Program Based Budgeting 1

7/29/2019 Program Based Budgeting 1

1/79

The Implementation of PBB in the Public Sector

A Post Implementation Review

Submitted by

October 2012


2/79

Bsc Hons in Financial Managementwith specialisation in Public Finance

2

Confirmation

I confirm that the dissertation which I have submitted is a product of my own work and

that I have acknowledged all sources of information. The dissertation has not been

submitted to any other institution for the award of an educational qualification.

Signature

Name:


3/79


3

ABSTRACT

The purpose of this dissertation is to conduct a survey among officers in the Financial

Operation Officer cadre on the effectiveness of PBB implementation i.e. whether PBB is

achieving all its preset objectives, to assess andevaluate the implementation of PBB in

Ministries and to make recommendations for the effective the implementation of PBB.

A literature review was carried out on public sector budgeting in particular the PBB

manual, the PEFA report (2010), and the Collaborative Africa Budget Reform InitiativeReport (2010).

The information thus obtained has been used to prepare a questionnaire. A pilot testing

was carried out and the questionnaires were administered to 112 potential respondents.Only 31 properly filled questionnaires have been received.The data obtained from the

survey was coded and analyzed using SPSS (version 17).

The survey reveals that out of the 7 objectives set out in the PBB Manual , considerableprogress has been made on four of them As such , PBB has increased transparency and

accountability in the system, public management is more results-oriented and geared to

achieving development outcomes, PBB is providing more concrete information to theCabinet on performance for decision making purposes and for setting future targets and

priorities and it is promoting high quality, client-responsive public services which is

aimed at maximizing value for money in service delivery.

Slow progress is noted with respect to 3 objectives. The main areas of concern are: (a)_

improving effectiveness of government Ministries /Departments to develop and

implement their programs and sub-programs of activities(b) providing information tohelp reallocate resources within and between program and sub-programs and reducing

expenditure as part of efficiency gain and (c) Using performance and evaluation data for

policy planning and management purposes and enhancing operational and technicalefficiency, expenditure prioritization and improving allocation of resources.

One interesting finding from the study is about the mentality of officers at the MinistryofFinance. They have not change in the new system. Budgetary allocation by the

Ministry of Finance is still based on what was spent last year, a practice which was very

current under the line budgeting system. Moreover, the Ministry of Finance is

perpetuating the old practice of relentlessly pursuing savings at the cost of program

implementation.

It is also felt that policy and planning process at the Ministry of Finance does notprovide a realistic resource allocation to the Ministries. In addition concern has beenraised with respect to the time devoted by the Ministry of Finance to consider the budget

of a Ministry. On the positive side, there is a strong institutional framework to implement

PBB i.e. the National Audit Office and the Public Account Committee.

Appropriate recommendations have been made to strengthen the implementation of PBB


4/79


4

Acknowledgement


5/79


5

Table of Content

Page No

1.0 Introduction.. 12

1.1 Reform in the Public Sector.. 12

1.2Need for the Study 14

1.3 Objective of the study.. 14

1.4 Research Questions... 15

1.5 Research outline 15

1.6 Conclusion 15

2.0 Literature Review. 16


2.2 Budgeting. 16

2.3 Line Budgeting. 16

2.4 Performance Budgeting 17

2.5 Program Budgeting... 18

2.6PBB -an instrument of Policy Analysis. 19

2.7 Program Structure. 20

2.8Program Based Budgeting. 21

2.9 Program based budgeting as a Planning Process.. 22

2.10 Dilemma in implementing PBB. 22

2.11 Changing Form and Behavior. 23


6/79


6

2.12 Performance and Management Information system... 24

2.13 Conclusion... 24

3.0 Research Design and Methodology (1192)... 25


3.2 Research Methodology. 25

3.3 Data Collection Sources 25

3.4Population and Sampling.... 26

3.5Response Rate 27

3.6 Identifying the Constructs 28

3.7 Questionnaire Design 28

3.8Scale and measurement.. 28

3.9 Pilot Testing.. 29

3.10Data Analysis... 29

3.11 Ethical Considerations 29

3.12Conclusion 30

4.0 Analysis... 31


4.2Demographic Analysis..31

4.2.1 Gender... 31

4.2.2 Distribution of respondents by Position... 32

4.2.3 Distribution of Respondents by Ministries... 33


7/79


7

4.2.4 Educational Level.. 34

4.2.5Involvement in Budgeting.. 35

4.2.6 Training in PBB.... 36

4.3 Achieving PBB Objectives... 37

4.3.1 Objective 1... 37

4.3.2 Objective 2... 39

4.3.3 Objective 3 . 41

4.3.4 Objective 4... 43

4.3.5 Objective 5... 45

4.3.6 Objective6. . 47

4.3.7 Objective7 ...... 49

4.3.8 Overall Assessment 51

4.4 Rating by grade of officers... 52

4.5 The Implementation of PBB. 54

4.5.1 Rules and Regulations 54

4.5.2 Budget Policy and Planning Processes... 56

4.5.3 Budget Preparation Practices..... 56

4.5.4 Budget Execution and Accounting System.... 57

4.5.5 Monitoring and Evaluation 58

4.5.6 Performance Measurement 59

4.5.7Audit... 60


8/79


8

4.6 Conclusion. 61

5.0 Conclusion and Recommendations......................................................... 62

5.1 Introduction............................................................................................ 62

5.2 Conclusion............................................................................................... 62

5.3 Recommendations. 65

5.3.1 Training.. 65

5.3.2 New Mindset of Budgeting Officers. 65

5.3.3 Program Evaluation and Performance Management. 65

5.3.4 Benchmarking 65

5.3.5Internal Audit. 66

5.3.6The Financial Information System.. 66

5.3.7 Gender Responsive Budgeting.. 66

5.4 Conclusion 66

Questionnaire.. 67

Section A. 68

Section B. 69

Section C 73

Section D. 74

Bibliography 77


9/79


9

List of Tables

Page No

Table 1: Ministries. 27

Table 2: Responses. 27

Table 3: Scale.. 29

Table 4: Gender. 31

Table 5: Distribution of respondents by Position. 32

Table 6: Distribution of Respondents by Ministries.. 33

Table 7: Educational Level... 34

Table 8: Involvement in Budgeting 35

Table 9: Training in PBB.. 36

Table 10: Objective 1 38

Table 11: Overall Achievement-Objective 1... 38

Table 12: Objective 2.. 40

Table 13: Overall Achievement - Objective 2 40


Table 15: Overall Achievement: Objective 3. 42


Table 17: Overall Achievement -Objective 4. 44

Table 18: Objective 5. 46

Table 19: Overall Achievement -Objective 5. 46


10/79


10


Table 21: Overall Achievement -Objective 6 48


Table 23: Overall Achievement- Objective 7 50

Table 24: Overall Achievement.. 51

Table 25: Rating by grade of officers. 53

Table 26: Rules and Regulations 55

Table 27: Budget Policy and Planning Processes... 56

Table 28: Budget Preparation Practices. 57

Table 29: Budget Execution and Accounting System... 57

Table 30: Monitoring and Evaluation. 58

Table 31: Performance Measurement. 59

Table 32: Audit... 61


11/79


11

List of Figures

Page No

Figure 1: Gender 32

Figure 2: Distribution of respondents by Position.. 33

Figure 3: Distribution of Respondents by Ministries. 34

Figure 4: Educational Level 35

Figure 5: Involvement in Budgeting 36

Figure 6: Training in PBB 37

Figure 7: Overall Achievement-Objective 1... 39

Figure 8: Overall Achievement - Objective 2. 41

Figure 9: Overall Achievement - Objective 3. 43

Figure 10: Overall Achievement -Objective 4 45





12/79


12

1.0 Introduction

1.1 Reform in the Public Sector

Mauritius became an independent nation in 1968 and in the span of 40 years; it has

transformed itself from an underdeveloped to a developing economy. The development

model that it inherited from the British was being usedfor resource allocation to the

various sectors of the economy up to the year 2006.

