7/29/2019 Program Based Budgeting 1
1/79
The Implementation of PBB in the Public Sector
A Post Implementation Review
Submitted by
October 2012
7/29/2019 Program Based Budgeting 1
2/79
Bsc Hons in Financial Managementwith specialisation in Public Finance
2
Confirmation
I confirm that the dissertation which I have submitted is a product of my own work and
that I have acknowledged all sources of information. The dissertation has not been
submitted to any other institution for the award of an educational qualification.
Signature
Name:
7/29/2019 Program Based Budgeting 1
3/79
Bsc Hons in Financial Managementwith specialisation in Public Finance
3
ABSTRACT
The purpose of this dissertation is to conduct a survey among officers in the Financial
Operation Officer cadre on the effectiveness of PBB implementation i.e. whether PBB is
achieving all its preset objectives, to assess andevaluate the implementation of PBB in
Ministries and to make recommendations for the effective the implementation of PBB.
A literature review was carried out on public sector budgeting in particular the PBB
manual, the PEFA report (2010), and the Collaborative Africa Budget Reform InitiativeReport (2010).
The information thus obtained has been used to prepare a questionnaire. A pilot testing
was carried out and the questionnaires were administered to 112 potential respondents.Only 31 properly filled questionnaires have been received.The data obtained from the
survey was coded and analyzed using SPSS (version 17).
The survey reveals that out of the 7 objectives set out in the PBB Manual , considerableprogress has been made on four of them As such , PBB has increased transparency and
accountability in the system, public management is more results-oriented and geared to
achieving development outcomes, PBB is providing more concrete information to theCabinet on performance for decision making purposes and for setting future targets and
priorities and it is promoting high quality, client-responsive public services which is
aimed at maximizing value for money in service delivery.
Slow progress is noted with respect to 3 objectives. The main areas of concern are: (a)_
improving effectiveness of government Ministries /Departments to develop and
implement their programs and sub-programs of activities(b) providing information tohelp reallocate resources within and between program and sub-programs and reducing
expenditure as part of efficiency gain and (c) Using performance and evaluation data for
policy planning and management purposes and enhancing operational and technicalefficiency, expenditure prioritization and improving allocation of resources.
One interesting finding from the study is about the mentality of officers at the MinistryofFinance. They have not change in the new system. Budgetary allocation by the
Ministry of Finance is still based on what was spent last year, a practice which was very
current under the line budgeting system. Moreover, the Ministry of Finance is
perpetuating the old practice of relentlessly pursuing savings at the cost of program
implementation.
It is also felt that policy and planning process at the Ministry of Finance does notprovide a realistic resource allocation to the Ministries. In addition concern has beenraised with respect to the time devoted by the Ministry of Finance to consider the budget
of a Ministry. On the positive side, there is a strong institutional framework to implement
PBB i.e. the National Audit Office and the Public Account Committee.
Appropriate recommendations have been made to strengthen the implementation of PBB
7/29/2019 Program Based Budgeting 1
4/79
Bsc Hons in Financial Managementwith specialisation in Public Finance
4
Acknowledgement
7/29/2019 Program Based Budgeting 1
5/79
Bsc Hons in Financial Managementwith specialisation in Public Finance
5
Table of Content
Page No
1.0 Introduction.. 12
1.1 Reform in the Public Sector.. 12
1.2Need for the Study 14
1.3 Objective of the study.. 14
1.4 Research Questions... 15
1.5 Research outline 15
1.6 Conclusion 15
2.0 Literature Review. 16
2.1 Introduction.. 16
2.2 Budgeting. 16
2.3 Line Budgeting. 16
2.4 Performance Budgeting 17
2.5 Program Budgeting... 18
2.6PBB -an instrument of Policy Analysis. 19
2.7 Program Structure. 20
2.8Program Based Budgeting. 21
2.9 Program based budgeting as a Planning Process.. 22
2.10 Dilemma in implementing PBB. 22
2.11 Changing Form and Behavior. 23
7/29/2019 Program Based Budgeting 1
6/79
Bsc Hons in Financial Managementwith specialisation in Public Finance
6
2.12 Performance and Management Information system... 24
2.13 Conclusion... 24
3.0 Research Design and Methodology (1192)... 25
3.1 Introduction.. 25
3.2 Research Methodology. 25
3.3 Data Collection Sources 25
3.4Population and Sampling.... 26
3.5Response Rate 27
3.6 Identifying the Constructs 28
3.7 Questionnaire Design 28
3.8Scale and measurement.. 28
3.9 Pilot Testing.. 29
3.10Data Analysis... 29
3.11 Ethical Considerations 29
3.12Conclusion 30
4.0 Analysis... 31
4.1 Introduction.. 31
4.2Demographic Analysis..31
4.2.1 Gender... 31
4.2.2 Distribution of respondents by Position... 32
4.2.3 Distribution of Respondents by Ministries... 33
7/29/2019 Program Based Budgeting 1
7/79
Bsc Hons in Financial Managementwith specialisation in Public Finance
7
4.2.4 Educational Level.. 34
4.2.5Involvement in Budgeting.. 35
4.2.6 Training in PBB.... 36
4.3 Achieving PBB Objectives... 37
4.3.1 Objective 1... 37
4.3.2 Objective 2... 39
4.3.3 Objective 3 . 41
4.3.4 Objective 4... 43
4.3.5 Objective 5... 45
4.3.6 Objective6. . 47
4.3.7 Objective7 ...... 49
4.3.8 Overall Assessment 51
4.4 Rating by grade of officers... 52
4.5 The Implementation of PBB. 54
4.5.1 Rules and Regulations 54
4.5.2 Budget Policy and Planning Processes... 56
4.5.3 Budget Preparation Practices..... 56
4.5.4 Budget Execution and Accounting System.... 57
4.5.5 Monitoring and Evaluation 58
4.5.6 Performance Measurement 59
4.5.7Audit... 60
7/29/2019 Program Based Budgeting 1
8/79
Bsc Hons in Financial Managementwith specialisation in Public Finance
