1

Yobe State Government

Making State Policy and Development Plan A Generic Guide for State Government

Executive and Legislative Policy Makers

Prepared by

Ministry of Budget and Economic Planning

Yobe State

With Support of DfID funded SPARC Programme

March 2013

2

Contents

Preface ......................................................................................................................2 Section One Introduction ................................................................................................4 Section Two What is Policy? ...........................................................................................5

2.1 Decisions about Collecting and Spending Public Money ..........................................5 2.2 Distinguishing Policy from Strategy ..........................................................................5 2.3 So Policy is about Defining Outcomes .....................................................................6 2.4 Policy must be informed by Realistic Strategies .......................................................6

Section Three Executive and Legislative Responsibilities ..............................................7 3.1 Two Main Executive Responsibilities .......................................................................7 3.2 Two Main Legislative Responsibilities ......................................................................8

Section Four Making a State Development Plan .............................................................9 4.1 Cross Sector and Cross-State Policy Making ...........................................................9 4.2 A Pillar and Arrow Approach ....................................................................................9 4.3 MDAs must contribute to Achievement of the Pillars .............................................. 10 4.4 The Need for and Purpose of a State Development Plan ....................................... 10 4.5 What the Plan Needs to Contain ............................................................................ 11 4.6 How the Plan will be Developed ............................................................................. 11

Section Five Policy and the Government System ........................................................ 13 5.1 The Context of the State Plan ................................................................................ 13 5.2 Responsibilities of Policy Makers and Civil Servants .............................................. 13 5.3 Realism and the Budget Process ........................................................................... 14 5.4 Fiscal Projections ................................................................................................... 14 5.5 Outline Policy Guidelines and Multi-Year Envelopes .............................................. 16 5.6 Defining Annual Envelopes .................................................................................... 17 5.7 Budget Approval .................................................................................................... 17 5.8 Building, Year on Year ........................................................................................... 18 5.9 Making a Public Commitment ................................................................................ 18

Section Six Public Consultation and Responsiveness ............................................... 19 6.1 Different Responsibilities for Different People ........................................................ 19 6.2 Different Ways of Involving the Public in Policy Making ......................................... 19 6.3 Transparency and Accountability ........................................................................... 21 6.4 Making Government Responsive – and Re-electable ............................................. 21

List of Figures

Figure 1: The Structure of the Guide ................................................................................4 Figure 2 Pillars Supporting Long Term Goal Achievement ..............................................9 Figure 3 Different Plans Should Talk to Each Other ...................................................... 13 Figure 4 Medium Term Budget and Planning Cycle - Ideal ........................................... 15 Figure 5 Involving the Public in Sector Strategy Making ................................................ 20

Annexes

Annex 1 An Outline Table of Contents for a State Development Plan Annex 2 Pillars, Sectors and MDAs and Some Process and Technical Things to

Consider when Compiling a State Plan

Preface

This document is a generic guide, produced by SPARC, aimed at providing support to State Policy Makers.

3

It is intended that the guide should be used at first in discussions with policy makers and senior civil servants in the State to raise their awareness of some of the principles that might guide improved policy-making in the State – especially with a view to improving the impact of State Government efforts to deliver public goods, and to improve the welfare of their citizens. It is envisaged that following such discussions, a team might be appointed to take hold of this generic version, and to convert it into a localised document, made specific to the circumstances and aspirations of the State concerned. Most of the text is technical and could be lifted or edited as local practitioners see fit. However, in some places specific information needs to be added. For example where illustrations of key policy goals are provided, or where illustrative information about existing plans is listed, these will obviously need to be altered to reflect the circumstances and preferences in the state concerned.

4

Section One Introduction Any State needs an approved public statement of its overarching policy position. Some states have these and some states don’t, but even for those that do their plans are often of a poor standard. Especially there is tendency for these plans to:

Focus mainly upon projects to be implemented without adequate consideration of the outcomes that are expected to result;

Consist of separate sections on specific MDAs or sectors, but without explaining how these join up or complement each-other;

Fail to be specific about costs and other resource availabilities, and so they are generally unrealistic and un-implementable; and

Provide inadequate consideration as to how performance against the plan is to be monitored or evaluated.

But the challenge only BEGINS with the Writing and Approval of this Plan. The key question then follows, how will the plan be used so as to ensure that the lives of people in the State are improved? This involves a broader question – what is the role of policy in the State, and what are the responsibilities of the State’s Policy Makers, both in developing Policy, and in ensuring that it is implemented? This guide seeks to answer that question. It is intended for use by policy-makers in the State Government, and for use by the Ministry of Economic Planning or its equivalent. It provides guidance on the following:

What “policy” is and how it relates to strategy;

What the main policy making responsibilities of the Executive Council and of the State House of Assembly are;

What the basic steps in making a State Development Plan are;

How this connects with other basic steps in the management of government business, so that policies can be effectively implemented; and

How to ensure that policies are responsive to the needs of the people.

Figure 1: The Structure of the Guide

Section 3 – Executive and Legislative Responsibilities in Policy Making

Section 4 – Making a State Development Plan and Guiding the work of MDAs

Section 5 – Connecting Policy to Budget Planning and Implementation Systems

Section 1 – Introduction

This is

what can

be found in

this Guide

The

purpose

of a

State

Develop-

ment

Plan

Some

common

weakness

Making

and

imple-

menting

policy

Section 2 – What is Policy?

5

Section Two What is Policy?

2.1 Decisions about Collecting and Spending Public Money

Making policy involves the making of decisions about what public money (that is the money available to the State Government) should be spent on. It also concerns making decisions – using the powers vested in Government – about how much money should be taken out of the economy through taxes and other means, and then put back into it through various types of government expenditure, including the employment of state workers. Of course many States receive a large proportion of their resources from the Federal sources, but they are still empowered to make decisions about local taxation. This is what “fiscal policy” is about.

The process is called “policy” because it is essentially “political”. The way in which choices are made makes a great deal of difference to the lives of people, and the making of decisions about how money should be collected and spent is therefore a matter for debate and contest between different groups. The idea in a democracy is that these choices should be presented to the electorate so that policies are responsive to popular preference.

For these reasons at least the task of making policy falls firmly within the responsibilities of elected politicians, and the Executive politicians who are appointed by His Excellency the elected Governor. So this guide is primarily intended for the Executive Council and for Members of the State House of Assembly.

2.2 Distinguishing Policy from Strategy

These terms – “policy” and “strategy” – are easily confused, and indeed they are sometimes used inter-changeably. In very simple terms, Policy is about defining expected overarching Goals and Outcomes, whereas Strategy is about how we may achieve them. This will do for a start, but it is (as stated) a simplified distinction. In fact some elements of strategy must also be counted as policy. Whether government invests in its own delivery of public services, or instead places an emphasis on the use of private sector deliverers, is certainly a matter of strategy, but it is also part of a policy platform that may distinguish the approach of one political party from the approach of another.

For example, a policy statement that a State Government aims to reduce the incidence of Malaria by a stated number of cases from the existing level to a stated lower level by the end of 2015. The strategy for achieving this result could be to make investments in the public health sector, but an alternative strategy might be to use services purchased from the private sector.

For example, some groups might favour levying high taxes and making correspondingly high levels of public expenditure on services. Others might prefer a low tax environment to encourage investment but with correspondingly lower levels of service delivery.

Section 6 – Making Policy Responsive to Public Requirements

Making policy

is about what

resources we

raise and

what spend we

spend public

money to

achieve

Making policy

is a political

process

Policy should

be endorsed by

public consent

Policy is mostly

about “What”

Strategy is

about How

6

In this sense, therefore, we must concede that some, general points of strategy, must also be counted as policy. Besides this kind of case, however, it is worth relying on the simple distinction identified above – policy is about stating goals and outcomes, while strategy is about deciding how they are to be achieved.

