Involve the masses in the budgeting process

May 10, 2009

<b>By Prof Augustus Nuwagaba</b><br><br>Finance minister Syda Bbumba is preparing for the presentation of the 2009/2010 financial year budget to Parliament and the nation. The budgeting process is largely a preserve of the central government. This, ther

By Prof Augustus Nuwagaba

Finance minister Syda Bbumba is preparing for the presentation of the 2009/2010 financial year budget to Parliament and the nation. The budgeting process is largely a preserve of the central government. This, therefore, makes the Government the main player.

We should be reminded, however, that it is the right of the people to know how their resources are to be allocated and utilised. The polity is the taxpayer and should, therefore, have a hand in planning, budgeting and expenditure tracking on programmes that ought to improve their welfare.

We should be cognisant of the fact that people understand their problems better and are better placed to solve them. The designers of our Constitution noted that they were fully aware of this and provided that “The Government shall take the necessary steps to involve the people in the formulation and implementation of development programmes which affect them”.

Further, Article 38 of the Constitution gives all Ugandans a right to participate in influencing government policies. Regardless of the fact that ordinary Ugandans have a direct interest as taxpayers in the benefits that arise from the budgetary processes, they actually have limited influence in budgetary processes, with no role in expenditure tracking. This discounts the ability of the budget to meet people’s expectations.

The language of the budget documents is complex with terminologies that can hardly be understood by the majority of the people.

Recently, I was a key note speaker at the Parliamentary Forum on Population and Development and it was clearly noted that even MPs do not effectively participate in the budgeting process, largely because of user unfriendliness of the documents.

It was noted that the time given to Parliamentarians to scrutinise the budget framework paper is too short to enable them provide their input. Other people have also contended that documents about the budgetary process such as the background to the budget and the budget speech are not easily accessible. At the peak of the process, Parliament is required to scrutinise and authorise all expenditures, including supplementary budgets, budget estimates and expenditure from the consolidated fund. But are the priorities set in the national budget consistent with those of the people? Are the allocations to different sectors like agriculture, education and health the appropriate ones? What determines specific sector allocations? Have the local governments fulfilled their mandate of preparing comprehensive and integrated development plans incorporating plans of lower level local governments for submission to the National Planning Authority? Are the ordinary people aware of their role in the budgeting process? Do they know what to expect from this process?

Due to limited public participation, there is a missing link between the budgeted programmes and activities at the grassroots level. This is one of the reasons for the rampant impunity regarding misuse, diversion and stealing of public funds.

It is sardonic that notwithstanding the highly romanticised economic growth (9%) and poverty reduction, from 56% in 1992 to 31% in 2006, public service delivery is showing signs of limited effectiveness and value for money. These range from poor roads, health services and deteriorating quality of education services.

The monitors and evaluators of the budget hardly look at output. Rather, they report on planned expenditures for the following financial year. They do not mind about producing data relating to levels of output, distribution of resources and outcome, such as client satisfaction from services provided.

This, therefore, makes it difficult to understand the causal relationship between the budget performance and the outcomes.

This is compounded by the lack of clear indicators and benchmarks to monitor and evaluate budget performance. There is need to develop a set of process, impact and outcome indicators, to assess the implementation of the budget. There should be short, medium and long-term verifiable indicators which relate explicitly and directly to budget allocation and execution. This is now a “best practice” in many countries.

The financial audit will not provide a solution as unscrupulous bureaucrats in the Government will provide very clean audit records, yet everyone knows that there was no service provided. This underscores the need to go beyond financial accounting and focus on value for money. In this regard, it is not viable that the Government establishes more accountability institutions. Instead, there is need for strengthening existing institutions. The focus should be on developing a system linking budget allocations, sector strategic plans, and actual expenditures.

The line ministry of Public Service has developed what is known as Client Charters which provides a tool for the community to demand their rights in terms of services from public institutions. This is a good idea to the extent to which such communities can interpret what is due to them in terms of budget and expenditure at the end of the financial year.

A number of “best practices” are available in the region. Pertinent among these include linking the budget with output and outcome indicators. For example, if a significant amount of money was spent on infrastructure in 2008/09, what has been the impact in terms of the status of our roads?

The writer is an international
development consultant

(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});