8
4.6 Conclusion. 61
5.0 Conclusion and Recommendations......................................................... 62
5.1 Introduction............................................................................................ 62
5.2 Conclusion............................................................................................... 62
5.3 Recommendations. 65
5.3.1 Training.. 65
5.3.2 New Mindset of Budgeting Officers. 65
5.3.3 Program Evaluation and Performance Management. 65
5.3.4 Benchmarking 65
5.3.5Internal Audit. 66
5.3.6The Financial Information System.. 66
5.3.7 Gender Responsive Budgeting.. 66
5.4 Conclusion 66
Questionnaire.. 67
Section A. 68
Section B. 69
Section C 73
Section D. 74
Bibliography 77
7/29/2019 Program Based Budgeting 1
9/79
Bsc Hons in Financial Managementwith specialisation in Public Finance
9
List of Tables
Page No
Table 1: Ministries. 27
Table 2: Responses. 27
Table 3: Scale.. 29
Table 4: Gender. 31
Table 5: Distribution of respondents by Position. 32
Table 6: Distribution of Respondents by Ministries.. 33
Table 7: Educational Level... 34
Table 8: Involvement in Budgeting 35
Table 9: Training in PBB.. 36
Table 10: Objective 1 38
Table 11: Overall Achievement-Objective 1... 38
Table 12: Objective 2.. 40
Table 13: Overall Achievement - Objective 2 40
Table 14: Objective 3.. 42
Table 15: Overall Achievement: Objective 3. 42
Table 16: Objective 4.. 44
Table 17: Overall Achievement -Objective 4. 44
Table 18: Objective 5. 46
Table 19: Overall Achievement -Objective 5. 46
7/29/2019 Program Based Budgeting 1
10/79
Bsc Hons in Financial Managementwith specialisation in Public Finance
10
Table 20: Objective 6.. 48
Table 21: Overall Achievement -Objective 6 48
Table 22: Objective 7.. 49
Table 23: Overall Achievement- Objective 7 50
Table 24: Overall Achievement.. 51
Table 25: Rating by grade of officers. 53
Table 26: Rules and Regulations 55
Table 27: Budget Policy and Planning Processes... 56
Table 28: Budget Preparation Practices. 57
Table 29: Budget Execution and Accounting System... 57
Table 30: Monitoring and Evaluation. 58
Table 31: Performance Measurement. 59
Table 32: Audit... 61
7/29/2019 Program Based Budgeting 1
11/79
Bsc Hons in Financial Managementwith specialisation in Public Finance
11
List of Figures
Page No
Figure 1: Gender 32
Figure 2: Distribution of respondents by Position.. 33
Figure 3: Distribution of Respondents by Ministries. 34
Figure 4: Educational Level 35
Figure 5: Involvement in Budgeting 36
Figure 6: Training in PBB 37
Figure 7: Overall Achievement-Objective 1... 39
Figure 8: Overall Achievement - Objective 2. 41
Figure 9: Overall Achievement - Objective 3. 43
Figure 10: Overall Achievement -Objective 4 45
Figure 11: Overall Achievement -Objective 5 47
Figure 12: Overall Achievement -Objective 6 49
Figure 13: Overall Achievement -Objective 7 50
7/29/2019 Program Based Budgeting 1
12/79
Bsc Hons in Financial Managementwith specialisation in Public Finance
12
1.0 Introduction
1.1 Reform in the Public Sector
Mauritius became an independent nation in 1968 and in the span of 40 years; it has
transformed itself from an underdeveloped to a developing economy. The development
model that it inherited from the British was being usedfor resource allocation to the
various sectors of the economy up to the year 2006.
As Mauritius has developed, incomes begin to rise and public spending tends to shift
towards infrastructure and social programs. The traditional budgeting system in Mauritius
did not support these changing needs. The challenge was about the strategic allocation of
resources, equity of public spending and greater efficiency in the use of public resources.
In 2006, Government undertook an ambitious reform program to strengthen public
financial management to meet the new challenges. This includes a national fiscal
management plan, integrated financial management information system, program
budgeting, and performance management reforms.
Prior to 2006, the national budget was prepared using line item budgeting. The serious
deficiency with such an approach is that it emphasizes input without linking it to output
or outcome. Moreover, it encourages accounting officers to use up their budgetary
allocation so as toavoid any cut in the next financial budget. Overall, it forces decision
makers to adopt a short term perspective.
It is within the context of public sector reform initiatives that the Finance Minister
announced in his 2006/7 budget speech the introduction of Program Based Budgeting
(PBB) embedded in 3 year rolling Medium Term Expenditure Framework, thus, breaking
away from the tradition of quasi automatic incremental increases based on inputs. Assuch, there was a fundamental shift toward outputs and outcomes for every rupee spent
by Government. In this respect, the debate is not on how much money each line ministry
should get but how each vote of a Ministry is contributing towards development priorities
and the quality of life of the Mauritian population.
7/29/2019 Program Based Budgeting 1
13/79
Bsc Hons in Financial Managementwith specialisation in Public Finance
13
The basic purpose of MTEF is to link the policy and planning functions of the
government to the allocation of resources through a structured, integrated decision-
making process.
The MTEF consists of five interconnected processes:
1) Macroeconomic forecasts of the governments future revenue, expenditure, deficit
or surplus, and debt;
2) A fiscal management plan that sets the governments policies and priorities for
the medium-term;
3) Top-down budgeting that translates the macroeconomic projections and fiscal
management plan into specific expenditure ceilings and guidelines of each
ministry and agency;
4) A performance management system that targets and reports on expected or actual
results for the previous or forthcoming fiscal year, and informs resource allocation
and ministry management decisions; and
5) The annual budget details the governments spending plans for the next year.
