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?