2.3 So Policy is about Defining Outcomes

It may seem obvious that the ExCo must start by identifying the right challenge. Very commonly the wrong challenge is identified because it is assumed that policy is about things (or outputs), such as constructing something. But policy-making should be about Outcomes. Outcomes are consequences, not things, and ultimately outcomes are about people.

In summary, an outcome is a statement of how life is better than it was before, in some way, for some people. Deciding upon these outcomes for the State is the key policy-making challenge.

2.4 Policy must be informed by Realistic Strategies

There is not much point in stating a policy goal that is not achievable. A good strategy describes how a goal or outcome is to be achieved, and it must be realistic, both technically and financially. A common challenge is that politicians may wish to state a popular policy goal, but the technical advice they receive may indicate that in fact this goal may not be achieved.

This occurrence is quite common in Nigeria. A State Government may state a goal for example of providing free primary education for all, and obtaining a stated level of results from primary education graduates, by 2015, but when the detailed projections and calculations are done it may be found that this would take up ALL or a large proportion of the state’s resources during that period. This would imply that the State Government would do nothing else – a situation which of course is not permissible or realistic. In other words, that policy goal cannot be achieved – so there is little point in setting it.

Policy

Statements

should be

Achievable

For example, having a nation of educated, ambitious youths who can apply their skills to developing the economy is an outcome. It is a result of a successful education system and is part of the reason for having that system. Building that system will have needed things – schools, books, desks – but the outcome is much more important than having all these buildings. The result will also have needed people – teachers, janitors and administrators to teach the children and to run the system.

For example, eradicating a disease may need things, such as vaccines, needles and health centres, but the outcome of people being free from that disease will also have come from doctors, nurses and other staff who have carried out the vaccinations.

In policy terms, a road is a way of providing an outcome such as reducing social exclusion of a community, bringing goods to market in order to stimulate that local economy and bringing medical and safety services into the community. The road matters but the policy is aimed at the results it brings, not the stretch of physical road as such.

Policy is

about

outcomes not

things

7

Section Three Executive and Legislative Responsibilities

3.1 Two Main Executive Responsibilities

The Executive and the Legislature under the Nigerian constitution, are quite different kinds of bodies.

Though the position of “Executive” Governor is of course elected, the Executive Council is appointed by “him”. ExCo posts are appointed according to mainly technical portfolios. Thus the Commissioner of Health is in principle the person with primary responsibility for ensuring that adequate health services are provided in the State, and that the health of the state’s population is maintained to acceptable standards. Some Commissioners are experts in their fields, but this not the case with every one, and it is not always to be expected that they should be. Whether or not a Commissioner is an expert in the field, he/she may rely upon the advice provided by technical experts in the sector. These experts include officers in the state civil service – in the case of health those in the Ministry of Health and those employed by the state health service (as well as district health workers and other district level resources) – and it should also include those in civilian life, including for example private practitioners represented through the local Medical Association. This assistance includes the provision of technical advice on medical matters, health service and management techniques and strategies.

As part of the sector portfolio, the Commissioner is also responsible, again drawing upon the advice of technocrats, for developing state level policy proposals on matters within the sector. However, he/she is not specifically responsible for approving policy in the sector, only for developing and proposing it. This remains the responsibility of the Executive Council. This is because policy-making entails looking at the whole state – at related options between and across all the sectors.

Two major policy challenges are therefore faced by a member of the ExCo:

What should be done in the specific sector for which he/she is responsible – such as in health; and

How should available resources be used to finance the competing claims of the different sectors?

Commission-

ers are not

always

experts in the

field of their

responsibility

But they may

use advice

from civil

servants

The Comm-

issioner is

responsible

for making

sector policy

The ExCo is

responsible

for approving

it

So, for example, the Commissioner of Health might argue (based on the technical advice received) that extra resources are required to up-grade existing facilities, to purchase more drugs, and to train and employ and deploy additional medical staff to rural areas. However, the need for these important measures has to be weighed up by the ExCo against the competing claims of other sectors, such as education, agriculture and security.

ExCo

members

have

individual

and

collective

respons-

ibilities

8

In other words, each Commissioner has a specific responsibility to develop and argue the case for his or her own sector, but also shares a collective responsibility with the rest of the Executive Council to make funding decisions between the competing claims of the different sectors.

3.2 Two Main Legislative Responsibilities

The tasks facing legislators (members of the State House of Assembly) are somewhat different from those of the ExCo.

Being elected to a constituency, a legislative member is primarily responsible to the population of that area, not for a specific sector. In most constituencies indeed the member representative should normally have some interest in most if not all the sectors of state government. He or she is not, in this capacity, specifically responsible for developing policy. However, the member will be concerned about state policy as it affects the members of the constituency.

However, a member might find him or herself appointed to the membership of a specific House Committee. In this case that member, together with the other members of the Committee, will have a specific responsibility for scrutinising policy-making and policy implementation in the “sector” or “sectors” concerned. The House Committees in the State probably do not correspond perfectly to the structure of MDAs, but members may be aware of the MDAs whose business is most relevant to the work of their committee.

As with the Executive, the Legislature also has a collective policy responsibility. This will normally involve passive scrutiny. That is to say the Executive may normally prepare and present legislative Bills – including financial bills – which it will then present to the Legislature for consideration and approval. This constitutes a major “check and balance” point, at which the House may decide to intervene and alter selected Executive proposals.

Very often State Houses make alterations to state financial legislation based upon preferences for expenditure in their constituencies. However, what members sometimes forget is that these changes can also have implications for the implementation of sector policies. Members of the legislature need to be aware of these policy implications of their legislative actions.

In summary therefore members of the legislature also have two main areas of responsibility in the field of Policy: Individually, as it affects their constituency, and collectively as it affects the state as a whole.

How will

policy

proposals

affect my

constituents?

General check

and balance

respons-

ibilities to

scrutinise

proposals

made by the

Executive

9

Section Four Making a State Development Plan 4.1 Cross Sector and Cross-State Policy Making

The administrative divisions of the state government are mainly into Ministries, Departments and Agencies (MDAs). The Commissioners are appointed more-or-less on an MDA by MDA basis (though many like Education are in quite sizeable clusters of MDAs under one Commissioner). Partly for this reason there is a risk that policy can be developed according to these subject-based silos.

HOWEVER, there are COSIDERABLE advantages to thinking about policy in a broader sense. If the State Government can decide upon a relatively small number of key or critical results it is aiming for, then as different programmes of work are elaborated it is possible to evaluate these according to their potential contribution to the “higher level goals” being aimed for.

4.2 A Pillar and Arrow Approach

We may refer to this approach as a “pillar and arrow” approach, with the overall progress and future of the State dependent upon a small number of key pillars, and then different programmes in or across different Ministries and MDAs contributing to the achievement of results described in each of these pillars.

This approach is illustrated in figure 2.

Figure 2 Pillars Supporting Long Term Goal Achievement

Add figure 2 about here

Increased Agriculture Production

and Poverty

Alleviated

More Healthy and Educated Population

Peace and

Security

Infra- structure

Developed

More Internal

Revenue Generated

Better Lives for all State

Citizens

For example, if an overall high-level goal is to raise the level of public employment and wealth created, then different proposed programmes in commerce, industry, agriculture, science and technology, transport, works, education and health can all be evaluated for their potential contribution to this high level goal.

Size and Structure of Government

Fit for Purpose

There are

advantages

to thinking

about policy

across rather

than just

within MDAs

10

The pillars identified in the diagram are for illustrative purposes only. The contents of the arrow head and of the pillars should be expected to vary between states, and an early planning task will be to ensure that their contents reflect the political vision of leaders in the State.

4.3 MDAs must contribute to Achievement of the Pillars

An MDA (or Ministry, Department or Agency) is normally a main budget head code in the State’s chart of accounts, and it is under these main headings that the budget is structured. For many MDAs it will be possible to attach them quite clearly to a specific pillar in the policy direction for the State. So for example the Ministry of Education fits obviously under the second pillar. However, what the Education MDAs actually do to achieve progress in this pillar will almost certainly also contribute to the achievement of some other pillars. One challenge we face is that in the budget process there tends to be competition for resources between MDAs. However, this does not obviously serve the best interests of the State overall – that is the achievement of the goals described in the arrow. It ought to be the task of political leaders to look beyond these contests between MDAs. In order for the Government to be most effective an emphasis needs to be placed on how these parts work together for the achievement of a single goal, not how they compete with each other for their share of resources.