Program Based Budgeting (PBB) as part of MTEF is the planning of public expenditure
for the purpose of achieving explicitly defined results, which may be policy objectives or
simply outputs of routine public service activities
The Program Based Budgeting is a more modern concept which has been adopted by
several countries in the world. In fact, international experience suggests that Program
Based Budgeting can be a very effective tool in enhancing fiscal discipline, bringing
efficiency gains and promoting good governance in the public sector. Program based
budgeting is both an approach and a process that relates resources to intended results.
As mentioned earlier, the Program based budgeting system was introduced in 2007.Sinceits implementation; various reports have been commissioned by Government to look into
the effectiveness of the implementation of PBB in Mauritius.
Initially, most of the reports gave an adverse rating on the implementation of PBB. Over
the years, some positive findings were reported in the implementation of PBB in
7/29/2019 Program Based Budgeting 1
14/79
Bsc Hons in Financial Managementwith specialisation in Public Finance
14
Mauritius. The main reportsare thePEFA report (2010) and the Collaborative Africa
Budget Reform Initiative Report (2010).
The Collaborative Africa Budget Reform Initiative Report (CABRI: 2010) noted hat
failures can attributed to the lack of trained personnel needed to carry out the requisite
analysis and a lack of adequate information due to the accounting system not being well
integrated withplanning, budgeting, cash and debt management, and auditing systems. It
recommended that the system can succeed with strong politicalbacking, a rigorous
program of training, gradual introduction of the system and other complementary reforms
that would encourage performance.
1.2Need for the Study
Officers in the Financial Operation Cadre carry out accounting and finance duties. As
per their position, they are an important link in the financial information system that is
necessary to implement and sustain PBB. In view that they are highly involved in PBB,
they are therefore, an important source of information in any study that seeksto evaluate
the degree that PBB is effective in Mauritius.
As such, thisstudy is of an investigative type. It seeks to obtain the views of officers in
the Financial Operation Officer (FOO) Cadre on theeffectiveness of PBBimplementationin Mauritius.
1.3Objective of the study
The objectives of the study are to:
(a) Conduct a survey among officers in the Financial Operation Officer cadre on the
effectiveness of PBB implementation i.e. whether PBB is achieving all its pre set
objectives
(b)To assess and evaluate the implementation of PBB in the Ministries
(c) To make recommendations for the effective implementation of PBB
7/29/2019 Program Based Budgeting 1
15/79
Bsc Hons in Financial Managementwith specialisation in Public Finance
15
1.4 Research Questions
In order to meet the research objectives, the study will be centered on the following
research questions:
What is the generalperception ofofficers in the Financial Operation Cadre on the
degree that PBB is meeting its objectives?
To what extent PBB is being effectively implemented in Ministries?
1.5Research outline
The research is presented in five chapters:
i. The first chapter frames the area of interest and outlines the problem investigatedand the place where the study has been conducted .In addition, the research
questions and objectives are discussed.
ii. The second chapter reviews literature on PBB
iii. The third chapter discusses the methodology used in the study. It covers the
research approach, sampling, questionnaire design and data analysis. It concludes
with a justification for the approach adopted and acknowledges the inherent
limitations.
iv. The fourth chapter presents the studys findings, as informed by the primary and
secondary data collected and responds to the research objective
v. The fifth chapter concludes the research and presents the studys
recommendations.
1.6 Conclusion
This chapter has set the context in which the study is being carried. It has defined the
objectives of the study together with the related investigative questions and the scope of
the study. The next chapter will focus on literature review on PBB
7/29/2019 Program Based Budgeting 1
16/79
Bsc Hons in Financial Managementwith specialisation in Public Finance
16
2.0 Literature Review (2571 words)
2.1 Introduction
The previous chapter presented an overview of the research study. This chapter presents
the literature review.
2.2 Budgeting
The broad functions of budgeting are
Control of public resources,
Planning for the future allocation of resources and
Management of resources
The budgeting approach initially started with line item budgeting. Over the years, new
forms of budgeting were developed (e.g. Zero Based Budgeting and Performance
Budgeting). The latest one is the Program Based Budgeting .The latter has been
developed by the World Bank and it has been implemented in many countries. In Africa,
the PBB has been implemented by Ghana, South Africa and Kenya.
2.3 Line Budgeting
In a line item system, expenditures for the coming year are listed according to objects of
expenditure, or line items. These line items are often quite detailed, specifying how
much money a particular agency or subunit will be permitted to spend on personnel,
fringe benefits, travel, equipment, and the like. The most important focus of the budget
system is to specify the line item ceilings in the budget allocation process and to ensure
that agencies do not spend in excess of their allocations.
According to Pearson (2002), the incremental budgeting has many flaws in the allocation
of scarce public resources. It tolerated allocative inefficiency and it contributed to the
creeping enlargement in the relative size of the public sector. Moreover, the author cited
that it weakened aggregate fiscal discipline by making the totals accommodate the parts.
As such, aggregate spending was the sum of approved demands on the budget and it was
7/29/2019 Program Based Budgeting 1
17/79
Bsc Hons in Financial Managementwith specialisation in Public Finance
17
not fixed independently of those demands. Spending agencies proposed numerous
program initiatives, but these generally were means of bidding for more money and not
means of trading off within fixed budgets.
Pearson (2002) concluded by stating the line item approach was not compatible with the
demands accompanying the expansion of government. Budgets organized according to
line items gave no information about why money was spent, or on the efficiency and
effectiveness of programs. Furthermore, these line-item systems were almost all
associated with a short time horizon, leading to failure to take longer-term costs into
account.
