2002年-世界发展银行全球_Guyana___Public_Expenditure_Review_124页_6mb

Public Expenditure Review of Guyana (Report No. 20151-GUA)

Core Content

This report is a Public Expenditure Review (PER) of Guyana, conducted by the World Bank in 1999 and updated in 2001-02. It aims to analyze the structure and performance of public expenditures, identify weaknesses in the budgeting process, and provide recommendations for improving fiscal sustainability and service delivery to the poor.

Main Objectives

• To gain a better understanding of the structure of the Government's budget and the processes leading to its preparation and execution.
• To assist the Government in reorienting policies, institutions, and expenditures to achieve private sector-led growth and better services to the poor.

Key Findings

1. Country Context and Budget Structure

• Guyana is the fourth poorest country in the Western Hemisphere with a per capita income of $940 in 2000.
• Despite its natural resources, the country has struggled with low per capita income and poor social indicators compared to other countries in the region.
• Public expenditures remain a large component of the economy, with central government spending as a share of GDP declining from 57.6% (1989-91) to 47.6% (2001).
• The Public Sector Investment Program (PSIP) is expected to increase to nearly 17.7% of GDP by 2005, driven by the HIPC program and other initiatives.

2. Fiscal Risks

• Civil service unions are pushing for large ad-hoc wage increases, potentially threatening fiscal sustainability.
• Government guarantees for private investments (e.g., the proposed Berbice River bridge) could pose financial risks.
• Heavy leakages in the tax system and large tax exemptions on a discretionary basis are also risks to fiscal sustainability.

3. Budget Process

• The budget preparation process has improved in recent years with the creation of budget and planning units in selected ministries.
• Multi-year budgeting is in place, with the PRSP reinforcing the use of a three-year rolling PSIP.
• However, the budget process is still plagued by several weaknesses:
  • Lack of joint discussion of future years' estimates with the current year's budget.
  • No systematic analysis of fiscal implications of current year decisions.
  • Separate preparation of current and capital expenditure budgets, without planning for future recurrent costs.
  • Delays in budget presentation and approval, affecting implementation and performance.

4. Institutional Arrangements

• The Ministry of Finance has limited capacity for economic modeling and forecasting.
• The current budget manual has not been fully implemented.
• The budget preparation timetable starts too late, and fund releases are monthly, with no significant change in the process post-1998.
• The tendering and procurement process is outdated and inefficient, contributing to delays and lack of transparency.

Key Recommendations

1. Improving Budget Processes

• Prepare the budget within a national development program and a multi-year rolling expenditure framework.
• Integrate current and capital expenditure budgeting to improve resource allocation efficiency and ensure adequate operation and maintenance of public infrastructure.
• Implement a new budget preparation timetable that starts during or at the end of the first quarter of the preceding fiscal year.
• Change fund release frequency to quarterly, but maintain monthly expenditure reporting for control purposes.
• Allow agencies more flexibility in financial movements within the same program budget, while ensuring control between programs.

2. Strengthening Budgetary Control and Accountability

• Strengthen the Ministry of Finance's capacity for economic modeling and forecasting.
• Enhance the technical and institutional capacity of the Auditor General's Office.
• Empower the Public Accounts Committee to summon officers and conduct investigations independently.
• Strengthen reporting requirements for the Civil Service Commissions to the National Assembly.
• Implement an Accountability Framework similar to the one proposed under the Guyana Economic Management Program (GEMP).

3. Reorienting Sectoral Expenditures

• The report evaluates expenditures in the health, education, poverty programs, and economic and social infrastructure sectors.
• It highlights the need to better align sectoral spending with poverty reduction and economic growth goals.
• The HIPC program has led to a significant increase in social sector spending, especially in education and health.

Conclusion

The PER underscores the importance of effective public expenditure management in achieving sustainable economic growth and poverty reduction in Guyana. It identifies the need for institutional reforms, better budget planning, and improved accountability mechanisms to ensure that public resources are used efficiently and transparently. The report also emphasizes the importance of aligning sectoral expenditures with the goals of the PRSP and HIPC program to improve service delivery to the poor.