2017年-世界发展银行全球_Budget_Management_Analysis_in_Khyber_Pakhtunkhwa_for_Improved_Service_Delivery_50页_992kb

报告摘要

Budget Management Analysis in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa for Improved Service Delivery

Core Content

This report, titled "Budget Management Analysis in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa for Improved Service Delivery", was commissioned by the Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (GoKP) from July 2016 to March 2017. It is part of a broader effort to improve public financial management (PFM) and service delivery in the province. The report is based on the Public Expenditure and Financial Accountability (PEFA) assessment framework, which evaluates PFM systems across seven pillars.

Main Findings

1. PFM and Service Delivery

PFM plays a crucial role in creating an enabling environment for improved service delivery and economic growth.
Despite its importance, PFM alone does not directly determine service delivery outcomes due to other government factors.
The report identifies a paradox in KP: high budget execution rates coexist with significant budget throw-forwards, poor infrastructure conditions, and suboptimal service delivery.

2. Budget Utilization and Formulation

Budget execution rates in KP are relatively high, but this does not equate to effective service delivery.
Inherent deficiencies in budget formulation limit the budget's contribution to service delivery.
A comprehensive fiscal strategy is needed to align revenue mobilization with capital investment requirements.

3. Sector-Specific Investment Strategies

Most sectors lack well-defined investment strategies.
The health and education sectors have costed strategies, but implementation is inconsistent.
The infrastructure sector, led by the Communication and Works (C&W) Department, lacks a sector strategy, contributing to inefficiencies.

4. Budget Tools and Processes

The introduction of modern budgeting tools, such as medium-term fiscal frameworks and output-based budgeting, has been hindered by legacy practices and insufficient capacity building.
The current budget preparation period is too short, and there is a lack of sector-wide indicative planning figures, leading to inconsistencies in fund allocation and utilization.

5. Procurement Management

Procurement processes are disintegrated and redundant, leading to inefficiencies and delays.
The absence of cohesive procurement planning results in unrealistic packaging of projects and protracted procurement cycles.
E-procurement is recommended to improve efficiency, but it requires substantial capacity development.

6. Project Formulation and Monitoring

Project proposals are often submitted late, leading to uncertainty in project costs and delayed approvals.
The Project Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) system is underdeveloped, and project documents are frequently revised, causing time and cost overruns.
Project classification and cost estimation are not adequately reported, limiting the ability to conduct systematic analysis.

7. Payment and Arrears Issues

Significant unspent funds exist in non-lapsable accounts, attributed to erratic cash releases and limited payment processes.
The payment process allows excessive discretion to officials, potentially leading to financial irregularities.
A systematic approach to arrears liquidation is necessary to improve fiscal discipline and reduce invoice tampering.

8. Institutional Coordination

Jurisdictional fragmentation among departments leads to delays in project execution.
The Department of Communication and Works is responsible for infrastructure development, while other departments handle planning, procurement, and land acquisition, resulting in poor coordination.
Institutional coordination is essential for timely project completion and effective budget execution.

9. Data Systems and Reporting

The Development Planning and Monitoring System (DPMS) is underutilized and lacks comprehensive data.
Data systems are inadequate for systematic analysis, especially in terms of project classification, cost estimation, and progress tracking.
Enhancing data collection and classification is critical for improving budget transparency and fiscal accountability.

Key Recommendations

1. PFM Reform Strategy and Action Plan

Develop a second-generation PFM reform strategy to ensure sustainable reforms.
Establish a PFM Reforms Oversight Committee for strategic coordination and decision-making.

2. Development Budget (ADP) Management

Conduct an ADP cleansing exercise to eliminate unapproved schemes.
Introduce a zero-based review of projects and gradually disallow the inclusion of unapproved schemes in the budget.

3. Project Formulation and Planning

Implement a phased approach for mandatory project proposal submission.
Advance the issuance of budget call circulars to allow for better planning and information availability.

4. Institutional Coordination

Ensure clear jurisdictional roles and coordinated efforts among departments.
Align project appraisal and timeline discussions during the planning phase to improve execution efficiency.

5. Procurement Reforms

Strengthen procurement planning and bidding processes.
Introduce alternate dispute resolution mechanisms to reduce litigation delays.
Promote e-procurement to enhance transparency and efficiency.

6. Data and Information Systems

Establish a centralized and accessible database of approved project documents.
Improve the DPMS by incorporating PC1 and quality cost estimates.
Enhance data coverage for M&E to support better decision-making and policy formulation.

7. Fiscal and Revenue Management

Develop a broader fiscal strategy with explicit time-based quantitative goals.
Improve own-source revenue management to reduce reliance on federal transfers.

Conclusion

The report emphasizes the need for systematic reform in budget management, procurement, and data systems to enhance service delivery and infrastructure development in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. It advocates for institutional coordination, capacity building, and modern budgeting practices to create a more transparent, accountable, and efficient public financial management system.

展开完整摘要