Joyce(1999), pointed out that the early reform movement focused on the effective
control of budget accounts, establishing economy and, to a lesser extent, efficiency as the
primary values of budgeting. In their opinion, the strengths of such a system lie in its
relative simplicity, lack of ambiguity, and potential for control of expenditures through
easy comparison with prior years and through the detailed specification of inputs.
2.4 Performance Budgeting
Premchand A. (2001), pointed out that performance budgeting, was designed to allow
managers to develop measures of workload and unit cost This type of budgeting drew ona long-term concern with the efficiency of government andattempted to integrate
information about government activities into the budget process so thatbudget decisions
could be based to a greater degree on the relationship between what governmentdid and
how much it cost.
The author pointed out that performance budgeting isa shift from budgeting based on
expenditure control tobudgeting based increasingly on management concerns. As such,
the emphasis was not on makinggovernment-wide budgetary trade-offs, but on measuringthe workload of an agency. The focuswas on the work to be done and not on the
usefulness of the objectives themselves. Performancebudgeting was rarely adopted as a
government-wide budgetary process, but it was significant becauseit emphasized the
integration of activity information and budgeting.
7/29/2019 Program Based Budgeting 1
18/79
Bsc Hons in Financial Managementwith specialisation in Public Finance
18
Kline (1997pointed out that the major criticism of performance budgeting was that
efficiency is an important goal inbudgeting and is an inadequate criterion for allocation.
He is of the view that performance budgetings key strengths- i.e. linking what was to be
produced with the resources required within the annual budget cycle, wasin fact a
weakness in that it distracted attention from policy outcomes and the latter required a
perspectivebeyond the annual budget cycle. What was needed, according to him was a
methodof budgeting that would also take into account the effectiveness of expenditures.
Theseconsiderations subsequently led to program budgeting.
2.5 Program Budgeting
According to the principle of Program Based Budgeting, budget information and
decisions should be structured according the objectives of the government .The key to
program budgeting is the program i.e. a public policy objective along with the
stepsnecessary to attain it. The budget is classified in terms of programs, rather than
alongorganizational lines. Program budgeting requires that program objectives stretch
beyond a single fiscal year. In addition, program budgeting requires effectiveness
measures, which means the measurement of outputs and outcomes
(Shah 1998) identify four different uses of a program budget: (1) As a tool of policy
analysis, program budgeting facilitates comparison and evaluation of the cost-
effectivenessof alternative spending options that have the same objectives. (2) As a
means ofimproving government performance by giving managers operating discretion.
(3) Itfacilitates accounting for the full cost of government activities. (4) It enables
thegovernment to plan ahead and set spending priorities. The author pointed out that the
four approaches are notmutually exclusive; all can be served by the same budget system.
This view is shared by Pollitt, Christopher, Bouckaert, Geert (2001) that a
governmentmay adopt program budgeting in order to analyze spending alternatives, to set
orchange spending policies, to plan public priorities, and to measure the cost of whatit
does. The more common situation, however, is for the government to emphasizeone or
another of these approaches in designing its program budget .
7/29/2019 Program Based Budgeting 1
19/79
Bsc Hons in Financial Managementwith specialisation in Public Finance
19
According to Rajaram, Anandand Krishnamurthy (2001), Program Based Budgeting
is the principal budget reform that has been exported to developing countries. In practice,
program budgeting has not been verysuccessful in either developed or developing
countries. Criticisms range from those who believethat program budgeting is so flawed in
concept that it would be inapplicable in any setting and that the prerequisites that would
be necessary to bring the reform to developingcountries are currently not present.
The authors pointed out that, program budgeting has retainedits appeal as a budget
reforms. It does seem rational for spending decisions to bebased on the contribution each
program makes to governmental objectives. More so, it is hardto defend the practice of
allocating money on the basis of the cost of supplies, travel, salaries and other inputs.
According to Schick, (1999), most of the critics do not see program budgeting itself as a
flawed concept, but rather stress theconditions that are needed for program budgeting to
be successful. These might include adequate information about programs and about
social, economic and environmentalconditions. Some authors have argued that these
conditions are not present in many countries, thereby making itimpossible for program
budgeting to take root and flourish. In addition, they argue that developing countries
often lack the trained personnel needed to carry out the requisite analyses, although this
point is usually exaggerated. More serious is the lack of stability necessary to enable
longer-term budgetary planning and the lack of consistent political commitment
necessary to allow the reform tobe fully implemented.
2.6PBB -an instrument of Policy Analysis
The first generation of policy analysts and program budget designers saw their task as
applying the tools and concepts of economic analysis to government allocations. As
program budget matured, policy analysts generally formed a consensus around one main
and two subsidiary criteria for structuring programs. The most important criterion is that
all expenditures and activities that serve thesame purpose should be placed in the same
program. Each program should have asingle, identifiable (and preferably measurable) end
purpose that is distinct from theactivities that government is carrying on. (Foltin 1999)
7/29/2019 Program Based Budgeting 1
20/79
Bsc Hons in Financial Managementwith specialisation in Public Finance
20
Diamond (2003) in his research found out that once objectives have been defined, policy
analysts apply two criteria in classifying particular activities within the program structure.
The first pertains to substitutability, the second to complementarity. As such, two or more
activities (orexpenditures) that are substitutes for one another should be placed in the
sameprogram, regardless of the organizational unit in which they are located. It should be
evident that the substitution and complementarity principles compelgovernment to
disregard organizational boundaries in designing a programstructure.
He also found out that the substitution and complementarity criteria lead governments to
erase the distinction between recurrent and investment expenditure. Many
governmentobjectives can be fulfilled either by providing services through the operating
budgetor by building infrastructure in the capital budget.
2.7 Program Structure
Willoughbyand Melkers (2000) noted that the fuzzy definition of programs and the
multiplicity of objectives have impelledsome governments to spend an inordinate amount
of time, several years in somecountries, searching for the ideal program structure. They
undergo intense conflict, over the classification of expenditures, the number of levels in
the program structureand the linkage among the levels, the allocation of costs among
missions andactivities, the measurement of results, and other important technical details.