As Mauritius has developed, incomes begin to rise and public spending tends to shift

towards infrastructure and social programs. The traditional budgeting system in Mauritius

did not support these changing needs. The challenge was about the strategic allocation of

resources, equity of public spending and greater efficiency in the use of public resources.

In 2006, Government undertook an ambitious reform program to strengthen public

financial management to meet the new challenges. This includes a national fiscal

management plan, integrated financial management information system, program

budgeting, and performance management reforms.

Prior to 2006, the national budget was prepared using line item budgeting. The serious

deficiency with such an approach is that it emphasizes input without linking it to output

or outcome. Moreover, it encourages accounting officers to use up their budgetary

allocation so as toavoid any cut in the next financial budget. Overall, it forces decision

makers to adopt a short term perspective.

It is within the context of public sector reform initiatives that the Finance Minister

announced in his 2006/7 budget speech the introduction of Program Based Budgeting

(PBB) embedded in 3 year rolling Medium Term Expenditure Framework, thus, breaking

away from the tradition of quasi automatic incremental increases based on inputs. Assuch, there was a fundamental shift toward outputs and outcomes for every rupee spent

by Government. In this respect, the debate is not on how much money each line ministry

should get but how each vote of a Ministry is contributing towards development priorities

and the quality of life of the Mauritian population.


13/79


13

The basic purpose of MTEF is to link the policy and planning functions of the

government to the allocation of resources through a structured, integrated decision-

making process.

The MTEF consists of five interconnected processes:

1) Macroeconomic forecasts of the governments future revenue, expenditure, deficit

or surplus, and debt;

2) A fiscal management plan that sets the governments policies and priorities for

the medium-term;

3) Top-down budgeting that translates the macroeconomic projections and fiscal

management plan into specific expenditure ceilings and guidelines of each

ministry and agency;

4) A performance management system that targets and reports on expected or actual

results for the previous or forthcoming fiscal year, and informs resource allocation

and ministry management decisions; and

5) The annual budget details the governments spending plans for the next year.

Program Based Budgeting (PBB) as part of MTEF is the planning of public expenditure

for the purpose of achieving explicitly defined results, which may be policy objectives or

simply outputs of routine public service activities

The Program Based Budgeting is a more modern concept which has been adopted by

several countries in the world. In fact, international experience suggests that Program

Based Budgeting can be a very effective tool in enhancing fiscal discipline, bringing

efficiency gains and promoting good governance in the public sector. Program based

budgeting is both an approach and a process that relates resources to intended results.

As mentioned earlier, the Program based budgeting system was introduced in 2007.Sinceits implementation; various reports have been commissioned by Government to look into

the effectiveness of the implementation of PBB in Mauritius.

Initially, most of the reports gave an adverse rating on the implementation of PBB. Over

the years, some positive findings were reported in the implementation of PBB in


14/79


14

Mauritius. The main reportsare thePEFA report (2010) and the Collaborative Africa

Budget Reform Initiative Report (2010).

The Collaborative Africa Budget Reform Initiative Report (CABRI: 2010) noted hat

failures can attributed to the lack of trained personnel needed to carry out the requisite

analysis and a lack of adequate information due to the accounting system not being well

integrated withplanning, budgeting, cash and debt management, and auditing systems. It

recommended that the system can succeed with strong politicalbacking, a rigorous

program of training, gradual introduction of the system and other complementary reforms

that would encourage performance.

1.2Need for the Study

Officers in the Financial Operation Cadre carry out accounting and finance duties. As

per their position, they are an important link in the financial information system that is

necessary to implement and sustain PBB. In view that they are highly involved in PBB,

they are therefore, an important source of information in any study that seeksto evaluate

the degree that PBB is effective in Mauritius.

As such, thisstudy is of an investigative type. It seeks to obtain the views of officers in

the Financial Operation Officer (FOO) Cadre on theeffectiveness of PBBimplementationin Mauritius.

1.3Objective of the study

The objectives of the study are to:

(a) Conduct a survey among officers in the Financial Operation Officer cadre on the

effectiveness of PBB implementation i.e. whether PBB is achieving all its pre set

objectives

(b)To assess and evaluate the implementation of PBB in the Ministries

(c) To make recommendations for the effective implementation of PBB


15/79


15

1.4 Research Questions

In order to meet the research objectives, the study will be centered on the following

research questions:

What is the generalperception ofofficers in the Financial Operation Cadre on the

degree that PBB is meeting its objectives?

To what extent PBB is being effectively implemented in Ministries?

1.5Research outline

The research is presented in five chapters:

i. The first chapter frames the area of interest and outlines the problem investigatedand the place where the study has been conducted .In addition, the research

questions and objectives are discussed.

ii. The second chapter reviews literature on PBB

iii. The third chapter discusses the methodology used in the study. It covers the

research approach, sampling, questionnaire design and data analysis. It concludes

with a justification for the approach adopted and acknowledges the inherent

limitations.

iv. The fourth chapter presents the studys findings, as informed by the primary and

secondary data collected and responds to the research objective

v. The fifth chapter concludes the research and presents the studys

recommendations.

1.6 Conclusion

This chapter has set the context in which the study is being carried. It has defined the

objectives of the study together with the related investigative questions and the scope of

the study. The next chapter will focus on literature review on PBB


16/79


16

2.0 Literature Review (2571 words)

2.1 Introduction

The previous chapter presented an overview of the research study. This chapter presents

the literature review.

2.2 Budgeting

The broad functions of budgeting are

Control of public resources,

Planning for the future allocation of resources and

Management of resources

The budgeting approach initially started with line item budgeting. Over the years, new

forms of budgeting were developed (e.g. Zero Based Budgeting and Performance

Budgeting). The latest one is the Program Based Budgeting .The latter has been

developed by the World Bank and it has been implemented in many countries. In Africa,

the PBB has been implemented by Ghana, South Africa and Kenya.

2.3 Line Budgeting

In a line item system, expenditures for the coming year are listed according to objects of

expenditure, or line items. These line items are often quite detailed, specifying how

much money a particular agency or subunit will be permitted to spend on personnel,

fringe benefits, travel, equipment, and the like. The most important focus of the budget

system is to specify the line item ceilings in the budget allocation process and to ensure

that agencies do not spend in excess of their allocations.

According to Pearson (2002), the incremental budgeting has many flaws in the allocation

of scarce public resources. It tolerated allocative inefficiency and it contributed to the

creeping enlargement in the relative size of the public sector. Moreover, the author cited

that it weakened aggregate fiscal discipline by making the totals accommodate the parts.

As such, aggregate spending was the sum of approved demands on the budget and it was


17/79


17

not fixed independently of those demands. Spending agencies proposed numerous

program initiatives, but these generally were means of bidding for more money and not

means of trading off within fixed budgets.

Pearson (2002) concluded by stating the line item approach was not compatible with the

demands accompanying the expansion of government. Budgets organized according to

line items gave no information about why money was spent, or on the efficiency and

effectiveness of programs. Furthermore, these line-item systems were almost all

associated with a short time horizon, leading to failure to take longer-term costs into

account.