4.4 The Need for and Purpose of a State Development Plan

In each state there normally exist a variety of plans or planning documents, perhaps including SEEDS, 2020 vision plans, or other more specific state plans. For example the sequence of plan documents in Kaduna State in recent years includes SEEDS, SEEDS2 and the Kaduna State Development Plan Draft (the last two never having been formally approved) and the 2020 vision plan. In Anambra there is an emergent plan called ANIDS; in Yobe a third generation plan called YOSERA3. Whatever the documents are that exist in each state, these need to be identified and reviewed for their content against the standards in this guide. The following may be key reasons why a new (or revised) State Development Plan is needed now. These are:

So as to provide the overall direction called for by the arrow and pillar approach described above. The MDAs need this document – which will provide overall direction and policy goals – towards which to direct their sector plans and against which these plans can be evaluated to ensure their contribution to the achievement of our overall policy goal; and

For example a schools expansion programme will involve the construction of schools, but could also contain elements of water supply, public health and security. Programmes may normally be managed under one MDA cost centre, but should involve a range of people from different parts of government.

The parts

must work

together

11

So as to publicise to the general public the Direction in which the State Government intends to advance development over the coming few years and beyond.

4.5 What the Plan Needs to Contain

While this plan may include reference to some major projects the Government plans to implement, the main contents ought to be aimed instead at describing the overall thrust of the Government’s policy direction, and the major pillar outcomes which it is expected that the plan will deliver. A critical requirement is that the plan should be able to demonstrate the realism of the outcome achievements expected, and this requires that the fiscal (financial) implications be taken into account. It will also be necessary to specify some basic features of the organisational capacity of the Government to achieve these goals (making government fit for purpose). Indeed these elements of the plan refer specifically to the two pillars on the right hand side of Figure 3. However, the Plan will not describe the details of every project or programme that the government intends to implement. This detail is to be developed and contained in individual sector strategies, and in the detail of annual budgets and operational plans. (See the section in this guide below on connecting the State Planning and Policy-Making process with the other business of Government.)

4.6 How the Plan will be Developed

An outline structure for the plan – or draft table of contents – is attached to this document as annex 1. In populating a draft of this document there are various existing sources to draw upon. These include:

The existing draft State Development Plan if one exists;

Statements by the government on its general focus and direction, including any agenda or manifesto adopted by the Government; and

Various sector policy and strategy documents, including the Medium Term Sector Strategies for Agriculture, Health, Education and Water Affairs.

In addition the State Government may have at its disposal various reports and sector corporate plans relating to the re-organisation of specific MDAs. On the basis of this material it is proposed that the plan be compiled by the Ministry of Economic Planning (or its equivalent) in collaboration with the Office of the Head of Service, and with the Ministry of Finance. This draft should then be presented to the Executive Council for consideration, revision and approval. Prior to this presentation a session outlining the contents of the current guide should be made to the Executive Council so that members can consider the contents of the draft plan in the context of an understanding of the ExCo responsibilities in making State Government policy. It is envisaged that this process will be completed in time to guide sector strategy development and budget compilation for the next planning year – and it therefore needs to be complete by March “next year” so it can support sector planning efforts following that date for the subsequent three-year rolling

The plan

must be

realistic

But it need

not include

project detail

Drawing on

existing

material

Placing the

plan process

in the context

of policy

making

respons-

Ibilities

Complete the

plan by March

12

strategies and annual budget. And beyond this the plan will need to be reviewed and up-dated on an annual basis. Finally, annex 2 to this document contains some of the processes and technical factors which the task of developing the Plan will need to take into account. The subjects covered in that annex include:

Describing the current situation

Engaging stakeholders

Responding to the needs of the poor and socially excluded

What actions will deliver the outcomes we want

Medium term thinking

The capital to recurrent ratio

Justifying policy decisions

Drawing on good advice and experience

…. And up-

date on an

annual

basis

13

Section Five Policy and the Government System

Policy (as described in the State Plan) is no use on its own. It needs to be implemented. This is done through the budget, and through the public service (though some elements of policy implementation may also rely upon members of the public). This section of the guide seeks to help policy-makers understand the requirements of their relationship with the budget making process, and with the public service as it implements programmes and evaluates performance.

5.1 The Context of the State Plan

The diagram below in figure 3 shows how the State Plan fits in with other documents. It does not stand alone, but is a critical connector between other parts of the government planning and implementation basis. Especially the State Plan provides a directional – policy – guide for the development of sector strategies and for the preparation of annual budgets.

Figure 3 Different Plans Should Talk to Each Other

5.2 Responsibilities of Policy Makers and Civil Servants

The Government system is operated (or is supposed to be operated) by civil servants. It is important that both groups – civil servants and politicians – should understand their respective roles and responsibilities in these processes if the governance system is to operate effectively in the interests of the public.

Sector Development Plan – 5 to 10 years

MTSS – 3 years – No funding gaps

Annual Budget

Annual Operational & Depart’l Work Plans

Departmental Cash Releases

Links policy to strategy, generally costed but may include funding gaps

Consistent with the Sector Plan, all activities costed within projected ceilings

Based on the first year of the most recent rolling MTSS

Defines responsibilities for implementation in relation to the budget

Quarterly projections of cash requirements against all planned activities

Long and Medium Term Policy Documents – 20:2020 and State Development Plan

Outlines overall State Policy Outcomes Loosely costed if possible to demonstrate general realism

14

Figure 5 describes what these responsibilities are supposed to be, and the tasks for policy-makers are elaborated in the sub-sections below.

5.3 Realism and the Budget Process

At the beginning of this guide we defined the different between policy (definition of outcomes or results) and strategy (descriptions of how these are to be achieved). It was also acknowledged that some elements of strategy cannot be divorced from policy. A critical quality of good policy must be that it is achievable. This is where policy and strategy making meet – and they meet through the budget process. The critical question is, what can we do within the resource constraints (both financial and human) we must live with? Figure 4 below describes the annual budget and strategy-making process, and it is a process in which policy making occupies a key position. To begin with, take note of the following general features of this process:

The diagram represents stages of work to be carried out during a one-year cycle, but the arrows entering on the left, and exiting on the right, place this in the context of a series of rolling years. In other words the whole exercise is not just a one-off, but is a process which needs to be engaged in on an annual – and on a building – basis. One year builds upon the one before, and so on.

The diagram is divided into three sections – depicted by the oblong boxes running from left to right across it – which describe the responsibilities of different parts of government in the process. It describes the responsibilities of policy-makers across the top, of the central line Ministries (such as the Ministries of Planning and of Finance, and the Head of Service Office) across the middle, and of sector line ministries and agencies across the bottom. But by placing them in the same diagram we are able to see how the conduct of these responsibilities by each player depends upon the responsibilities of the others being carried out properly.

Now let’s look at some of the tasks depicted in this diagram in a little detail.

5.4 Fiscal Projections

On the left side of the diagram – in other words near the start of the year – there is reference to two inputs. The first is reviews of previous year’s performance, while the second is the making of fiscal projections. Both these tasks are the responsibility of line and central MDAs respectively – but they both provide important inputs to the policy process. Performance reviews, normally carried out in sector MDAs but consolidated by MoEP, will help to tell the Executive Council what was successful and what was not successful. These lessons should be incorporated in policy deliberations later on. A fiscal projection is critical. This will be provided by the Planning Ministry or by the Ministry of Finance, and should describe a realistic expectation of the financial resources available to the State in the following year. Major sources

A quality of

“good” policy

is that it must

be achievable

The respons-

ibilities of

different

players in the

system

depend upon

each other

A fiscal

projection

shows how

much money

is really

available

next year

15

of course are Federal Allocations, shares from VAT, internally generated revenue (IGR), grants, and internal and external loans.