The structure is a hybrid: some programs are organization units, others are overhead
activities, others are processes, and some are purposes.
According toCampos, Jose andPradhan (1997), the most important criterion is that all
expenditures and activities that serve the same purpose should be placed in the same
program. Each program should have a single, identifiable (and preferably measurable)
end purpose that is distinct from the other activities.Substitutability and complementarily
are the two versions of program budgeting but they differ in the alignment of programs
and organizational units. The analytic version favors a pure structure that gives
primacy to programs, even when the resulting classification diverges from the
organizational structure. The managerial version favors the organizational structure
because managers produce results by using the financial, human and physical resources
7/29/2019 Program Based Budgeting 1
21/79
Bsc Hons in Financial Managementwith specialisation in Public Finance
21
of the entities they head. The analytic approach would have governments restructure
organizations and appropriations so that they are program-based; the managerial view
would allow the designation of organizational units as programs, particularly at the lower
levels of the program structure.
They stated that once objectives have been defined, policy analysts should apply two
criteria inclassifying particular activities within the program structure. The first pertains
to two or more activities (orexpenditures) that are substitutes for one another should be
placed in the sameprogram, regardless of the organizational unit in which they are
located. These principleswould compel government to disregard organizational
boundaries in designing a program structure. Howeverthese principles do not dictate that
government is re-organized to conform its administrative and program structures.
2.8Program Based Budgeting as a means of Improving Managerial
Performance
The first generation program budgets were constructed according to the precepts of
policy analysis; more recent versions of program budgeting have been influenced by
contemporary management doctrine, which is often referred to as new public
management or NPM (Harris, 2001). The essential idea of NPM is that in order for public
managers to perform well, they must be given substantial flexibility in using
organizational resources. They should not be constrained by ex-ante input controls, such
as is common in line-item budgeting.
According to the author, this logic leads to a version of program budgeting that purges
budgeting ofcontrols on personnel, supplies, travel expenses and other inputs, and orients
it tothe results that the government wants to accomplish with available resources. In
thissense, program budgeting is the opposite of line-item budgeting; it focuses onoutputs(or outcomes) rather than inputs. A program inherently is broadercategory of expenditure
than an activity; hence, switching to a program structure inevitablyenlarges the capacity
of managers to decide how operating resources are used. Thisre-orientation of budgeting
serves another purpose: by purging the budget of itemized inputs, it shifts the basis of
budget negotiations and decisions at the centerof the government from arguments about
7/29/2019 Program Based Budgeting 1
22/79
Bsc Hons in Financial Managementwith specialisation in Public Finance
22
how much should be spent on salaries or travel to discussion of the key policy issues
facing the government.
2.9 Program based budgeting as a Planning Process
According to Andrews (2003), a single fiscal year is tooshort to account for either costs
or results. A program may have modest startup costs in the year it is launched, but higher
costs in subsequent years when itbecomes fully operational. If the budget were to
consider only the year immediately ahead, out-year costs would be ignored in making
program decisions. Moreover, money spent in one year might not yield substantive
results for several years.
In this respect Diamond pointed out (2003) argued that although program budgeting tends
to elongate the budget process; manycountries that have conventional budgeting systems
have introduced a medium-termframework. In his opinion, a program structure is not a
precondition for a multiyear budget capacity but multiyear frames may be a precondition
for program budgeting.
He noted that MTEF has replaced national planning as the main tool fortaking
government decisions in the future. Program budgeting has the potential to inject more
strategy into budgeting and more fiscal constraint into planning. It can make budgeting
into a more strategic (and less incremental) process by focusing on government
objectives and by shifting the basis of decision from what was spent in the past to what is
wanted for the future. It can make planning more sensitive to fiscal constraints by
injectingfinancial considerations into decisions on the future and by requiring
tradeoffamong planned programs.
2.10 Dilemma in implementing PBB
From the program budgeting literature, the main purpose of thistype of budgeting is that
a good program structure should help to make the rightchoice of operational mix, and to
measure achievements of a programs targets.
7/29/2019 Program Based Budgeting 1
23/79
Bsc Hons in Financial Managementwith specialisation in Public Finance
23
According to Tucker, L. (2000), this is a difficult path and a real challenge. First,
terminology misconception and, at times, different definitions of the terms used are far
from clear. Second, even if a clear definition is agreed for terms used, their quantification
and timeframe isdifficult. Some program objectives can only be met in the medium term,
andconsequently during a budget year, only some intermediate program targets in
theform of outputs may be measured. Third, relating inputs to outputs (immediateservices
or products, such as public vaccination) and outcomes (final results, suchas reduction in
death rate) is not always an easy task, especially where externalfactors outside
government budget, and not controllable by program managers, mayplay a role in the
achievement of program targets.
While assessment of outcome achievement can be made regularly, the frequency of these
assessments is typically in terms of years rather than months. Given thistime horizon,
managers often rely on outputs to make short-termdecision. While assessment of outcome
achievement can be made regularly, the frequency of these assessments is typically in
terms of years rather than months. Given thistime horizon, managers often rely on
outputs to make short-term assessments ofhow well a program is progressing in achieving
its desired outcome. Often, a lag ofseveral years occurs between the spending of money
on a program and the effects ofthat expenditure being seen in terms of program
outcomes. This lag can causeprogram officials to see themselves as being accountable for
the consequences of resource and management decisions made by their predecessors
assessments of how well a program is progressing in achieving its desired outcome.