Joyce(1999), pointed out that the early reform movement focused on the effective

control of budget accounts, establishing economy and, to a lesser extent, efficiency as the

primary values of budgeting. In their opinion, the strengths of such a system lie in its

relative simplicity, lack of ambiguity, and potential for control of expenditures through

easy comparison with prior years and through the detailed specification of inputs.

2.4 Performance Budgeting

Premchand A. (2001), pointed out that performance budgeting, was designed to allow

managers to develop measures of workload and unit cost This type of budgeting drew ona long-term concern with the efficiency of government andattempted to integrate

information about government activities into the budget process so thatbudget decisions

could be based to a greater degree on the relationship between what governmentdid and

how much it cost.

The author pointed out that performance budgeting isa shift from budgeting based on

expenditure control tobudgeting based increasingly on management concerns. As such,

the emphasis was not on makinggovernment-wide budgetary trade-offs, but on measuringthe workload of an agency. The focuswas on the work to be done and not on the

usefulness of the objectives themselves. Performancebudgeting was rarely adopted as a

government-wide budgetary process, but it was significant becauseit emphasized the

integration of activity information and budgeting.


18/79


18

Kline (1997pointed out that the major criticism of performance budgeting was that

efficiency is an important goal inbudgeting and is an inadequate criterion for allocation.

He is of the view that performance budgetings key strengths- i.e. linking what was to be

produced with the resources required within the annual budget cycle, wasin fact a

weakness in that it distracted attention from policy outcomes and the latter required a

perspectivebeyond the annual budget cycle. What was needed, according to him was a

methodof budgeting that would also take into account the effectiveness of expenditures.

Theseconsiderations subsequently led to program budgeting.

2.5 Program Budgeting

According to the principle of Program Based Budgeting, budget information and

decisions should be structured according the objectives of the government .The key to

program budgeting is the program i.e. a public policy objective along with the

stepsnecessary to attain it. The budget is classified in terms of programs, rather than

alongorganizational lines. Program budgeting requires that program objectives stretch

beyond a single fiscal year. In addition, program budgeting requires effectiveness

measures, which means the measurement of outputs and outcomes

(Shah 1998) identify four different uses of a program budget: (1) As a tool of policy

analysis, program budgeting facilitates comparison and evaluation of the cost-

effectivenessof alternative spending options that have the same objectives. (2) As a

means ofimproving government performance by giving managers operating discretion.

(3) Itfacilitates accounting for the full cost of government activities. (4) It enables

thegovernment to plan ahead and set spending priorities. The author pointed out that the

four approaches are notmutually exclusive; all can be served by the same budget system.

This view is shared by Pollitt, Christopher, Bouckaert, Geert (2001) that a

governmentmay adopt program budgeting in order to analyze spending alternatives, to set

orchange spending policies, to plan public priorities, and to measure the cost of whatit

does. The more common situation, however, is for the government to emphasizeone or

another of these approaches in designing its program budget .


19/79


19

According to Rajaram, Anandand Krishnamurthy (2001), Program Based Budgeting

is the principal budget reform that has been exported to developing countries. In practice,

program budgeting has not been verysuccessful in either developed or developing

countries. Criticisms range from those who believethat program budgeting is so flawed in

concept that it would be inapplicable in any setting and that the prerequisites that would

be necessary to bring the reform to developingcountries are currently not present.

The authors pointed out that, program budgeting has retainedits appeal as a budget

reforms. It does seem rational for spending decisions to bebased on the contribution each

program makes to governmental objectives. More so, it is hardto defend the practice of

allocating money on the basis of the cost of supplies, travel, salaries and other inputs.

According to Schick, (1999), most of the critics do not see program budgeting itself as a

flawed concept, but rather stress theconditions that are needed for program budgeting to

be successful. These might include adequate information about programs and about

social, economic and environmentalconditions. Some authors have argued that these

conditions are not present in many countries, thereby making itimpossible for program

budgeting to take root and flourish. In addition, they argue that developing countries

often lack the trained personnel needed to carry out the requisite analyses, although this

point is usually exaggerated. More serious is the lack of stability necessary to enable

longer-term budgetary planning and the lack of consistent political commitment

necessary to allow the reform tobe fully implemented.

2.6PBB -an instrument of Policy Analysis

The first generation of policy analysts and program budget designers saw their task as

applying the tools and concepts of economic analysis to government allocations. As

program budget matured, policy analysts generally formed a consensus around one main

and two subsidiary criteria for structuring programs. The most important criterion is that

all expenditures and activities that serve thesame purpose should be placed in the same

program. Each program should have asingle, identifiable (and preferably measurable) end

purpose that is distinct from theactivities that government is carrying on. (Foltin 1999)


20/79


20

Diamond (2003) in his research found out that once objectives have been defined, policy

analysts apply two criteria in classifying particular activities within the program structure.

The first pertains to substitutability, the second to complementarity. As such, two or more

activities (orexpenditures) that are substitutes for one another should be placed in the

sameprogram, regardless of the organizational unit in which they are located. It should be

evident that the substitution and complementarity principles compelgovernment to

disregard organizational boundaries in designing a programstructure.

He also found out that the substitution and complementarity criteria lead governments to

erase the distinction between recurrent and investment expenditure. Many

governmentobjectives can be fulfilled either by providing services through the operating

budgetor by building infrastructure in the capital budget.

2.7 Program Structure

Willoughbyand Melkers (2000) noted that the fuzzy definition of programs and the

multiplicity of objectives have impelledsome governments to spend an inordinate amount

of time, several years in somecountries, searching for the ideal program structure. They

undergo intense conflict, over the classification of expenditures, the number of levels in

the program structureand the linkage among the levels, the allocation of costs among

missions andactivities, the measurement of results, and other important technical details.

The structure is a hybrid: some programs are organization units, others are overhead

activities, others are processes, and some are purposes.

According toCampos, Jose andPradhan (1997), the most important criterion is that all

expenditures and activities that serve the same purpose should be placed in the same

program. Each program should have a single, identifiable (and preferably measurable)

end purpose that is distinct from the other activities.Substitutability and complementarily

are the two versions of program budgeting but they differ in the alignment of programs

and organizational units. The analytic version favors a pure structure that gives

primacy to programs, even when the resulting classification diverges from the

organizational structure. The managerial version favors the organizational structure

because managers produce results by using the financial, human and physical resources


21/79


21

of the entities they head. The analytic approach would have governments restructure

organizations and appropriations so that they are program-based; the managerial view

would allow the designation of organizational units as programs, particularly at the lower

levels of the program structure.

They stated that once objectives have been defined, policy analysts should apply two

criteria inclassifying particular activities within the program structure. The first pertains

to two or more activities (orexpenditures) that are substitutes for one another should be

placed in the sameprogram, regardless of the organizational unit in which they are

located. These principleswould compel government to disregard organizational

boundaries in designing a program structure. Howeverthese principles do not dictate that

government is re-organized to conform its administrative and program structures.

2.8Program Based Budgeting as a means of Improving Managerial

Performance

The first generation program budgets were constructed according to the precepts of

policy analysis; more recent versions of program budgeting have been influenced by

contemporary management doctrine, which is often referred to as new public

management or NPM (Harris, 2001). The essential idea of NPM is that in order for public

managers to perform well, they must be given substantial flexibility in using

organizational resources. They should not be constrained by ex-ante input controls, such

as is common in line-item budgeting.

