbookset
c.
Central
Paper trail
Province
District
Budget recordsStock cardsPayrollsStudent
listsetc.
Fee revenues
School / Facility
Issues that PETS cant address Cooked books
Services
7
Uganda Education PETS (1995)

• Education sector
• Data from 250 schools and administrative units
• Only 13 percent of capitation grant entitlement
  actually reached schools (1991-95).
• Mass information campaign by Ministry of Finance
  (the press, posters)
• Follow-up surveys (PETS, provider surveys,
  integrity surveys, etc.)
• High leakage has also been found in other
  countries (Tanzania, Ghana, Zambia, Peru)

8
Mozambique Health ETSDS (2002)

• No budget allocations to individual primary
  health facilities gt focus on
• Consistency of records between different levels
• Equity and efficiency in allocation of resources
• Timeliness of resource transfers
• Perceptions of staff and users
• Sampled 90 health facilities in 35 districts
  nationwide

9
Mozambique ETSDS findings

• Weak record keeping and leakage
• District-level financial records for recurrent
  budget inconsistent with province-level records
  for 75 of districts, but no systematic pattern
• Discrepancies in drug records and some evidence
  of leakage
• Inconsistent HR records (provincial admin.,
  district admin, facilities)
• Facility reporting of user fee revenues approx.
  70 of expected amounts
• Considerable inequities in allocation of
  resources (recurrent budget, drugs, HR, etc)
  across districts and facilities

10
Inequality in drug distribution (Moz.)
11
Delays in budget transfers (Moz.)
12
Ghost workers and absenteeism

• Salary payments leak differently
• Different measurement approaches
• PETS with data collection on payroll and staffing
  data
• Unannounced visits to schools and health
  facilities

13
The strengths of the approach

• Useful tool for diagnosing and understanding
  problems in budget execution and service delivery
• District and frontline provider perspective often
  forgotten at central level
• Representative sample provides credibility not
  achieved through small-sample studies or
  institutional reviews
• Validation of administrative data (financial and
  output)
• Can provide basis for monitoring of changes over
  time
• Surveys provide data for research that can
  improve our understanding of the determinants of
  poor service delivery
• Process of designing and implementing survey is
  useful for understanding PEM and service delivery
  system

14
Some limitations

• Surveys only provide part of the answer
• What about inter- and intra-sectoral allocations?
  
• Link with outcomes?
• Surveys should supplement rather than supplant
  routine information, control, and integrity
  systems
• Surveys are not audits
• Enumerators do not have appropriate skills
• Too time consuming for large sample
• Focus on system-diagnostic rather than particular
  districts or facilities
• Surveys provide information but dont necessarily
  result in change
• A lack of information may not be primary
  constraint to improving PEM and service delivery
  findings need to be used strategically

15
Finding out more

• Survey reports, instruments, and documentation
  on www.publicspending.org
• http//www1.worldbank.org/publicsector/pe/tracking
  surveys.htm
• Some references
• Dehn, Reinikka, and Svensson. 2003. Survey Tools
  for Assessing Performance in Service Delivery.
  In Bourguignon and Pereira da Silva, eds.
  Evaluating the Poverty and Distributional Impact
  of Economic Policies. Oxford University Press and
  the World Bank. Forthcoming
• Reinikka and Svensson. 2002. Measuring and
  understanding corruption at the micro level. In
  Della Porta and Rose-Ackerman, eds. Corrupt
  Exchanges Empirical Themes in the Politics and
  Political Economy of Corruption. Nomos
  Verlagsgesellshaft.
• Lindelow and Wagstaff. 2002. Health Facility
  Surveys An Introduction. Policy Research
  Working Paper 2953. The World Bank.
• Email mlindelow_at_worldbank.org