2.11 Changing Form and Behavior
Tucker(2001)also commented that Program budgeting is not simply about changing the
way a budget is presented, but about changing the way policy officials, the public and
government staff think of the government, how they plan, manage and budget. As such,
introducingprogram budgeting is very much about engaging staff in line ministries to
think differently about what they do and how they do it. Each line ministry and agency
within it needs to engage in the process of developing a program structure for their
7/29/2019 Program Based Budgeting 1
24/79
Bsc Hons in Financial Managementwith specialisation in Public Finance
24
budget. In some ways it is a strategic planning exercise to examine what they do and how
it relates to the objectives of the organization and the government.
2.12 Performance and Management Information system
Shah and Allen (1998) draw attention to the fact that additional demands for information
and resources will be generated Identification of program objectives, outputs, outcomes,
and performance measures is a natural part of developing a program budget structure.
Ministries will discover in the course of the work that they do not currently collect the
information they need to monitor performance or impact. In some cases ministries will
find that they currently collect the wrong information, or information of less value.
Program based budgeting will generate demands for additional or new data collection,
and put pressure on information technology and data collection systems. These will
generate demands for additional budget and staffing resources for new information
systems and survey instruments.
2.13 Conclusion
This chapter has discussed the findings from the literature review. The next chapter
elaborates on the methodology used.
7/29/2019 Program Based Budgeting 1
25/79
Bsc Hons in Financial Managementwith specialisation in Public Finance
25
3.0 Research Design and Methodology (1192)
3.1 Introduction
Research is a systematic way of collecting and interpreting of information for the
research project. Saunders, Lewis and Thornhill (2009) define research as something
that people undertake in order to find out things in a systematic way, thereby increasing
and adding to academics knowledge.
This chapter explains in details the methodology used in gathering the necessary
information to conduct the research study. It highlights the sources of data, the survey
design, and the data analysis method employed. The steps which are necessary to
conduct a research have also been highlighted.
3.2 Research Methodology
There are two main approaches to research, that is, deductive and inductive. A
deductive approach is one where a theory and hypothesis (or hypotheses) are being
developed and the research strategy tests various hypotheses. An inductive approach, on
the other hand, is one in which data are collected for testing a theory within a given
context. For this study an inductive approach has been used.
The quantitative research approach focuses on questions or statements that seek to collect
information that can be quantified to help provide answers to the research problems.
Moreover, quantitative research has the advantage of giving the possibility to repeat the
survey in the future thereby enabling comparison of the results.
3.3 Data Collection Sources
There are two sources for collecting information and data which are relevant to a study:
primary and secondary sources. Primary source refer to where the researcher design the
7/29/2019 Program Based Budgeting 1
26/79
Bsc Hons in Financial Managementwith specialisation in Public Finance
26
data collection instrument to collect data by means of a questionnaire, interviews or a
combination of both. The main advantages of this approach are that they are more
reliable and the researcher has a greater control on the study but it can be costly and time
consuming. In this study, primary data has been collected by using a questionnaire.
3.4Population and Sampling
Sampling is the process of learning about the population on the basis of a sample drawn
from the population. (Saunders et al. 2009)
The primary objective of the sample is to obtain valid and reliable information about the
population within a minimum of cost, time and effort. There are two kinds of sampling
technique: probability (representative) and non-probability (judgmental) sampling. In
probability sampling the probability of each case being selected from the population is
known and equal for all cases. With non- probability sampling, each case selected from
total population is not known.
The population is all the Ministries that are implementing PBB and their finance staff.
Presently there are 22 Ministries in the public sector .Stratified sampling has been used to
select the ministries based on the size of their budget i.e. large, medium and small. Using
random sampling, 8 Ministries were selected. It should be pointed out that more weightwas given to large Ministries. Thisis given in the table below:
7/29/2019 Program Based Budgeting 1
27/79
Bsc Hons in Financial Managementwith specialisation in Public Finance
27
Ministries Category Number of
Officers
SAMPLE
Ministry of Health Large 42 21
Ministry of Education and HR Large 49 25
Ministry of Public Infrastructure Large 22 11
Ministry of Finance Medium 96 22
Ministry of Civil Service Affairs and A.R Small 5 5
Ministry of Public Utilities Large 12 12
Ministry of Labor, industrial relation and
Employment
Small 6 6
Ministry of agro industry and fisheries Medium 18 10
Table 1: Ministries
The sampling plan is as follows (a) for small ministries, all the respondents were
contacted, for medium and big ministries, 50 % of the potential respondents were
targeted except for the Ministry of Finance where a third of the population was targeted.
Overall, 25 % of the population was targeted.
3.5Response Rate
The responses from the participant are given in the table below:
Ministry Sample Responses Response rate (%)
Ministry of Health 21 1 4
Ministry of Education and HR 25 7 28
Ministry of Public Infrastructure 11 6 54
Ministry of Finance 22 5 22
Ministry of Civil Service Affairs and A.R 5 4 80
Ministry of Public Utilities 12 3 25
Ministry of Labor , industrial relation and
Employment
6 3 50
Ministry of agro industry and fisheries 10 2 20
Total 112 31
Table 2: Responses
7/29/2019 Program Based Budgeting 1
28/79
Bsc Hons in Financial Managementwith specialisation in Public Finance
28
From the above table, it could be noted that the responses were very low from the
Ministry of Heal and Q.L
3.6 Identifying the Constructs
In the initial phase of the research, the literature review was carried out in international
journals and publications that reflect the topic of the study. A comprehensive review of
the literature was the basis for the identification of the constructs and the development of
instruments that was used in this study.
3.7 Questionnaire Design
The questionnaire used in this study is at Appendix A. It consists of mainly Likert Scalechoices. The questions have been framed using nominal, ordinal and interval scale. The
questionnaire has been divided 3 sections:
Part A: Demographic Data
Part B: Achievement of PBB objectives
Part C :Implementation Of PBB
The data that were collected are as follows:
(i) Nominal data which relate mainly to the demographic of the respondents and
(ii) Interval and ordinal data which relate to the views and opinions expressed on a set of
scaled questions using the Likert Scale.