According to the author, this logic leads to a version of program budgeting that purges

budgeting ofcontrols on personnel, supplies, travel expenses and other inputs, and orients

it tothe results that the government wants to accomplish with available resources. In

thissense, program budgeting is the opposite of line-item budgeting; it focuses onoutputs(or outcomes) rather than inputs. A program inherently is broadercategory of expenditure

than an activity; hence, switching to a program structure inevitablyenlarges the capacity

of managers to decide how operating resources are used. Thisre-orientation of budgeting

serves another purpose: by purging the budget of itemized inputs, it shifts the basis of

budget negotiations and decisions at the centerof the government from arguments about


22/79


22

how much should be spent on salaries or travel to discussion of the key policy issues

facing the government.

2.9 Program based budgeting as a Planning Process

According to Andrews (2003), a single fiscal year is tooshort to account for either costs

or results. A program may have modest startup costs in the year it is launched, but higher

costs in subsequent years when itbecomes fully operational. If the budget were to

consider only the year immediately ahead, out-year costs would be ignored in making

program decisions. Moreover, money spent in one year might not yield substantive

results for several years.

In this respect Diamond pointed out (2003) argued that although program budgeting tends

to elongate the budget process; manycountries that have conventional budgeting systems

have introduced a medium-termframework. In his opinion, a program structure is not a

precondition for a multiyear budget capacity but multiyear frames may be a precondition

for program budgeting.

He noted that MTEF has replaced national planning as the main tool fortaking

government decisions in the future. Program budgeting has the potential to inject more

strategy into budgeting and more fiscal constraint into planning. It can make budgeting

into a more strategic (and less incremental) process by focusing on government

objectives and by shifting the basis of decision from what was spent in the past to what is

wanted for the future. It can make planning more sensitive to fiscal constraints by

injectingfinancial considerations into decisions on the future and by requiring

tradeoffamong planned programs.

2.10 Dilemma in implementing PBB

From the program budgeting literature, the main purpose of thistype of budgeting is that

a good program structure should help to make the rightchoice of operational mix, and to

measure achievements of a programs targets.


23/79


23

According to Tucker, L. (2000), this is a difficult path and a real challenge. First,

terminology misconception and, at times, different definitions of the terms used are far

from clear. Second, even if a clear definition is agreed for terms used, their quantification

and timeframe isdifficult. Some program objectives can only be met in the medium term,

andconsequently during a budget year, only some intermediate program targets in

theform of outputs may be measured. Third, relating inputs to outputs (immediateservices

or products, such as public vaccination) and outcomes (final results, suchas reduction in

death rate) is not always an easy task, especially where externalfactors outside

government budget, and not controllable by program managers, mayplay a role in the

achievement of program targets.

While assessment of outcome achievement can be made regularly, the frequency of these

assessments is typically in terms of years rather than months. Given thistime horizon,

managers often rely on outputs to make short-termdecision. While assessment of outcome

achievement can be made regularly, the frequency of these assessments is typically in

terms of years rather than months. Given thistime horizon, managers often rely on

outputs to make short-term assessments ofhow well a program is progressing in achieving

its desired outcome. Often, a lag ofseveral years occurs between the spending of money

on a program and the effects ofthat expenditure being seen in terms of program

outcomes. This lag can causeprogram officials to see themselves as being accountable for

the consequences of resource and management decisions made by their predecessors

assessments of how well a program is progressing in achieving its desired outcome.

2.11 Changing Form and Behavior

Tucker(2001)also commented that Program budgeting is not simply about changing the

way a budget is presented, but about changing the way policy officials, the public and

government staff think of the government, how they plan, manage and budget. As such,

introducingprogram budgeting is very much about engaging staff in line ministries to

think differently about what they do and how they do it. Each line ministry and agency

within it needs to engage in the process of developing a program structure for their


24/79


24

budget. In some ways it is a strategic planning exercise to examine what they do and how

it relates to the objectives of the organization and the government.

2.12 Performance and Management Information system

Shah and Allen (1998) draw attention to the fact that additional demands for information

and resources will be generated Identification of program objectives, outputs, outcomes,

and performance measures is a natural part of developing a program budget structure.

Ministries will discover in the course of the work that they do not currently collect the

information they need to monitor performance or impact. In some cases ministries will

find that they currently collect the wrong information, or information of less value.

Program based budgeting will generate demands for additional or new data collection,

and put pressure on information technology and data collection systems. These will

generate demands for additional budget and staffing resources for new information

systems and survey instruments.

2.13 Conclusion

This chapter has discussed the findings from the literature review. The next chapter

elaborates on the methodology used.


25/79


25

3.0 Research Design and Methodology (1192)

3.1 Introduction

Research is a systematic way of collecting and interpreting of information for the

research project. Saunders, Lewis and Thornhill (2009) define research as something

that people undertake in order to find out things in a systematic way, thereby increasing

and adding to academics knowledge.

This chapter explains in details the methodology used in gathering the necessary

information to conduct the research study. It highlights the sources of data, the survey

design, and the data analysis method employed. The steps which are necessary to

conduct a research have also been highlighted.

3.2 Research Methodology

There are two main approaches to research, that is, deductive and inductive. A

deductive approach is one where a theory and hypothesis (or hypotheses) are being

developed and the research strategy tests various hypotheses. An inductive approach, on

the other hand, is one in which data are collected for testing a theory within a given

context. For this study an inductive approach has been used.

The quantitative research approach focuses on questions or statements that seek to collect

information that can be quantified to help provide answers to the research problems.

Moreover, quantitative research has the advantage of giving the possibility to repeat the

survey in the future thereby enabling comparison of the results.

3.3 Data Collection Sources

There are two sources for collecting information and data which are relevant to a study:

primary and secondary sources. Primary source refer to where the researcher design the


26/79


26

data collection instrument to collect data by means of a questionnaire, interviews or a

combination of both. The main advantages of this approach are that they are more

reliable and the researcher has a greater control on the study but it can be costly and time

consuming. In this study, primary data has been collected by using a questionnaire.

3.4Population and Sampling

Sampling is the process of learning about the population on the basis of a sample drawn

from the population. (Saunders et al. 2009)

The primary objective of the sample is to obtain valid and reliable information about the

population within a minimum of cost, time and effort. There are two kinds of sampling

technique: probability (representative) and non-probability (judgmental) sampling. In

probability sampling the probability of each case being selected from the population is

known and equal for all cases. With non- probability sampling, each case selected from

total population is not known.

The population is all the Ministries that are implementing PBB and their finance staff.

Presently there are 22 Ministries in the public sector .Stratified sampling has been used to

select the ministries based on the size of their budget i.e. large, medium and small. Using

random sampling, 8 Ministries were selected. It should be pointed out that more weightwas given to large Ministries. Thisis given in the table below:


27/79


27

Ministries Category Number of

Officers

SAMPLE

Ministry of Health Large 42 21

Ministry of Education and HR Large 49 25

Ministry of Public Infrastructure Large 22 11

Ministry of Finance Medium 96 22

Ministry of Civil Service Affairs and A.R Small 5 5

Ministry of Public Utilities Large 12 12

Ministry of Labor, industrial relation and

Employment

Small 6 6

Ministry of agro industry and fisheries Medium 18 10

Table 1: Ministries

The sampling plan is as follows (a) for small ministries, all the respondents were

contacted, for medium and big ministries, 50 % of the potential respondents were

targeted except for the Ministry of Finance where a third of the population was targeted.

Overall, 25 % of the population was targeted.

3.5Response Rate

The responses from the participant are given in the table below:

Ministry Sample Responses Response rate (%)

Ministry of Health 21 1 4

Ministry of Education and HR 25 7 28

Ministry of Public Infrastructure 11 6 54

Ministry of Finance 22 5 22

Ministry of Civil Service Affairs and A.R 5 4 80

Ministry of Public Utilities 12 3 25

Ministry of Labor , industrial relation and

Employment

6 3 50

Ministry of agro industry and fisheries 10 2 20

Total 112 31

Table 2: Responses


28/79


28

From the above table, it could be noted that the responses were very low from the

Ministry of Heal and Q.L

3.6 Identifying the Constructs

In the initial phase of the research, the literature review was carried out in international

journals and publications that reflect the topic of the study. A comprehensive review of

the literature was the basis for the identification of the constructs and the development of

instruments that was used in this study.