Figure 4 Medium Term Budget and Planning Cycle - Ideal

There are some things that Policy Makers can do to influence these estimates. These include:

Increasing the amount of IGR available, either through directing measures for improving collection, or by passing legislation that will increase direct taxation levels (remember that if politicians raise taxation this could have corresponding negative impacts on the health of the local economy); and

Planning to obtain loans of one kind or another (again, if there are plans to raise loan capital it is essential that the state Government should be able to make a plan for affordable repayment of these loans – failures to do this properly have potentially serious consequences as currently demonstrated in parts of Europe).

However, it will not be helpful to the implementation process if projections of revenue from IGR and loans are over-estimated. If these figures are over-estimated there will be a single and seriously negative consequence, and that is that there will be insufficient money available for expenditure plans. As a result, sector plans and strategies become un-implementable, and the potential effectiveness of government is undermined.

At all costs,

avoid over-

estimating

expected

revenue flows

16

This is partly why keeping budgets within realistic bounds is a corner stone of the Federal Fiscal Responsibility Act.

5.5 Outline Policy Guidelines and Multi-Year Envelopes

It is the responsibility of the members of the Executive Council at this point in the process to produce general guidelines so that MDAs can commence the medium-term planning process. Based on the fiscal projection, ExCo members will now know how much money is available for the following three years. How are they supposed to make general decisions about the division of expenditure? For example, should 30 percent of what is available be spent on Education, or are Roads more important? Consider the following tasks:

Check the State Development Plan for General Guidance;

Ensure that the focus of attention is upon sectors that it is believed will make the best contribution to the overall goals (see figure 2 in this guide – the pillars and arrows);

Look at the pattern of expenditure last year and compare this with the results as reported in performance reviews;

What are the people telling you about where performance is good and where it requires attention; and

What are the likely relative benefits of spending money in one sector compared with another?

Commissioners should draw on the advice available to them from the civil service and from other people. Each Commissioner should be prepared to make a presentation to the ExCo putting forward the arguments for increasing (or reducing) expenditure in the MDAs for which he/she is responsible. A strong argument ought to emphasise the contributions that the sector can make to achievement of overall policy goals. The ExCo should hold a meeting, ideally in March, at which general three-year funding envelopes for each sector within the confines of the fiscal projection are decided. MDAs can then review their Medium Term Strategies in the context of these divisions. This task does not involve just capital expenditure, but involves all expenditure, including:

Recurrent expenditure on staff costs;

Recurrent expenditure on overheads;

Capital expenditure from State resources;

Capital expenditure from other sources – such as non-discretionary grants; and

Other costs (such as financial charges). In addition, the outcomes which should be expected as a result of the use of the money in these envelopes should be specified. Politicians should make sure that the outcomes they define are based upon realistic expectations, given the resources available. Once again, civil servants, based upon their

What should

next year’s

budget

envelopes be

by MDA?

In making

this decision,

try

answering

these

questions

Be prepared

to make a

presentation

to ExCo

about the

needs of the

MDAs for

which you

are respons-

ible.

ExCo must

agree MDA

envelopes

and realistic

expected

outcomes

over the

coming three

years

17

work on strategy development, should be able to provide advice on what is or is not realistic.

5.6 Defining Annual Envelopes

The task described above provides the best opportunity during the annual cycle for the Executive Council to define the direction of Government business within the context of its development plan. However, it is of course not the only one. The next opportunity comes along in mid-year, around July, when more detailed annual envelopes need to be agreed. These are then passed on to MDAs by the Planning Ministry in the Call Budget Circular (CBC). Between the issue by ExCo of multi-year envelopes and guidelines in March, and the issues of the CBC in late July, sector MDAs will have been working on the development or refinement of strategies for achieving policy outcomes (their MTSSs). This is mainly the business of these civil servants, but individual Commissioners should involve themselves in this process, so that they understand the challenges that the sector faces in achieving the intended policy outcomes. This involvement will also mean that the Commissioner will be in a relatively strong position to argue the case for the sector’s proposed strategy with the Executive Council, possibly arguing for additional resource allocations. In July these strategic documents (MTSSs and others) should be available for the Executive Council to consider, and it is on the basis of these submissions, together with up-dates from the Ministry of Finance about fiscal projections for the following year, that the ExCo can make final decisions about annual budget envelopes for each MDA. These may include some variations on what was provided in March. The decisions of the ExCo will then be presented to all MDAs by MoEP in the CBC.

5.7 Budget Approval

By ExCo The task of budget preparation (sector by sector), budget defence, and then budget compilation within the guidance provided by the ExCo, is the task of the MoEP, though relevant Commissioners are of course involved in Budget Defence. MoEP should have completed their work on this by the early November. The budget is then presented to the ExCo, and from there it is sent on to the State House of Assembly. If the process described in the immediate sub-sections above has been followed, then there should be very few surprises in the draft budget. It ought by this stage to reflect the overall goals represented in the State Development Plan, the medium term directions provided in the guidance produced in March, the specific constraints on realistic strategy determined by knowledge of fiscal projections and human capacity, and the specific annual directions on revenue envelopes provided by the ExCo in July.

The Call

Budget

Circular

Commissioners

should involve

themselves in

the strategy

making process

If the above

processes have

been followed

then there

should be few

surprises when

the draft

budget is

presented for

approval

18

At this stage then there ought to be very little for the ExCo to add. By the SHoA The State House of Assembly is the body with the responsibility to pass the budget into law. As mentioned in section 3 of this guide, it will have been ideal if the SHoA’s committees have been keeping a track on the strategic proposals being made by relevant MDAs. If this has been the case then there should also be very few surprises when the budget reaches the SHoA. Whether there are surprises or not, it is critical that budgets are not inflated beyond what is affordable at this (or at any) stage. Even if SHoA members’ involvement in the budget preparation process does not yield the desired result, there is still the option for new projects to be considered by the SHoA at the budget consideration and approval stage. But the House needs to understand that it if it includes additional projects, then these should carry their own justification, and other projects of the same cost must be excluded from the budget (or rolled over to a later year).

5.8 Building, Year on Year

Of course politicians tend to remain in office for relatively short periods compared with career civil servants. This may mean that the learning about government business and systems that will take place with experience during one administration may be partly lost as a new administration takes over. This is one major reason for establishing the workings of a system that can continue to plan and implement across the seams between political regimes. Of course as one government changes to another, there is every reason why policy should also change. This might extend to revising and re-issuing the State Development Plan. But it ought not to mean that everything changes. Many programmes and indeed many expected policy outcomes may be just as acceptable to one administration as it may be to the next.

5.9 Making a Public Commitment

The diagram in figure 4 includes a box, which follows budget approval, referring to the making of a public commitment. This box is shown as falling within the area of responsibility of central MDAs, but this is in fact the task more properly falls to Politicians. The box is included in the diagram because of the advisability that public commitments should be based upon sound knowledge that the defined policy outcomes are actually feasible. We expect this to help build the sustainability of our young democracy. We need increasingly as politicians to make commitments which we can deliver. Only then can we stand at a subsequent election on the basis of a good track record in delivering results to the public. Ultimately, following the principles in this guide should therefore help politicians to hold on to public office by being freely and fairly re-elected on the basis of their policy track record.

If the SHoA

needs to

include

additional

projects, they

must find

savings to pay

for them

The total cost

of the budget

should not be

changed

Making

commitments

to things that

can be

delivered,

should help

politicians

hold on to

public office

19

Section Six Public Consultation and Responsiveness

6.1 Different Responsibilities for Different People

If politicians try to deliver what they think people want without going to the trouble of finding out, they can make the mistake of delivering something that buys them no popularity at all. So, it’s worth asking! There are a number of means of doing this – and as with the other parts of this guide – the answer is slightly different depending upon which kind of politician we are talking about. Very simply: Legislators: Members of the State House of Assembly are constituent representatives, so their task is to consult their constituent members, not specifically the whole population of the State. Executive Members: Members of the Executive, including the Governor, are responsible for the population of the whole state, and should therefore be thinking about how they communicate with that wider population. In addition, civil servants have a responsibility to consult with the public as they conduct sector reviews and develop sector strategies (MTSSs), as it is often through this detailed work that the best practical ideas emerge.

