Public Expenditure Tracking in Uganda (and elsewhere)

1
Public Expenditure Tracking in Uganda (and
elsewhere)

• Budget Management and Financial Accountability
• Washington, DC
• March 2004
• Magnus Lindelow (mlindelow_at_worldbank.org)
• The World Bank

2
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

3
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.

4
Impact and follow-up

• Mass information campaign by Ministry of Finance
  (the press, posters)
• A signal to local governments
• Lower the cost of information to parents
• Follow-up PETS in education in 2001
• Ministry of Education initiative and local
  implementation
• shows a major improvement (18 leakage)
• Broadening agenda other sectors and broader
  focus (service delivery, integrity, etc.)

5
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

6
PETS and Service Delivery Surveys

• Diagnostic tool for understanding problems in
  budget execution
• Data collected from different levels of
  government, including service delivery units
• Reliance on record reviews, but also interviews
• Variation in design depending on perceived
  problems, country, and sector
• Growing focus on service delivery and use of
  hybrid survey approaches

Surveys to date Surveys to date
Completed Uganda Tanzania Ghana Rwanda Mozambique Zambia PNG Honduras Peru Bangladesh and more Ongoing Ethiopia Nigeria Brazil Laos
7
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.

8
An illustration from Mozambique

• Context and issues
• National Health System health sector dominated
  by public providers
• Providers receive budgets and in-kind transfers
• Vague allocation criteria and guidelines
• Fragmented and unreliable reporting
• Diagnostic survey
• 90 health facilities, 35 districts offices
• Record reviews and staff interviews
• Exit poll to capture user perceptions

Central
Resource allocation
Vague guidelines
Province
?
?
District
?
?
Facility
9
Delays and bottlenecks

• Delays in budget transfers to districts
• Budget norm January
• Delays gt low levels of budget execution (32)
  and service delivery problems
• Other systems weaknesses
• Up to 90 day delays for re-stocking of drugs
• Stock-out of drugs or material in 60 of
  facilities

10
Equity in resource allocation
Number of tablets distributed to facilities per
outpatient

• Push-based system of drug distribution
• Based on outpatient numbers
• In practice, very different
• Also irrational or inequitable allocation of
  other resources

Min. Mean Max.
Aspirin 1.1 4.6 16.8
Cloroquin 1.2 4.1 12.9
Cotrimoxazol 0.0 2.7 7.8
Mebendazol 0.5 1.6 6.2
Metronidazole 0.0 0.8 3.3
Paracetamol 0.0 2.6 7.8
11
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 dont necessarily
  result in change