3.7 Questionnaire Design

The questionnaire used in this study is at Appendix A. It consists of mainly Likert Scalechoices. The questions have been framed using nominal, ordinal and interval scale. The

questionnaire has been divided 3 sections:

Part A: Demographic Data

Part B: Achievement of PBB objectives

Part C :Implementation Of PBB

The data that were collected are as follows:

(i) Nominal data which relate mainly to the demographic of the respondents and

(ii) Interval and ordinal data which relate to the views and opinions expressed on a set of

scaled questions using the Likert Scale.

The questionnaires were administered using the following means hand delivery and

electronic mail.

3.8Scale and measurement

A five-point scale was used to record respondent opinion. The scale intervals are

interpreted as follows:


29/79


29

S.N Abbreviations Scale

1 Strongly disagree S.D 1

2 Disagree D 2

3 Neutral N 3

4 Agree A 4

5 Strongly agree SD 5

Table 3: Scale

3.9 Pilot Testing

Pilot test is a pre-testing that identifies and eliminates problems before the main survey

take place. For this study, a pilot study was carried out by selecting 4 potential

respondents in a Ministry. They were given the questionnaire and they were be required

to give their views on the layout of the questionnaire, the clarity of the questions and the

simplicity of the language that has been used. After collecting the fout questionnaires, the

comments made, werestudied and these were be incorporated in the final version of the

questionnaire.

3.10Data Analysis

After the data has been collected, the next step in research process is data analysis. In this

phase, data coding was carried out as a means for translating information into values

suitable for statistical analysis using SPSS version 16. Only descriptive (Mean and

Standard Deviation) statisticshave been used in this study.

3.11 Ethical Considerations

The issue of ethics in a research is very important. The respondents were sufficiently

informed about the purpose of the survey in an introductory letter. They were given the

discretion to respond to the survey. They were also informed all information that


30/79


30

anonymity will be treated with confidentiality and would be used solely for this study.

Finally no potential harm was identified for those that participated in the study.

3.12Conclusion

This chapter has given a detailed description of the methodology used for this research.

The next chapter will present the findings of the analysis of the data including the

inferences and observations made there-from.


31/79


31

4.0 Analysis

4.1 Introduction

The previous chapter has discussed the research methodology adopted to generate the

primary data for achieving the aims and objectives of the study. This chapter is

concerned with the analysis of primary data collected from the questionnaires. The

results are presented in tabular forms and they are followed by the relevant analysis and

discussions thereon.

4.2 Demographic Analysis

This part presents the demographic profile of the respondents.

4.2.1 Gender

The distribution of the sample by gender is given in the table below:

Gender Frequency Percent Cumulative Percent

Male 18 58.1 58.1

Female 13 41.9 100.0

Total 31 100.0

Table 4: Gender

18 respondentsare male (58 %) and 13 respondents are female (42%). This information

is illustrated in a pie chart below:


32/79


32

female

male

Figure 1: Gender

4.2.2 Distribution of respondents by Position

The distribution of the respondents by position is tabulated below:

Respondents Frequency Percent Cumulative

PercentAssistant Manager,

Financial Operation

3 9.7 9.7

Senior FinancialOperations Officer

5 16.1 25.8

FinancialOperations Officer

8 25.8 51.6

Assistant FinancialOperations Officer

15 48.4 100.0

Total 31 100.0

Table 5: Distribution of respondents by Position

The distribution of the respondents by position is as follows: 3 are Assistant Managers,

Financial Operation, 5 are Senior Financial Operations Officers, 8 are Financial


33/79


33

Operations Officers and 15 are Assistant Financial Operations Officers. This information

is presented in the chart below:

position

Ass istant Financial

Financial Operations

Senior Financial Op

Assistant Manager,

16

14

12

10

8

6

4

2

0

Figure 2: Distribution of respondents by Position

4.2.3 Distribution of Respondents by Ministries

The table below presents the 8 Ministries where the survey has been conducted.

Frequency Percent Cumulative Percent

Ministry of Health 1 3.2 3.2

Ministry of education and HR 7 22.6 25.8

Ministry of Public Infrastructure 6 19.4 45.2

Ministry of Finance 5 16.1 61.3

Ministry of Civil Service Affairs

and A.R

4 12.9 74.2

Ministry of Public Utilities 3 9.7 83.9

Ministry of Labor , industrial

relation and Employment

3 9.7 93.5

Ministry of agro industry and

Fisheries

2 6.5 100.0

Total 31 100.0

Table 6: Distribution of Respondents by Ministries


34/79


34

There has been a very limited response from respondents of the Ministry of Health and

Quality of Life. The data is illustrated in the table below:

Ministry

Minist

ryof agroin

Ministr

yofLabour,

Minist

ryofPublicU

Minist

ryofCivilSe

Minist

ryofFinance

Minist

ryofPublicI

Ministr

yofeducatio

Minis

tryofHealth

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

0

Figure 3: Distribution of Respondents by Ministries

4.2.4 Educational Level

The highest level of the respondents is given in the table below:

Education Frequency Percent Cumulative Percent

up to S.C 13 41.9 41.9

up to HSC 14 45.2 87.1

Degree 3 9.7 96.8

Masters orProfessional

1 3.2 100.0

Total 31 100.0

Table 7: Educational Level


35/79


35

From the table, it is noted that most of the respondents have either studied up to SC or

HSC levels. 3 respondents hold a degree and 1 has studied up to Master Level. This is

illustrated below:

education

Masters or ProfessioDegreeup to HSCup to S.C

16

14

12

10

8

6

4

2

0

Figure 4: Educational Level

4.2.5Involvement in Budgeting

The respondents self-assessment of his involvement in the budgeting process is tabulated

below:

Frequency Percent Cumulative Percent

Low 2 6.5 6.5

Moderate 9 29.0 35.5

High 20 64.5 100.0

Total 31 100.0

Table 8: Involvement in Budgeting


36/79


36

Most of the respondents (N=20) are highly involved in the budgeting process, 9 have

stated that their involvement is moderate and 2 respondents have stated that they have a

low involvement. The relevant information is presented in a pie chart below:

high

moderate

low

Figure 5: Involvement in Budgeting

4.2.6 Training in PBB

The literature review pointed out that training of personnel is a prerequisite for the

implementation of a PBB system. The various reportson the implementation of PBB in

Mauritius have identified that training to Finance Officers were very low. The data

obtained on training is given below:

Valid

Training Frequency Percent Valid

Percent

Cumulative

Percent

No training 18 58.1 58.1 58.1

Limited training 7 22.6 22.6 80.6

Extensive

Training

6 19.4 19.4 100.0

Total 31 100.0 100.0

Table 9: Training in PBB


37/79


37

From the above table, it is noted that most of the officers in this cadre have not received

training on PBB. 7 respondents have received a limited training and 7 have been

extensively trained.

trainning in PBB

extensive traininlimited trainingno training

20

18

16

14

12

10

8

6

4

Figure 6: Training in PBB

4.3 Achieving PBB Objectives

According to the PBB manual, Governments aims at achieving seven objectives in the

implementation of Program BasedBudgeting. The objectives have been framed into a set

of 15questions. The questions are aimed to assess the respondents evaluation of the

degree that PBB is meetings its intended objectives.