6.2 Different Ways of Involving the Public in Policy Making

With these responsibilities in mind, consider the following options. They are not mutually exclusive – they can all be used at the same time if that’s desirable.

During annual reviews, politicians may wish to make sure that their civil servants are consulting the stakeholders in the sector – especially service users – as widely as possible, and that they feed back to the political leadership the views they are able to gather and analyse;

In this context civil servants should be encouraged and facilitated (financed) to use customer survey techniques that are available;

Legislators may run a constituency office so as to allow for people to come and express their views – very often this means people come to ask for personal assistance, but others may be encouraged to raise issues of a broader nature;

Politicians may consider who the stakeholders in a particular sector are. There will be service users of course, but sometimes these people are hard to consult if they are not organised. It is also possible to contact selected representative organisations, such as NGOs (though these are not officially representative), and/or CSOs in the sector such as school management boards or PTAs. It is important that this process should involve minorities and the disadvantaged in society – such as groups representing the “handicapped”, women or sufferers with specific diseases;

It may be essential to consider other key interests in society, especially faith-based organisations and business people. Probably these people are already quite good at expressing and impressing their views upon political office holders, but in many cases there will be merit in involving them in the development of policy and strategy suggestions. For example farmers groups and agricultural processing associations have clear views on how markets can be improved so as to create jobs and wealth – measures that

Its worth

asking people

what they

want

Some ways of

involving the

public in

policy making

Especially,

remember and

involve the

dis-

advantaged

20

can also significantly increase the potential tax-base for the State Government.

Also it makes sense for politicians to ensure that civil servants are consulting widely as part of the process of developing strategy. For example sector meetings held to develop cross-sector strategy should include representatives of civil society organisations and other bodies.

Figure 5 Involving the Public in Sector Strategy Making

One challenge when involving the public in these ways is that they often do not fully understand how government works, nor the limitations under which government labours. As politicians approach public engagement therefore, it is worth their while considering the following:

First, civil society members need to be informed about the limitations on strategic plans. For example they need to be made aware of financial and capacity constraints. This should help to keep recommendations and expectations from the public realistic;

Second, public participants may be expected to furnish information about strategies that work (and others that don’t) and about contributions to service delivery that may be made by various non-government groups – not every problem is solvable by Government action; and

Third, it will be well worth keeping in mind the fact that various groups represent various different interests – simply seeking involvement from a selection of CSO representatives will not necessarily yield an agreed public position on which strategies should be adopted.

Ways of involving the public and civil society in the MTSS process Stage 1 of the MTSS Process

Representatives of civil society are members of the MTSS Committee and have an agreed role, set out in the Committee’s ToRs

Civil society can present any data it holds on public development priorities to the MTSS Committee

Civil society organisations or academia can be contracted to undertake surveys or other forms of data collection at the community level to better understand development priorities

State debates are held to understand public development priorities to be addressed in the MTSS

Civil society organisations are invited to monitor the delivery of certain aspects of the MTSS, to inform the performance review

Representatives of the public can be interviewed in surveys to find out their views on past government performance in delivering MTSS and on development priorities for the next MTSS

Stage 2 of the MTSS Process

Representatives of civil society participate in the strategy sessions

The draft MTSS is presented to civil society and other members of the public at a public consultation meeting and options for further prioritisation discussed

Stage 3 of the MTSS Process

The State Government officially launches the MTSS and budget, with media involvement, to inform the public of the government’s development priorities

The agreed MTSS is made available to the public by posting it on the Government’s website

Help the

public to

understand

resource and

capacity

constraints

on

government

by publishing

financial

information

21

6.3 Transparency and Accountability

Public consultation, and buying popularity, is not just about consulting the public. It is also about delivery, and about being seen to be delivering on political responsibilities. This means ensuring that the public can see clearly what is going on, and that they therefore understand better what is and is not legitimate. Here are four key suggestions:

Politicians may use the radio or even the television to expose themselves to the views of the public – some programmes have been run successfully in some parts of Nigeria whereby members of the public raise issues they have with government and then politicians are asked to respond. This approach may seem challenging initially, but generally has had the effect of raising public appreciation of the role their politicians play.

Government should make as much information about government business – for example knowledge about contractors’ responsibilities, project locations and values, and about the details of government revenue raising and expenditure – as available to the public as possible. In fact, this suggestion is both a legal responsibility, and one which can now be tested by the Public through the Freedom of Information Act.

Part of this task involves making information accessible. Accounts are often difficult for the uninitiated to read. They need to be presented in a clear way that is also applicable to visible deliverables (policy outcomes).

The legislature is meant to be a key organ through which elected public representatives can hold the Executive to account. If the legislature and its committee system are working effectively, then these should be used by legislators to scrutinise policy proposals, budgets, accounts, project implementation and audit reports that are presented to them, and to question these on the public’s behalf. These proceedings should be open to the public, and the responses of the government to the questions raised should also be widely published.

6.4 Making Government Responsive – and Re-electable

This final section of the guide (section 6) emphasises the need to ensure that the things politicians suggest are themselves the things that people – from a broad and inclusive spectrum – actually want or need. If these two measures are adopted – that is:

Politicians seek input and feedback (and transparent accountability) through various means from a broad and inclusive range of the population; and

Politicians make sure that the public commitments they make are both well publicised and realistic, and ultimately delivered,

Then their credibility, and therefore their re-electability on a level playing field, should be greatly enhanced.

Politicians

can buy

popularity by

opening

themselves to

public

questioning

about their

policies

The Freedom

of

Information

Act now

requires

transparency

of

information

about

contracting

and

expenditure

Building

political

legitimacy

through

better public

policy

making

22

Annex 1

An Outline Table of Contents for a State Development Plan

The following is not intended as a rigid structure to be followed, but it might be used as a guide. Each State will naturally wish to choose its own structure and emphasis. One key feature to be considered is, what is the purpose of the plan. In the main guide we include two main purposes, which are:

To provide guidance and direction to State sectors and MDAs, ensuring that their efforts, and especially the expenditure of public resources, are targeted in the best way possible for the achievement of the State’s over-arching goals; and

To provide the public with information about what the State Government’s intentions are with respect to the use of public resources.

This implies that there are at least two different audiences for a plan document. In fact there are probably many different audiences. This is true even within Government where there are civil servants in the different MDAs, and then there are politicians in the Executive Council and the SHoA. It is probable that these audiences will be looking for different things. Many plans in the past (such as the SEEDS documents) tended to be very long, heavy articles, sometimes running to hundreds of pages. While a document containing sector detail like this might be valuable to some users, it will at the same time put many potential readers off completely. What follows therefore is an outline for a brief synopsis document which presents the main features of the plan, and then a substantive annex which includes much more sector detail.

