2003年-世界发展银行全球_Uganda_-_Public_Expenditure_Review_2003___Supporting_Budget_Reforms_at_the_Central_and_Local_Government_Levels_146页_10mb

Public Expenditure Review 2003: Uganda

Core Content

This Public Expenditure Review (PER) Report for Uganda, prepared by the World Bank, outlines the challenges and progress in the country's budget process and fiscal management during the 2002/03 fiscal year. It also provides an overview of the budget reforms planned for the 2003/04 to 2005/06 period, emphasizing the need for improved budget efficiency and financial management at both central and local government levels.

Main Views

A. Macroeconomic and Fiscal Challenges

• Growth Performance: Real GDP growth in 2002/03 was 4.8%, lower than the previous year's 6% and below the targeted 7% for poverty eradication. The slowdown was attributed to global economic conditions, low coffee prices, adverse weather, and delays in the Bujagali hydroelectricity project.
• Sectoral Performance: The agricultural sector grew by only 3.2%, the lowest among all sectors, while the service and industry sectors grew at 6.8% and 7.5%, respectively. The industry growth was driven by construction and manufacturing.
• Inflation: Annual headline inflation reached 5.9%, higher than the projected 1%, due to rising food prices and depreciation of the Uganda shilling (USh).
• Fiscal Deficit: The fiscal deficit (excluding grants) was 11.3% of GDP in 2002/03, down from 13% in 2001/02. However, the deficit remained a significant concern.
• External Debt and Donor Funding: Increased donor inflows helped fund the fiscal deficit, but there were concerns about the impact of foreign exchange sales on export competitiveness, potentially leading to "Dutch disease."

B. Budget Process

• Budget Framework Papers (BFPs): The preparation of BFPs for the 2003/04 fiscal year was more organized, with more time allocated than in previous years. The process was supported by donors such as DFID, EU, and the World Bank.
• Sector Working Groups (SWGs): SWGs have become more embedded in the system, but their effectiveness in planning and implementation remains a challenge. They need more time and support to improve the quality of BFPs.
• Medium-Term Expenditure Framework (MTEF): The MTEF was introduced, but the integration of donor projects and wage bill issues within it remains weak. There is a need for more participatory and transparent processes in determining sector ceilings.
• Parliamentary Involvement: Parliament became more actively involved in the budget process, highlighting the importance of aligning the PER workshop with parliamentary procedures to enhance impact.

C. Budget Execution

• Revenue Performance: Revenue collection reached 99% of the approved budget estimates, but there were issues with the distribution of resources across sectors.
• Expenditure Management: There were significant budget overruns and underprogramming issues. The government frontloaded expenditures, particularly in the security and public administration sectors, leading to cuts in other areas.
• Arrears and Counterpart Funding: Arrears were a major issue, and inadequate counterpart funding affected the performance of donor-supported projects.
• Commitment Control System (CCS): The CCS was used to manage budget execution, but its effectiveness was limited.
• Monitoring and Reporting: Budget performance reporting was not based on outputs, and there was a need for better monitoring and reporting systems.

D. Budget Efficiency

• Water and Sanitation: The sector showed poor allocative and operational efficiency, with limited impact on reducing infant mortality.
• Health Sector: There were challenges in allocative efficiency, with a focus on improving health indicators through the Poverty Action Fund (PAF).
• Education Sector: The sector had issues with underperformance in quality inputs and allocation of resources. The Pupil-Teacher Ratio (PTR) and Pupil-Classroom Ratio (PCR) were not meeting targets.
• Justice, Law, and Order Sector (JLOS): The sector faced challenges in resource allocation and performance measurement.

E. Local Government (LG) Budget and Financial Management

• Decentralization: The LG budget process was studied in three districts and one municipality, revealing significant variation in performance and challenges.
• Budget Allocation and Execution: LGs faced issues with budget allocation, execution, and financial management, including irregular flow of resources, inadequate counterpart funding, and weak internal controls.
• Internal Controls: The Commitment Control System (CCS) and Local Government Public Accounts Committee (LGPAC) were important in monitoring expenditures, but their effectiveness needed improvement.
• Performance Measurement: There was a need for better performance measurement and reporting to stakeholders, including civil society and donors.

Key Information

• Currency Unit: Uganda shilling (USh)
• Exchange Rate: US$1.00 = 1990.75 USh
• Fiscal Year: July 1, 2002, to June 30, 2003
• Main Sectors Analyzed: Education, Health, Water and Sanitation, Justice, Law, and Order (JLOS)
• Key Institutions: Ministry of Finance, Planning and Economic Development (MFPED), World Bank, DFID, and the Public Expenditure Management Committee (PEMCOM)
• Challenges Identified:
  • Inadequate counterpart funding
  • Budget overruns and underprogramming
  • Irregular flow of resources
  • Weak internal controls and audit mechanisms
  • Poor performance in budget monitoring and reporting
  • Limited impact of budget support on poverty reduction and MDGs

The Way Forward

• Fiscal Consolidation: The government plans to reduce the fiscal deficit through gradual consolidation, emphasizing increased domestic revenue and controlled borrowing.
• Improved Budget Efficiency: There is a need to better prioritize and allocate resources to achieve poverty reduction and MDGs targets.
• Strengthening SWGs: SWGs should be given more time and support to improve the quality and depth of BFPs.
• Enhancing Transparency and Accountability: Strengthening the role of LGPAC and other oversight bodies is crucial.
• Systematic Monitoring: Budget execution and monitoring processes must be improved to ensure better alignment with program goals and donor expectations.
• Decentralization Support: Continued support for local governments is necessary to enhance their capacity in budget planning and financial management.

Conclusion

The PER report highlights the progress made in Uganda's budget process and fiscal management while identifying key challenges that need to be addressed. The focus is on maintaining macroeconomic stability, improving budget efficiency, and ensuring that public expenditures contribute effectively to poverty reduction and development goals. The establishment of PEMCOM is a positive step towards coordinating budget reforms, but systematic monitoring and support are essential to realize its intended impact.