4.3.1 Objective 1

Objective 1: To reform the framework governing public management in order to make it

more results-oriented and geared to achieving development outcomes.


38/79


38

This objective has been framed under two questions. The responses are tabulated below:

SN STATEMENTS S.D D N A SD MEAN S>D

1 PBB is now providing a

framework for publicfinancial managementwhich is more results-

oriented

1 4 3 16 7 3.7742 1.0555

2 PBB is now making

Public Financial

Management to be more

geared to achievingdevelopment outcomes

3 5 4 13 6 3.4516 1.2607

Overall mean 3.6129 .7715

Table 10: Objective 1

From the table, it is noted that positive responses have been received for the two

questions. The mean for the first question is 3.7742 and the mean for the second question

is 3.4516. The overall mean is 3.6129.

The overall rating of the respondents on the first objective is given in the table below:

Mean Score Frequency Percent Category

Between 1 and 2 5 16 Poor achievement

Between 2 and 3 9 29 Average achievement

Between 3 and 4 15 48 Good achievement

Between 4 and 5 2 7 Excellent achievementTotal 100

Table 11: Overall Achievement-Objective 1


39/79


39

From the statistics in the table, it is found out that 5 respondents has rated the

achievement on this objective as poor, 9 has rated it as average, 15 has rated it as good

and 2 has rated it as excellent.

As such, it can be concluded that the public management framework in the PBB is more

results-oriented and is geared to achieving development outcomes. As to date ,

considerable progress has been made in achieving this objective The result of the

analysis is depicted below:

OBJ1

5.004.504.003.503.002.502.00

14

12

10

8

6

4

2

0

Std. Dev = .77

Mean = 3.61

N = 31.00

Figure 7: Overall Achievement-Objective 1

4.3.2 Objective 2

Objective 2: To promote high quality, client-responsive public services and to maximize

value for money in service delivery.

In order to gauge the opinion of the respondents, this objective has been disaggregated in

two questions. The frequency distribution, the mean and the standard deviation are given

in the table below:


40/79


40


1. PBB is promoting a high

quality, client-responsivepublic services

1 4 7 13 6 3.6129 1.0544

2. PBB is now maximizingvalue for money in

service delivery

5 12 5 7 2 2.6452 1.1986

Overall mean score 3.1290 .8848


The mean score from the first question is 3.6. This indicates that most respondents

support the statement. In fact, 19 out of the 31 respondents have opined that PBB is now

promoting a high quality, client-responsive public services.

With regard to the second question, the mean score is below3 (M=2.8452). The low

support for this question is confirm by the fact that 17 out of the 31 respondents do not

agree that PBB is maximizing value for money in service delivery.

The overall rating of the respondents on the second objective is given in the table below:





Between 4 and 5 8 26 Excellent achievement

Total 100

Table 13: Overall Achievement - Objective 2

From the above table, it is noted that 12 respondents has rated the achievement in

meeting the second objective as average, 11 has rated it as good and 8 has rated it as


41/79


41

excellent. The overall mean is 3.13 and the standard deviation is .88. As such, the

overall rating for this objective can be categorized as average.

As such, it can be concluded that effectiveness in service delivery an area which need to

be further improved. .Overall, it is noted that not much progress has been made in

meeting this objective

The overall mean score in achieving the second objective is illustrated below:

OBJ2

4.504.003.503.002.502.001.50

10

8

6

4

2

0

Std. Dev = .88

Mean = 3.13

N = 31.00

Figure 8: Overall Achievement - Objective 2

4.3.3 Objective 3

Objective 3: To use performance and evaluation data for policy planning and

management purposes, in particular for enhancing operational and technical efficiency,

expenditure prioritization and improving allocation of resources.

The frequency distribution, the mean and the standard deviation of the responses received

is given in the table below:


42/79


42

STATEMENTS S.D D N A SD MEAN S>D

1 PBB is using performance

and evaluation data forpolicy planning and

management

8 8 3 11 1 2.6452 1.3051

2 PBB is enhancing

operational and technical

efficiency,

2 1 2 18 8 3.9355 1.0307

3 PBB is enhancingexpenditure prioritization

5 12 1 6 7 2.9355 1.4818

4 PBB is improving

allocation of resources;

3 12 5 7 4 2.9032 1.2478



On the basis of the above table, it is noted that26 out of 31 respondents of the respondents

are of the view that PBB is enhancing operational and technical efficiency. This is

confirmed by the mean score achieved for this question (M= 3.9355).

As for the other questions, the mean scores are in the range of 2.6 to 2.9. On the basis of

the data, it can be concluded that most of the respondents have opined that PBB is

notenhancing expenditure prioritization and it is not improving the allocation of

resources. Above all, data is not beingadequately used for policy planning andmanagement. In fact, most of the consultant reports have pointed out that theexisting

financial information system is weak in providing the relevant data to decision makers.

The overall rating of the respondents on the third objective is given in the table below:






Total 100

Table 15: Overall Achievement: Objective 3


43/79


43

The overall mean score and the standard deviation are respectively 3.1 and .71. This

means that, overall the respondents, have rated the achievement as average From the

data, it is found out that 14respondents have rated it as average , 14 respondents have

rated it as a good achievement, and 5 respondents have rated it as excellent .As such , it

can be concluded that effort should be directed to achieving this objective

The above findings are illustrated in a histogram below:

OBJ3

5.004.504.003.503.002.502.00

12

10

8

6

4

2

0

Std. Dev = .71

Mean = 3.10

N = 31.00

Figure 9: OverallAchievement - Objective 3

4.3.4 Objective 4

Objective 4: To provide information to help reallocate resources within and between

programs and sub-programs and to help reduce expenditure when necessary (efficiency

savings).

In order to obtain the view of respondents, the above objective has been framed as two

questions. The responses received are tabulated in the table below:


44/79


44


1. PBB is providing

information to help reallocateresources within and between

programs and sub-programs

6 5 8 12 0 2.8387 1.1575

2. PBB is helping to reduce

expenditure which are not

necessary (efficiency gain )

2 10 5 10 4 3.1290 1.2039

Overall mean score 2.9839 1.7581


From the above information, it is found out that 11 respondents as opposed to 12

respondents are not of the view that PBB is providing information to help reallocate

resources within and between programs and sub-programs.

As for the second question, 14 respondents as opposed to 12 respondents have stated that,

PBB is helping to reduce expenditure which is not necessary (efficiency gain).

The overall rating of the respondents on the third objective is given in the table below:


Between 1 and 2 0 Poor achievement




Total 100

Table 17: Overall Achievement -Objective 4

The overall mean is 2.9839 and the standard deviation is .7581. Overall, it can be

concluded that achievement level on thefourth objective can be rated as average. This is


45/79


45

substantiated by the fact that the ratings for 10 respondents areaverage, it is good for 15

respondents and it is excellent for 6 respondents.

The above data is illustrated below:

OBJ4

4.504.003.503.002.502.001.50

14

12

10

8

6

4

2

0

Std. Dev = .76

Mean = 2.98

N = 31.00

Figure 10: Overall Achievement -Objective 4

4.3.5Objective 5

Objective 5: To institutionalize gender equity throughout the process of aligning budgets

to policy priorities and increasing the transparency and accountability of the system.

The relevant statistics for this objective is given in the table below:


46/79


46


1. PBB has institutionalized

gender equity throughout the

process of aligning budgets to

policy priorities

9 15 2 3 0 2.1613 1.1575

2. PBB has increased

transparency in the public

sector

4 7 1 14 5 3.2903 1.3464

3. PBB has increased

accountability in the public

sector

1 6 0 16 8 3.7742 1.1463



From the above the table, the lowest mean score relate to the institutionalization of

gender equity throughout the process of aligning budgets to policy priorities. This is

explained by the fact that 24 respondents do not concur with the statement.

