Please read this article in Le Mauricien -Forum page of the 18th June. It proposes A NEW APPROACH to the budget process. The Ministry of Finance must evolve from mere number crunchers bogged down in fire-fighting and routine work to proper analysts, involved in strategic thinking and research, in the evaluation and assessment of the impact of the programmes and policies and in advising government accordingly. Presently there is very little analysis of how the policies/projects/programmes taken together will impact at the national level.
Land for e.g. is a cross-sector issue. What is the sustainable level of land that the country can afford to put for development? Can it cater for the different demands for land by the Ministry of Tourism, Public Infrastructure, IRS/PDS schemes, etc.? This level of coherence is not present in the present approach adopted by the MOF.
We are developing the metro; what are the accompanying measures that will be needed to prevent it from being a white elephant given that the road infrastructure is also being improved ? Who is doing the thinking and the research ?
Indeed we have to do things differently if we want the budget exercise to be meaningful and effective ? Beginning by MOF itself and the line ministries. Something which i have been proposing for years and this article reinforces my arguments raised over the years. See below my comments :
""Superb article !!! This is what we have always asked for when we started the Programme Based Budgeting at MOF and we had so many discussions with Mansoor (the FS), at that time, to democratise the process such that it is not always the MOF that imposes everything from above but the line ministries should be given greater ownership of the PBB process. In 2012, available on my blog, i had published an article on the PBB. "There are some crucial improvements that are badly needed now so that the PBB does not remain a mere theoretical tool failing to deliver in terms of enhancing fiscal discipline, bringing efficiency gains and promoting good governance in a more outcome-oriented public sector. The first step is to have good policies that can only result from proper analysis. Review sectoral policies and formulate 3-year strategic plans that are used as planning and management tools while ensuring that proper economic analysis of programmes and projects lead to the prioritization and the costing of programmes. This will form the basis of the policy rationales behind the ceilings and allow for greater acceptance of the ceilings by ministry policy makers”.
I had also pointed out that "No significant budgetary reforms are likely to succeed unless a robust and functioning accounting, reporting, monitoring, evaluation and implementation facilitator/delivering system is in place. ,,,,,And the second step is to upgrade the system of evaluation of projects and programs which is quite weak in many ministries”. I had concluded by arguing that "Attempting performance audit without agreed performance benchmarks and proper systems to record and track and evaluate performance is equally unlikely to be effective. These are some of the basics that must be satisfied for the PBB to be effective- “real” performance and policy-based budgeting - a PBB that secures delivery of government’s major domestic policy priorities."
In another article on "Cost effective social transfers" in Bus mag in 2013, available on my blog, I had highlighted “Has the MOF carried out any such surveys to assess the impact of its redistributive policies, amounting to Rs 2.3 billion annually, before it starts extolling these policies for having considerably reduced the burden on low-income families? Are these progammes cost-effective? Is there an effective monitoring and evaluation system that we, including the policy-makers and voters, can rely upon to justify our continuous support of such programmes?’
Your article hits the nail straight on its head; the MOF has to change the way it carries out and implement the whole budget exercise. Hats off, Karen!!! You did hit the bull's eye."
I had also pointed out that "No significant budgetary reforms are likely to succeed unless a robust and functioning accounting, reporting, monitoring, evaluation and implementation facilitator/delivering system is in place. ,,,,,And the second step is to upgrade the system of evaluation of projects and programs which is quite weak in many ministries”. I had concluded by arguing that "Attempting performance audit without agreed performance benchmarks and proper systems to record and track and evaluate performance is equally unlikely to be effective. These are some of the basics that must be satisfied for the PBB to be effective- “real” performance and policy-based budgeting - a PBB that secures delivery of government’s major domestic policy priorities."
In another article on "Cost effective social transfers" in Bus mag in 2013, available on my blog, I had highlighted “Has the MOF carried out any such surveys to assess the impact of its redistributive policies, amounting to Rs 2.3 billion annually, before it starts extolling these policies for having considerably reduced the burden on low-income families? Are these progammes cost-effective? Is there an effective monitoring and evaluation system that we, including the policy-makers and voters, can rely upon to justify our continuous support of such programmes?’
Your article hits the nail straight on its head; the MOF has to change the way it carries out and implement the whole budget exercise. Hats off, Karen!!! You did hit the bull's eye."