The questionnaires were administered using the following means hand delivery and
electronic mail.
3.8Scale and measurement
A five-point scale was used to record respondent opinion. The scale intervals are
interpreted as follows:
7/29/2019 Program Based Budgeting 1
29/79
Bsc Hons in Financial Managementwith specialisation in Public Finance
29
S.N Abbreviations Scale
1 Strongly disagree S.D 1
2 Disagree D 2
3 Neutral N 3
4 Agree A 4
5 Strongly agree SD 5
Table 3: Scale
3.9 Pilot Testing
Pilot test is a pre-testing that identifies and eliminates problems before the main survey
take place. For this study, a pilot study was carried out by selecting 4 potential
respondents in a Ministry. They were given the questionnaire and they were be required
to give their views on the layout of the questionnaire, the clarity of the questions and the
simplicity of the language that has been used. After collecting the fout questionnaires, the
comments made, werestudied and these were be incorporated in the final version of the
questionnaire.
3.10Data Analysis
After the data has been collected, the next step in research process is data analysis. In this
phase, data coding was carried out as a means for translating information into values
suitable for statistical analysis using SPSS version 16. Only descriptive (Mean and
Standard Deviation) statisticshave been used in this study.
3.11 Ethical Considerations
The issue of ethics in a research is very important. The respondents were sufficiently
informed about the purpose of the survey in an introductory letter. They were given the
discretion to respond to the survey. They were also informed all information that
7/29/2019 Program Based Budgeting 1
30/79
Bsc Hons in Financial Managementwith specialisation in Public Finance
30
anonymity will be treated with confidentiality and would be used solely for this study.
Finally no potential harm was identified for those that participated in the study.
3.12Conclusion
This chapter has given a detailed description of the methodology used for this research.
The next chapter will present the findings of the analysis of the data including the
inferences and observations made there-from.
7/29/2019 Program Based Budgeting 1
31/79
Bsc Hons in Financial Managementwith specialisation in Public Finance
31
4.0 Analysis
4.1 Introduction
The previous chapter has discussed the research methodology adopted to generate the
primary data for achieving the aims and objectives of the study. This chapter is
concerned with the analysis of primary data collected from the questionnaires. The
results are presented in tabular forms and they are followed by the relevant analysis and
discussions thereon.
4.2 Demographic Analysis
This part presents the demographic profile of the respondents.
4.2.1 Gender
The distribution of the sample by gender is given in the table below:
Gender Frequency Percent Cumulative Percent
Male 18 58.1 58.1
Female 13 41.9 100.0
Total 31 100.0
Table 4: Gender
18 respondentsare male (58 %) and 13 respondents are female (42%). This information
is illustrated in a pie chart below:
7/29/2019 Program Based Budgeting 1
32/79
Bsc Hons in Financial Managementwith specialisation in Public Finance
32
female
male
Figure 1: Gender
4.2.2 Distribution of respondents by Position
The distribution of the respondents by position is tabulated below:
Respondents Frequency Percent Cumulative
PercentAssistant Manager,
Financial Operation
3 9.7 9.7
Senior FinancialOperations Officer
5 16.1 25.8
FinancialOperations Officer
8 25.8 51.6
Assistant FinancialOperations Officer
15 48.4 100.0
Total 31 100.0
Table 5: Distribution of respondents by Position
The distribution of the respondents by position is as follows: 3 are Assistant Managers,
Financial Operation, 5 are Senior Financial Operations Officers, 8 are Financial
7/29/2019 Program Based Budgeting 1
33/79
Bsc Hons in Financial Managementwith specialisation in Public Finance
33
Operations Officers and 15 are Assistant Financial Operations Officers. This information
is presented in the chart below:
position
Ass istant Financial
Financial Operations
Senior Financial Op
Assistant Manager,
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
Figure 2: Distribution of respondents by Position
4.2.3 Distribution of Respondents by Ministries
The table below presents the 8 Ministries where the survey has been conducted.
Frequency Percent Cumulative Percent
Ministry of Health 1 3.2 3.2
Ministry of education and HR 7 22.6 25.8
Ministry of Public Infrastructure 6 19.4 45.2
Ministry of Finance 5 16.1 61.3
Ministry of Civil Service Affairs
and A.R
4 12.9 74.2
Ministry of Public Utilities 3 9.7 83.9
Ministry of Labor , industrial
relation and Employment
3 9.7 93.5
Ministry of agro industry and
Fisheries
2 6.5 100.0
Total 31 100.0
Table 6: Distribution of Respondents by Ministries
7/29/2019 Program Based Budgeting 1
34/79
Bsc Hons in Financial Managementwith specialisation in Public Finance
34
There has been a very limited response from respondents of the Ministry of Health and
Quality of Life. The data is illustrated in the table below:
Ministry
Minist
ryof agroin
Ministr
yofLabour,
Minist
ryofPublicU
Minist
ryofCivilSe
Minist
ryofFinance
Minist
ryofPublicI
Ministr
yofeducatio
Minis
tryofHealth
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
Figure 3: Distribution of Respondents by Ministries
4.2.4 Educational Level
The highest level of the respondents is given in the table below:
Education Frequency Percent Cumulative Percent
up to S.C 13 41.9 41.9
up to HSC 14 45.2 87.1
Degree 3 9.7 96.8
Masters orProfessional
1 3.2 100.0
Total 31 100.0
Table 7: Educational Level
7/29/2019 Program Based Budgeting 1
35/79
Bsc Hons in Financial Managementwith specialisation in Public Finance
35
From the table, it is noted that most of the respondents have either studied up to SC or
HSC levels. 3 respondents hold a degree and 1 has studied up to Master Level. This is
illustrated below:
education
Masters or ProfessioDegreeup to HSCup to S.C
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
Figure 4: Educational Level
4.2.5Involvement in Budgeting
The respondents self-assessment of his involvement in the budgeting process is tabulated
below:
Frequency Percent Cumulative Percent
Low 2 6.5 6.5
Moderate 9 29.0 35.5
High 20 64.5 100.0
Total 31 100.0
Table 8: Involvement in Budgeting
7/29/2019 Program Based Budgeting 1
36/79
Bsc Hons in Financial Managementwith specialisation in Public Finance
36
Most of the respondents (N=20) are highly involved in the budgeting process, 9 have
stated that their involvement is moderate and 2 respondents have stated that they have a
low involvement. The relevant information is presented in a pie chart below:
high
moderate
low
Figure 5: Involvement in Budgeting
4.2.6 Training in PBB
The literature review pointed out that training of personnel is a prerequisite for the
implementation of a PBB system. The various reportson the implementation of PBB in
Mauritius have identified that training to Finance Officers were very low. The data
obtained on training is given below:
Valid
Training Frequency Percent Valid
Percent
Cumulative
Percent
No training 18 58.1 58.1 58.1
Limited training 7 22.6 22.6 80.6
Extensive
Training
6 19.4 19.4 100.0
Total 31 100.0 100.0
Table 9: Training in PBB
7/29/2019 Program Based Budgeting 1
37/79
Bsc Hons in Financial Managementwith specialisation in Public Finance
37
From the above table, it is noted that most of the officers in this cadre have not received
training on PBB. 7 respondents have received a limited training and 7 have been
extensively trained.