However, it is noted that most of the respondents have given a high weighting to both

transparency and accountability.

The overall rating on the fifth objective is given in the table below:






Total 100



47/79


47

The mean score for the three statements is 3.0753 and the standard deviation is 0.5882.

The low mean score is explained by the fact that the institutionalization of gender equity

is rated as low as compared to transparency and accountability.

On the basis of the above table, 11 respondents have rated the achievement on the fifth

objective as average, 18 respondents have rated it as good and 6 respondents have rated

it as excellent. The above findings are illustrated by a histogram:

OBJ

4.504.003.503.002.50

14

12

10

8

6

4

2

0

Std. Dev = .59

Mean = 3.08

N = 31.00


4.3.6 Objective6

Objective 6: To improve effectiveness of government Ministries /Departments when

developing and implementing their programs and sub-programs of activities;

The information collected on this objective is tabulated below:


48/79


48


PBB has improved

effectiveness of government

Ministries /Departments

when developing andimplementing their

programs and sub-programs

of activities

2 6 1 10 12 3.7742 1.3344

Overall mean score 3.7742 1.3344


From the above table, most of the respondents (i.e. 22) have given a high rating to the

achievement of this objective.

The overall rating on the fifth objectiveis given in the table below:


Between 1 and 2 2 7 oor achievement

Between 2 and 3 6 19 verage achievement


Between 4 and 5 22 71 xcellent achievement

Total 100


The overall mean score is 3.7742 and the standard deviation is 1.3344. From the above

table, it is noted that only 2 respondents have given a poor rating to achievement on this

objective and 6 have rated it as average. 22 respondents have rated it as either good orexcellent. Assuch, it can be concluded that much progress has been made on this

objective

The above data is illustrated in the table below:


49/79


49

OB6J

5.04.03.02.01.0

14

12

10

8

6

4

2

0

Std. Dev = 1.33

Mean = 3.8

N = 31.00


4.3.7Objective7

Objective 7: To provide more concrete information to the Cabinet on performance fordecision making purposes and for setting future targets and priorities.

The frequency distribution of the responses in respect of objective 7 is given in the table

below:


PBB is providing more

concrete information to

the Cabinet onperformance for decision

making purposes

3 7 0 10 11 3.6129 1.4301




50/79


50

From the above table, it is noted that most of the respondents have opined that PBB is

providing more concrete information to the Cabinet on performance for decision making

purposes as well as providing more information to the Cabinet for setting future targets

and priorities.

The overall rating on the seventh objective is given in the table below:






Total score 100

Table 23: Overall Achievement- Objective 7

From the table, it can be noted that only 2 respondents have rated the achievement as

poor, 6 respondents have rated it as an average achievement, 11 have rated it as good and

12 respondents have rated it as excellent. Overall, this objective has received a very

highrating. This is confirmed by the mean score of 3.2.

The above finding is illustrated by a histogram as set out below:

OBJ7

5.004.504.003.503.002.502.001.50

10

8

6

4

2

0

Std. Dev = .94

Mean = 3.32

N = 31.00



51/79


51

4.3.8Overall Assessment

This section present a summary of the findings on progress achieved in meeting the 7

objectives of PBB as set out in the PBB Manual The achievement on the 7 objectives

have been ranked on the basis of the overall mean score .The relevant statistics are given

in the table below:

Objective Statement Mean

Score

Ranking

Objective5 To institutionalize gender equity throughout the

process of aligning budgets to policy priorities andincreasing the transparency and accountability of the

system

3.7742 1st

Objective1 To reform the framework governing publicmanagement in order to make it moreresults-oriented

and geared to achieving development outcomes;

3.6129 2nd

Objective 7 To provide more concrete information to the Cabineton performance for decisionmakingpurposes and for

setting future targets and priorities.

3.3226 3rd

Objective2 To promote high quality, client-responsive publicservices and to maximize value formoney in service

delivery;

3.1290 4th

Objective 6 To improve effectiveness of government Ministries/Departments when developing and implementing

their programs and sub-programs of activities;

3.0753 5th

Objective 4 To provide information to help reallocate resourceswithin and between programs and sub-programs and

to help reduce expenditure when

necessary(efficiencysavings)

2.9839 6th

Objective3 To use performance and evaluation data for policy

planning and managementpurposes, in particular for

enhancing operational and technical efficiency,expenditure prioritization and improving allocation

of resources

2.9032 7th

Table 24: Overall Achievement


52/79


52

From the above table, it is noted that there is a general perception among the respondents

that significant progress has been made in achieving 4 objectives: These are:

(a)Objective 5: To institutionalize gender equity throughout the process of aligning

budgets to policy priorities and increasing the transparency and accountability of

the system

(b)Objective 1: To reform the framework governing public management in order to

make it moreresults-oriented and geared to achieving development outcomes

(c)Objective7: To provide more concrete information to the Cabinet on performance

for decision making purposes and for setting future targets and priorities

(d)Objective 2:To promote high quality, client-responsive public services and to

maximize value for money in service delivery

From the table it is noted that the least rated objective is the seventh one and it is about

performance management Overall, little progress has been made with respect to

objectives 3, 4 and 6.

4.4 Rating by grade of officers

This part of the analysis identifies the position of the respondents who have given a very

poor rating to the achievement of PBB objectives. The number of respondents in each

grade is given in the table below:


53/79


53

SN STATEMENTS AM SFO FO AFO TOTAL

1 To reform the framework governing public

management in order to make it moreresults-

oriented and geared to achieving development

outcomes

1 0 2 2 5

2 To promote high quality, client-responsive

public services and to maximize value for

money in service delivery

0 3 4 3 10

3 To use performance and evaluation data for

policy planning and managementpurposes, in

particular for enhancing operational and

technical efficiency, expenditure prioritizationand improving allocation of resources

1 3 3 7 14

4 To provide information to help reallocate

resources within and between programs and

sub-programs and to help reduce expenditure

when necessary (efficiency savings)

2 3 2 3 10

5 To institutionalize gender equity throughout the

process of aligning budgets to policy priorities

and increasing the transparency and

accountability of the system

1 3 2 5 11

6 To improve effectiveness of government

Ministries /Departments when developing

and implementing their programs and sub-

programs of activities

1 1 2 4 8

7 To provide more concrete information to the

Cabinet on performance for decision making

purposes and for setting future targets and

priorities.

1 1 2 4 8

Table 25: Rating by grade of officers

From the abovetable, itis noted

a) Those officers in the Assistant Manager grade have given a low ratingin the

achievement of 6 out of the 7objectives. However, a relatively higher proportion


54/79


54

of the officers have given a lower rating to the achievement on objective 4 i.e. to

provide information to help reallocate resources within and between programs.

b) Those officers in the grade of SFO have given a verypoor rating to the

achievement of 6 objectives. However, no officers in this grade have rated the

framework governing public management as poor

c) Officers in the FO cadre have given a very poor rating in the achievement of all

the seven objectives contained in PBB. In relative term, most of them do not

consider that PBB is promoting high quality, client-responsive public services

and is maximizing value for money in service delivery

d) Officers in the Assistant Finance Officers have given a very poor rating inachieving all the 7 objectives. In relative terms, they consider that PBB hasfailed

to promote the use of performance and evaluation data for policy planning and

management purposes, and it is not institutionalizing gender equity throughout the

process of aligning budgets to policy priorities and increasing the transparency

and accountability of the system.