23

The State Development Plan Part 1

Summary and Overview

(This part might also include a catchy, political phrase, such as “Achieving Peace and Prosperity for All”)

1.0 INTRODUCTION (5 pages) 1.1 The State Development Plan: Its Vision and Objectives 1.2 Vision and Mission Statements 1.3 From Vision to Outcomes 1.4 From Outcomes to Strategy 1.5 From Strategy to Action 2.0 THE DEVELOPMENT PILLARS (naturally the titles of the Pillars Sections will vary

from State to State) (10 pages) 2.1 Economic Development Pillar 2.2 Infrastructure Development Pillar 2.3 Social Development and Security Pillar 2.4 Sustainable Environment Pillar 3.0 ACHIEVING IMPLEMENTATION (5 pages) 3.1 Finance – Raising Money to pay for the plan 3.2 Governance and Capacity Building 3.3 Implementation, Monitoring and Review

24

The State Development Plan Part 2

Main Document including Sector Policy Details 1.0 INTRODUCTION (up to 5 pages)

1.1 The Vision for the State 1.2 Key Pillars of the Programme 1.3 A medium Term Plan 1.4 An Implementable Plan 1.5 The Government’s Commitment to Development 1.6 Implementation, Monitoring and Responsiveness

2.0 AN INTRODUCTION TO THE STATE (up to 5 pages) 2.1 History 2.2 Geography 2.3 Population 2.4 Government and Administration 2.5 Economy and Employment 2.6 Access to Social Services and State’s poverty index

3.0 HIGH LEVEL GOALS (The pillars – once more, variable dependent upon the priorities

in the State) (up to 10 pages) 3.1 More healthy and educated population 3.2 Growth in wealth and jobs 3.3 Functional Infrastructure 3.4 Better Security 3.5 Efficient, Transparent and Accountable Government

NB: In this example the five high level goals unpacked under two categories: category one is about public goods deliver sectors, and category 2 about enabling issues that is ensuring that government has a capacity to deliver. Category 1 is captured in Section 5, and category 2 in section 6. But before doing that it is important to consider resources available for delivering the plan.

4.0 REVENUE AVAILABLE OVER THE PLAN PERIOD (up to 5 pages)

4.1 Local Revenue Raising and Taxation Policy 4.2 Estimates of future state General Funds and IGR 4.3 Estimate of Recurrent Expenditure 4.4 General Funds Transferrable to Capital 4.5 Estimates of Specific Funds Available

4.5.1 Specific Loans and Fiscal (repayment) Implications 4.5.2 Specific Grants 4.5.3 Local Government Joint Projects 4.5.4 Public Private Partnerships

4.6 Overall Implications for State Plan Implementation 5.0 DELIVERING PUBLIC GOODS

5.1 Apportioning Expenditure (Allocations to Sectors) Overview (up to 2 pages) (The order and selection of the following sub-sections may vary – here it is merely illustrative.)

5.2 Education (up to 5 pages)

25

5.2.1 Background 5.2.2 Current Situation 5.2.3 Policy thrust 5.2.4 Output and Outcome Targets 5.2.5 Key Programmes 5.2.6 Resource Allocation in the medium term 5.2.7 Social Inclusion 5.2.8 How this program will contribute to achievement of the Pillars

5.3 Health (up to 5 pages) Eight sub-sections with similar titles to those listed for in section 5.2

5.4 Agriculture (up to 5 pages) Eight sub-sections with similar titles to those listed in section 5.2

5.5 Water Resources (up to 5 pages) Eight sub-sections with similar titles to those listed in section 5.2

5.6 Environment and Sanitation (up to 5 pages) Eight sub-sections with similar titles to those listed in section 5.2

5.7 Rural Development (up to 5 pages) Eight sub-sections with similar titles to those listed in section 5.2

5.8 Infrastructure (up to 5 pages) Eight sub-sections with similar titles to those listed in section 5.2

5.9 Lands and Physical Development (up to 5 pages) Eight sub-sections with similar titles to those listed in section 5.2

5.10 Transport Development (up to 5 pages) Eight sub-sections with similar titles to those listed in section 5.2

5.11 Industry, Commerce and Tourism (up to 5 pages) Eight sub-sections with similar titles to those listed in section 5.2

5.12 Information and Communication Technology (up to 5 pages) Eight sub-sections with similar titles to those listed in section 5.2

5.13 Culture and Value Orientation (up to 5 pages) Eight sub-sections with similar titles to those listed in section 5.2

5.14 Women, Youth and People with Special Needs (up to 5 pages) Eight sub-sections with similar titles to those listed in section 5.2 (Add other “sectors” as required)

6.0 ENABLING GOVERNMENT FOR DELIVERY AND IMPLEMENTATION

6.1 Apportioning Expenditure (Allocations to Sectors) (1 page) 6.2 Administration, Justice Security, Law and Order (up to 5 pages)

6.2.1 Background 6.2.2 Current Situation 6.2.3 Policy thrust 6.2.4 Output and Outcome Targets 6.2.5 Key Programmes 6.2.6 Resource Allocation in the medium term 6.2.7 Social Inclusion 6.2.8 How this program will contribute to achievement of the Pillars

6.3 Governance and Accountability (up to 5 pages) 6.3.1 Links between plans and budgets – MTEF 6.3.2 Keeping and publishing accounts 6.3.3 Procurement and transparency over contracting 6.3.4 Government audit 6.3.5 Public scrutiny 6.3.6 Public involvement and engagement 6.3.7 Electoral processes 6.3.8 Resource allocations to these functions

6.4 The Government Service (up to 5 pages)

26

6.4.1 The current situation 6.4.2 Structures, mandates and functions 6.4.3 Staff numbers and requirements 6.4.4 Staff capability and development 6.4.5 Performance management

6.5 Implementation Priorities and Plan Sequencing (up to 5 pages)

7.0 MONITORING AND RESPONSIVENESS (up to 5 pages) 7.1 Establishing an M&E System 7.2 Regular Publication of Project Results 7.3 Performance Reviews 7.4 Public Responsiveness in Improving Governance

8.0 A PUBLIC COMMITMENT TO IMPLEMENTING THE PLAN (up to 5 pages)

Note that if all the pages guides proposed in the table above are utilized, the document would be 133 pages. This is a long document, but it may be justified if Part 1 is produced as a more readable and accessible version.

27

Annex 2

Pillars, Sectors and MDAs and

Some Process and Technical Things to Consider when Compiling a State Plan

1.0 The Policy Arrow, Pillars, Sectors and MDAs

Sections 4.1, 4.2 and 4.3 of the main guide provide introductory advice on adopting a pillar and arrow approach, and how MDAs should be expected to demonstrate how their sector strategies may contribute to the achievement of these higher level objectives. This part – section 1 – of this annex, provides some further advice on how to go about choosing the contents of the arrow and pillars, and how these may be related to sectors and MDAs in a particular State.

1.1 Choose the Key Pillars

There are no hard and fast rules for choosing the contents of the pillars – and no ideal number of pillars either. The selection of these overall long-term goals will vary from state to state, and will depend upon local circumstances and almost certainly local politics. Just remember that these are high level things or statements of intent, and as far as possible from here on everything the State Government does should be aimed at achieving them. Statements might look something like this:

To achieve growth in jobs and wealth across the State;

To improve the health and level of education amongst the population;

To achieve security of life and property across the State;

To enjoy an efficient and effective public service;

To provide for transparent and accountable government.

These statements are illustrative only. They are not exclusive, and they may not be universal. They are simply the kinds of high level aspirations the State may be aiming for.

Referring back to the previous section, it is probably largely for the Executive to define these aspirations. But if they are concerned to ensure that this kind of agenda will make them popular – especially if they manage to deliver something tangible against these goals over the period in office – then it will have been sensible to consult the public somehow about where the priorities lie, and to check to make sure that they are realistic and implementable. Further advice on how to do these things is provided in sections 5 and 4 of the main guide respectively.

Figure 1 Pillars Supporting Long Term Goal Achievement

Better Lives

for all State Citizens

28

Add figure 2 about here

1.2 Devising Sectors

The Pillars you have defined are high level. Beneath this you may usefully define a series of sectors.

These may be, but need not be, synonymous with the main budget vote-head MDAs. Some sectors are easily recognised, such as Education or Health, but others can be more difficult to map neatly across to MDAs. Most “sectors” will overlap because most government activity is inter-connected, so how it is decided to organise the various functions and policy areas into sectors is a matter for each state government. Some MDAs will fall into more than one sector, such as “science and technology” for example, which could fall into an “industrial or business development” sector as well as “education”. Broadly speaking it may be possible to “slot” sectors under key pillar headings. For example under “growth” we may place “Commerce and Industry” and perhaps “Agriculture” and other natural resources MDAs. But this is not to say that other “sectors” do not also contribute to the achievement of broad goals. For example “education” can make a key contribution to “growth”, as well as to the improvement of “services”.