4.5 The Implementation of PBB

This part of the analysis deal with the implementation of PBB in Ministries.

Respondentswere required to give their views on the implementation of PBB in their

respective Ministries ona5 points Likert Scale.

4.5.1 Rules and Regulations

This part deals with the effectiveness of the existing rule and regulation for implementing

PBB. The responses received are tabulated below:


55/79


55

SN STATEMENTS S.D D N A SA MEAN

1 The existing budgetary rules and

regulation assist your Ministry todeliver an effective service

4 5 3 9 10 3.5161

2 Extra budgetary funds are now

more transparent

1 11 0 15 4 3.3226

3 There are incentives for working

with the best possible estimates of

resources

3 10 1 9 8 3.2903

4 Next years budget is not based

primarily on what was spent in, or

appropriated for, this year.

5 12 2 7 5 2.9677

5 The Ministry of Finance is not

relentlessly pursuing savings at the

cost of program implementation

5 12 2 7 5 2.8387

6 The Rules require timely

publication of information for

transparency and to enhance

accountability and credibility

4 6 3 16 2 3.1935

Table 26: Rules and Regulations

From the above table , it is noted that respondents have indicated that (a) there are

incentives for working with the best possible estimates of resources (M=3.2903) ,(b)the

existing budgetary rules and regulation assist the Ministry to deliver an effective

service,(M= 3.5161), (c )Extra budgetary funds are now more transparent(M= 3.3226)

and (d) the rules require timely publication of information for transparency and to

enhance accountability and credibility(M=3.1935)

However , it is noted respondents consider that budgetary allocation by the Ministry of

finance is still based on what was spent last year , a practice which was very current

under the line budgeting system (M=2.8387). In addition, they are of the view that the

Ministry of Finance is perpetuating the old practice ofrelentlessly pursuing savings at the

cost of program implementation (M=2.8387).


56/79


56

4.5.2 Budget Policy and Planning Processes

This part looks into the existing policy and planning process that are now prevailing in

the public sector following the introduction of PBB.

The frequency distribution and the mean for the 3 statements are given below:


1 Policy and planning by the Ministry of

Finance provides a realisticresource

allocation to your Ministry

7 12 2 5 5 2.6452

2 Governments policies are clearlyarticulated for your Ministry

1 7 3 17 3 3.4516

3 Affordability by Government

influences the policies and strategies

of your Ministry

4 7 2 12 6 3.2903

Table 27: Budget Policy and Planning Processes

On the basis of the mean scores, it is noted that under PBB, respondents are of the view

that Governments policies are clearly articulated for theirrespective Ministries(M=

3.4516) and it is affordability by Government that influences the policies and strategies

of their respective Ministry. However, respondents have some reservation against the

Ministry of Finance. In their views, policy and planning by the Ministry of Finance does

not provide a realistic resource allocation to their Ministries

4.5.3 Budget Preparation Practices

Two questions were given to the respondents to obtain their views on the existing budget

preparation practice. The relevant statistics are given in the table below:


57/79


57

SN STATEMENTS S.D D N A S.A MEAN

1 The budget circular is timely and provides a

clear set of rules for the budget process

5 7 0 13 6 3.3913

2 Sufficient time is devoted by the Ministry

of Finance to your Ministry to consider

the funding of new policy and priority

6 8 1 10 6 2.7391

Table 28: Budget Preparation Practices

From the information contained in the table, most of the respondents have a positive view

on the timeliness and clarity of the budget circular for the preparation of the budget.

However, there is a perception among the respondents that sufficient time is not devoted

by the Ministry of Finance to consider the funding of new policy and priority for their

respective Ministries. This is substantiated by the low mean score of 2.7391.

4.5.4 Budget Execution and Accounting System

The responses received on budget execution and accounting system are tabulated below:

STATEMENTS S.D D N A SA MEAN

1 The accounting system is fully

operational

2 6 1 11 7 3.3548

2 The FMM manuals provide a

comprehensive overview of the new

accounting system.

2 6 4 10 9 3.5806

3 Budget execution data (revenue and

expenditures) are prepared in a timely

manner

2 6 2 13 8 3.6129

Table29: Budget Execution and Accounting System

From the information contained in the table, it can be noted that the mean scores for the

all the 3 statements are above 3. As such, it can be concluded that:


58/79


58

a) The accounting system is fully operational

b) The FMM manuals provide a comprehensive overview of the new accounting

system

c) Budget execution data (revenue and expenditures) are prepared in a timely

manner

4.5.5 Monitoring and Evaluation

As part of the PBB process, there is a requirement that there should be a continuous

monitoring and evaluation of programs and subprograms. According to the PBB Manual,

performance monitoring and evaluation is a continuous process of collecting and

analyzing data to comparehow well a policy is being implemented. The respondents

views on program monitoring and evaluation is tabulated below.


1 There is a system in the Ministry to

conduct program evaluation

3 12 16 0 0 2.4194

2 The result of the evaluation is

published

11 15 5 0 0 1.8065

3 Client surveys are routinely andfrequently carried out as part of these

evaluations

7 13 8 2 1 2.2581

Table 30: Monitoring and Evaluation

From the statistic contain in the above table, it can be noted that program evaluation is

not being effectively carried out in Ministries .This is substantiated by the fact that:

a. There is not an inadequate system in the Ministry to conduct program evaluation

b. For ministries that have a system for evaluation, the result of the evaluation is notpublished


59/79


59

c. Client surveys are not routinely and frequently beingcarried out as part of theseevaluations

4.5.6 Performance Measurement

According to the PBB Manual,performance measurement is a system for quantifying delivery of

performance for each activity. It includes outputs; performance indicators and performance

targets .It also include information on results by Government intervention and the

assessment of how the results were achieved and/or the costs of achieving those results.

The views of the respondents on performance measurement have been gathered on a set

of 6 statements. These are tabulated below:

SN STATEMENTS S.D D N A S.A MEAN

1 Nonfinancial data are accumulated

andprocessed for purposes of

performancemeasurement

0 12 10 9 0 2.9032

2 There is a uniform flow of

information (financial and non-

financial data) to management

during the budget cycle

1 7 17 6 0 2.9032

3 Government fosters an environmentthatsupports and demands

performance

3 10 2 9 73.3558

4 There are feedback mechanisms to

supply data on performance, and data

are published

0 23 6 2 0 2.3226

5 There is a systematic collection,

analysis andreporting of

performance information to

verifycompliance with strategic

goals

4 13 8 0 6 2.9677

6 Your Ministry benchmark its

performance with otherMinistries

2 10 19 0 0 2.5484

Table 31: Performance Measurement


60/79


60

From the above table, the mean scores on 5 statements are below 3. These indicate that

performance measurement has not being effectively put into practice. The main

weaknesses are:

Nonfinancial data are not being accumulatedandprocessed for purposes of

performance measurement

There is not uniform flow of information to management during the budget cycle

There are no feedback mechanisms to supplydata on performance, and data are

not published

There is a systematic collection, analysis andreporting of performance

information to verifycompliance with strategic goals

Benchmark technique is not being used to compare performance with other

Ministries

The above findings confirm the overall low rating that was identified for third objective

of PBB i.e. To use performance and evaluation data for policy planning and management

purposes, in particular for enhancing operational and technical efficiency, expenditure

prioritization and improving allocation of resources.

However, it is noted that respondents have given a relatively high rating in respect of

Government initiative to foster an environment thatsupports and demands performance.

4.5.7Audit

The National Audit Office is the external auditor to Government and the int

Documents

Program Based Budgeting 1