1.3 MDAs and Programmes

Beneath these sectors will be a series of MDAs, programmes and projects.

An MDA (or Ministry, Department or Agency) is normally a main budget head code in the State’s chart of accounts, and it is under these main headings that the budget is structured.

A programme could fall within in one MDA, but it might equally spread across more than one. For example a schools expansion programme will involve the construction of schools, but will also contain elements of water supply, public health and probably security. Programmes may normally be managed under one MDA cost centre, but should involve a range of people from different parts of government.

1.4 Keeping the Policy Eye on the Arrow

Because of these divisions and sub-divisions, (Sectors, MDAs and Programmes) there is a common tendency to plan (or make policy) within those sub-divisions. Indeed the vested interests of those whose jobs and welfare is tied up with specific projects and agencies encourages competition for resources between them on precisely this basis. HOWEVER, it ought to be the task of political leaders to look beyond these contests. In order for the Government to be most effective an emphasis needs to be placed on how these parts work together for the achievement of a single goal, not how they compete with each other for their share of resources.

Growth in Wealth

and Jobs

More Healthy and Educated Population

Better Security

An Efficient and Effective

Public Service

Trans-parent and

Accountable Government

29

It looks complex, but an ideal picture of how all the parts could work for the achievement of an overall goal is illustrated in figure 3. A single Commissioner is responsible for a single MDA, or perhaps a cluster of MDAs, and it will be that Commissioner’s responsibility to argue the case in ExCo for policy and resource allocations that are required for that MDA. But DESPITE this individual responsibility, each Commissioner also has the collective responsibility to ensure that decisions are made for the best overall result in achievement of the state-wide goals. This could sometimes mean making concessions to the effect that expenditure in another MDA might make a more positive contribution to common goals. So, if members of ExCo see debates swinging around to issues of competition between MDAs for scarce resources, they could try to bring the evaluation around to a comparison of how each proposed strategy contributes to the achievement of the broader policy pillars. (This advice is provided in a technical spirit. It is fully acknowledged that purely political interests are commonly paramount in such debates.) As for the Legislature, it is possible that some members of the ruling party in the House will make contributions to this policy debate through party channels. Apart from this the real opportunities for Assembly members to influence the debate are at the time when annual budgets are presented for approval, or in specific committees in which policy documentation presented by the Government might be reviewed and debated. We provide more advice on scrutiny at the budget stage in section 4 of the main guide.

30

Figure 2: Policy Goals drive Sectors and Programmes

2.0 Some Process and Technical Considerations when Making a Plan

Sections 4.4, 4.5 and 4.6 of the main guide provide some advice on how to put together a plan document. Annex 1 to the guide provides an outline table contents as a guiding example. The following sub-sections to this annex provide some additional advice on some process and technical factors to take into consideration, and section 2.9 below provides a rough planning timetable for production of the document.

2.1 Engaging Stakeholders

In principle stakeholder engagement is important because policy is supposed to be about deciding how to use PUBLIC resources to deliver PUBLIC GOODS. But beyond this principle it may be important to politicians if they believe their positions in power could be sustained by doing their best to deliver on electoral promises, and to deliver what a wide range (at least the majority) of the population hopes for or expects to see. In turn of course the value of this tactic depends upon the extent to which the electoral process is free and fair.

You should engage with your stakeholders at the start of policy-making because you will need to work with them all the way through. This is not passing decision-making to someone else. But you still need to understand them, both because they may have a different view from you on what the problem might be, and because they may be part of the solution. This is a critical part of policy-making, and we devote the whole of section 5 of this guide to it.

2.2 Poverty, Social Inclusion and Reducing Civil Unrest

However, it is important to emphasise a point of principle at this stage.

Overall Policy Framework

Policy Goal Environment

Policy Goal Services

Policy Goal Growth

Policy Goal Governance

Sector Environment

Sector Water

Sector Health

Sector Justice

Sector Power

Sector Education

Sector Social

Inclusion

Various Programmes

31

As stated above, government business is about using public resources in the public interest. There are a number of different philosophies about how to approach this task, and they range across wide spectrums which usually have to do with the levels of state intervention that are desirable or undesirable, and the degree to which government has a re-distributive function. With respect to the latter, most governments fiscal policy takes money away from those who can afford it better (the wealthy) and use it to provide a range of services and other public goods which help to sustain – and provide enhanced opportunities – to those less able to help themselves. Means of doing this include the provision of social safety nets, free or subsidised health and education at the point of delivery, and specific services targeted at the socially excluded or disadvantaged, including women, the handicapped and those suffering from specific diseases such as HVI/AIDS. Of course in a country like Nigeria where the GDP per capita is relatively low, it is hard to provide the kind of support across the board that many might desire. But whatever the specific political philosophy chosen by a particular government, it may be regarded as essential nevertheless to do what can be done to reduce poverty in these ways. The reasons for this may be moral, but they may also be politically realistic. After all it is in countries where governments have failed to provide basic services and basic job opportunities to the poor that civil unrest has been most serious. For these reasons it is especially important that politicians seek to learn about and understand the hardships endured by the poor, women and social excluded, and build their responses to these concerns into policies that will sustain popular support, welfare and legitimacy, and which will reduce the prospects for conflict.

2.3 Describing the Current Situation

Once you know what the challenge or desired outcome is, you need to devise solutions – or improvements. Some problems are too big and too complex to “solve”. It is enough sometimes just to make things better, rather than go for a complete solution. You will not solve global warming or poverty, nor provide free education for all in one programme. What you should also be careful about is not making things worse, especially when you think you are making them better. Doing the wrong thing, even with good intentions, is bad policy-making.

At the simplest level, you should find out what data already exists. It may not have been commissioned by you or be specifically in relation to your sector but may still give you a steer on the basic facts. There are CWIC Surveys, Living Condition Surveys, Census Data, Enrolment Data held by the state Ministries of Education, SUBEB, DPRSs, the state Board of Internal Revenue, and so on. There is a saying in evidence-based policy-making, which says, “Gather once, use often”.

But in addition to data, you also need understanding.

2.4 Cause and Effect – What Actions will deliver Desired Outcomes?

Policy-making is about cause and effect. It is all about generating outcomes and the policy- maker keeps trying to identify what things can be done that will cause the outcome to happen. Outcomes may be achieved through intuition but they are normally achieved through a more structured approach than this. What is needed is analysis. Unfortunately we can often have too simple an expectation of how people will behave once they have the output. This can result from a failure to analyse properly. For example, we

32

often assume that purchasing cheap inputs for farmers will result in greater agricultural production. It is rarely the case. There is a good example from an attempt at empowerment a group of young people. They were given a training course in computing and, at the end, they were given a computer so that that they could follow-through with their training and start a small business. Instead they sold the computer. The output was a group of trained young people with a computer but that did not lead to them starting a business, which was the intended outcome.

2.5 Medium Term Thinking

Policy-makers need to think big because the challenges are big. Nothing stays still, waiting for government to act. Our society, our economy and our environment are constantly changing around us. The challenges for State Government are huge. State Governments need to make a big difference for millions of people. Thinking big also means thinking over years. You can’t do big in the short term. On the other hand, thinking too big may turn into dreaming, rather than policy-making. In particular you need to think within the confines of real resource constraints (see section 4 for more on this). So, you need to think in the medium term – long enough to tackle a big problem, short enough to manage it.

2.6 The Recurrent Capital Ratio

It is commonly assumed that an increase in the ratio of capital to recurrent is a good thing. This is not necessarily true. Certainly there is a need to improve infrastructure in Nigeria, and so capital investments are important. But if they are not properly combined with recurrent investments then the expected results will not be realised. Think of a new hospital for example that has no staff in it. Clearly this will not result in any improvement in health care and reduction in the level of disease or mortality what-so-ever. Capital tends to produce things rather than outcomes. Outcomes come from people and people are more usually funded from recurrent expenditure. So while capital projects are obviously visible and may therefore seem an attractive prospect politically, they do not always produce results that change peoples’ lives on their own. While you may begin with capital investments therefore, it is commonly necessary to increase recurrent expenditure as a result. So while in early years there may be a great deal of capital expenditure, corresponding recurrent expenditures ought to increase in the medium term. In relation to this balance you should expect, over a medium to long-term period, that recurrent allocations might increase as a proportion of total expenditure. This realisation might be of assistance in the current climate of increasing salaries, and therefore increasing recurrent costs. In fact the deployment or re-deployment of these resources can have a profound positive effect on the results or outcomes of state government activity. If qualified human resources are deployed, for example in the education sector, to places where it is most needed, the positive impact on the skills and knowledge of young people could be considerable. This in turn should have positive knock on effects both in terms of security and for the economy. In addition to the likely shift in that ratio, you will also need to consider other funding issues that are different over the medium term, primarily profiling the funding needed at different times. It is part of the advantage of the medium term approach that you can plan for a more varied use of funding over that period.

33

2.7 Justifying Policy Decisions

Most policies have winners and losers. A decision to spend money in one place has the associated implication that a decision has been made not to spend in another. This is why there commonly emerge contests between different MDAs, and between people representing the people who live in different places, or indeed between the wealthy and the poor, over how public money should be spent. One thing policy makers can do to help over-come these contests – or at least to reduce the disagreement that sometimes ensues – is to use various means to justify the decisions made and to make those justifications public. This can be attempted by trying to balance the overall gains and losses of the strategy options. As far as you can, you need to calculate the costs of the strategy and also put costs on the benefits and see which number is bigger. Are the benefits greater than the costs? Then you can use this to compare different options. Will the benefits be greater by spending money in one way rather than another? The comparison can include options to spend more money across different sectors or between different places. What are the relative benefits from spending additional money in education or on agriculture? Is the need for an improved service greater in one area than another, regardless of whether this area might be your own constituency or home base? Analysing the costs and the benefits is known as Cost / Benefit Analysis or CBA. Simple CBA looks very straight-forward. One number is larger than another. What’s difficult about that?

One difficulty is in calculating the numbers. That is often so difficult that prejudices creep in that ensure – whether intentionally or not – that the numbers come out the way you want them to. This rather defeats the purpose.

It can be difficult working out a value for benefits. It may be difficult enough working out the actual costs but benefits are very often values rather than prices.

But it is also tempting to reject CBA as a technique just because it is not very definitive. It is nevertheless a useful discipline to ask the questions, whether or not the technique will give you a precise answer. It may also help politicians to provide an answer if they are put on the spot by public or media questioning.

34

So, costing is not just about affordability – although that is the most fundamental issue. If you cannot afford the costs, you do not have the option. But you should not do it just because you can afford to.

2.8 Drawing on Good Advice and Experience

The sub-sections above have described a set of principles when approaching the policy-making task:

describing outcomes as policy statements;

engaging stakeholders;

describing the situation;

cause and effect;

medium-term thinking;

the recurrent-capital ratio; and

justifying your decisions. It is tough, however, to expect policy-makers to know about how to do all these things on their own. Sometimes a policy maker could be an expert in a particular field, but as they enter government or the legislature they may not be experienced in or knowledgeable about the complete scope of the process. In most cases though, lessons will have been learned about all these things before, and it makes sense to BUILD upon this existing experience and knowledge. There is advice available about how to, and how not to, go about achieving a desired result. Especially it makes sense to draw on the experience of experts in the field.

Justifying your Decision Example 1 State Government 1 proposed building a new centre for small businesses. There are two designs, at 20 million and 30 million Naira. The budget provided is 30 million Naira, so why did they not just build the biggest centre? Looking at the projected benefits gives a different picture – the projections from the economists said that the community it would serve was unlikely to generate more than 25 million Naira over five years. On a Cost / Benefit Analysis, the 30 million option was not justifiable, although affordable. But the CBA showed that the 20 million option is justifiable. So the 20 million option was chosen, and the remaining 10 million was spent in a different way. Example 2 State Government 2 was offered an expensive scanning machine for its hospital for free by a benefactor. However, when the recurrent costs of running the equipment were calculated, it was seen that this would draw some 20 million from the recurrent budget, and this could only be found by reducing the amount available for drugs. Information suggested that the drugs would save over 11,500 lives per year, whereas the scanner would only help to prevent the deaths of an estimated 600. It was therefore decided to decline the offer of the free machine.

35

Ideally policy makers should be able to rely upon their civil servants to provide some of this advice. This is one of the main functions that the service should be capable of performing. If they are not equipped to do this then policy makers should be doing what they can to ensure that they ARE equipped to do it. However, there are other people in society who also possess some of the required knowledge. There are always experts in respective fields available, and increasingly there is good knowledge about practice available from other parts of the world on the internet. Policy makers may draw on this knowledge, and then discuss options with their civil servants. Section 5 looks further at methods and reasons to consult widely over policy formulation. A process of annual review also helps to ensure that policy can learn from previous lessons and mistakes. We touch on this a little further in section 4.

2.9 A Rough Timetable for Making or Revising a State Development Plan

The following table (on the next page) is a brief outline only which may be used as a kind of check list, and could help in getting started with the process. Each State should modify this outline timetable, depending upon the elements of the exercise upon which it aims to focus. The timetable assumes that the revised state plan should be completed and approved by the Executive Council by the end of March each year, so that it is available for Sector Strategy makers to guide them in the overall objectives they should be trying to meet. The first task listed is to form a core team to do the work. The rest of the tasks in this table are then intended to be managed and implemented by that team.

36

Figure 3: A Rough Timetable for State Plan Preparation or Revision

Task Date 1. Form or reform a core plan development team, probably drawing on key

figures in the MoEP (or equivalent), two or three selected key Commissioners, and a small group of representative people from the civic sector (CSOs, private sector, professional bodies etc.). But keep the team small and functional, ideally ten or fewer people.

November

2. Assemble existing plan documents, including last years state development plan if there is one. Review these documents for their content and how they match up to some of the standards outlined in this guide.

November, December

3. Assemble necessary general planning information (not to the level of detail required for specific sector planning), especially information on fiscal projections, but also any general shifts in major indicator trends in the State, such as GDP and population growth, employment levels, key education and health indicators and poverty data.

November, December

4. Assemble emerging information from Performance Reviews against this year’s plan and budget implementation, and for the previous year, and record the successes and failures. Aim to reach conclusions about WHY certain things worked and why certain things did not. What remedial action is required?

End of December, Early January

5. Conduct public consultation as required about recent performance, referring especially to section 5 of the main guide. Ensure that key SHoA members are involved at this stage.

End of December, early January

6. Consider whether the contents of the arrow and pillars diagram needs to be altered. (If the State does not have overall policy outcome targets such as these, then develop them at this stage, referring to section 1.1 above.

Early January

7. Review existing policy positions against some of the criteria outlined in section 2 of this annex – keeping an eye on the arrow head, medium term thinking, the capital-recurrent ratio, and choosing actions that will deliver the desired outcomes.

January

8. Debate shifting options in fiscal policy and propose decisions on changes to realistic revenue collection, taking account of the potential impact on the local economy.

January

9. Debate shifting options in expenditure policy, given the projected financial situation in the State over the period of the Plan probably five years). Develop recommendations for shifts in expenditure direction and pillar/sector priorities.

January

10. Draw on specific knowledge about intended shifts from specific sectors/MDAs, and consider the overall justification for these proposed shifts in the context of broad policy aims.

January

11. Compile an outline draft document, highlighting changes and the justifications for them.

Early February

12. Present these proposals and the justifications to a wider audience, especially including wider political leaders, the SHoA, and members of the public, to get their feedback.

February

13. Refine and complete the compilation of the new or revised plan document. Obtain the Governor’s final review of this draft. (He should have been involved at earlier stages anyway.)

Early March

14. Present the Document to Executive Council for Approval. Last week in March

15. Executive Council approves the document and it is published. End of March