trainning in PBB
extensive traininlimited trainingno training
20
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
Figure 6: Training in PBB
4.3 Achieving PBB Objectives
According to the PBB manual, Governments aims at achieving seven objectives in the
implementation of Program BasedBudgeting. The objectives have been framed into a set
of 15questions. The questions are aimed to assess the respondents evaluation of the
degree that PBB is meetings its intended objectives.
4.3.1 Objective 1
Objective 1: To reform the framework governing public management in order to make it
more results-oriented and geared to achieving development outcomes.
7/29/2019 Program Based Budgeting 1
38/79
Bsc Hons in Financial Managementwith specialisation in Public Finance
38
This objective has been framed under two questions. The responses are tabulated below:
SN STATEMENTS S.D D N A SD MEAN S>D
1 PBB is now providing a
framework for publicfinancial managementwhich is more results-
oriented
1 4 3 16 7 3.7742 1.0555
2 PBB is now making
Public Financial
Management to be more
geared to achievingdevelopment outcomes
3 5 4 13 6 3.4516 1.2607
Overall mean 3.6129 .7715
Table 10: Objective 1
From the table, it is noted that positive responses have been received for the two
questions. The mean for the first question is 3.7742 and the mean for the second question
is 3.4516. The overall mean is 3.6129.
The overall rating of the respondents on the first objective is given in the table below:
Mean Score Frequency Percent Category
Between 1 and 2 5 16 Poor achievement
Between 2 and 3 9 29 Average achievement
Between 3 and 4 15 48 Good achievement
Between 4 and 5 2 7 Excellent achievementTotal 100
Table 11: Overall Achievement-Objective 1
7/29/2019 Program Based Budgeting 1
39/79
Bsc Hons in Financial Managementwith specialisation in Public Finance
39
From the statistics in the table, it is found out that 5 respondents has rated the
achievement on this objective as poor, 9 has rated it as average, 15 has rated it as good
and 2 has rated it as excellent.
As such, it can be concluded that the public management framework in the PBB is more
results-oriented and is geared to achieving development outcomes. As to date ,
considerable progress has been made in achieving this objective The result of the
analysis is depicted below:
OBJ1
5.004.504.003.503.002.502.00
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
Std. Dev = .77
Mean = 3.61
N = 31.00
Figure 7: Overall Achievement-Objective 1
4.3.2 Objective 2
Objective 2: To promote high quality, client-responsive public services and to maximize
value for money in service delivery.
In order to gauge the opinion of the respondents, this objective has been disaggregated in
two questions. The frequency distribution, the mean and the standard deviation are given
in the table below:
7/29/2019 Program Based Budgeting 1
40/79
Bsc Hons in Financial Managementwith specialisation in Public Finance
40
SN STATEMENTS S.D D N A SD MEAN S>D
1. PBB is promoting a high
quality, client-responsivepublic services
1 4 7 13 6 3.6129 1.0544
2. PBB is now maximizingvalue for money in
service delivery
5 12 5 7 2 2.6452 1.1986
Overall mean score 3.1290 .8848
Table 12: Objective 2
The mean score from the first question is 3.6. This indicates that most respondents
support the statement. In fact, 19 out of the 31 respondents have opined that PBB is now
promoting a high quality, client-responsive public services.
With regard to the second question, the mean score is below3 (M=2.8452). The low
support for this question is confirm by the fact that 17 out of the 31 respondents do not
agree that PBB is maximizing value for money in service delivery.
The overall rating of the respondents on the second objective is given in the table below:
Mean Score Frequency Percent Category
Between 1 and 2 0 0 Poor achievement
Between 2 and 3 12 39 Average achievement
Between 3 and 4 11 35 Good achievement
Between 4 and 5 8 26 Excellent achievement
Total 100
Table 13: Overall Achievement - Objective 2
From the above table, it is noted that 12 respondents has rated the achievement in
meeting the second objective as average, 11 has rated it as good and 8 has rated it as
7/29/2019 Program Based Budgeting 1
41/79
Bsc Hons in Financial Managementwith specialisation in Public Finance
41
excellent. The overall mean is 3.13 and the standard deviation is .88. As such, the
overall rating for this objective can be categorized as average.
As such, it can be concluded that effectiveness in service delivery an area which need to
be further improved. .Overall, it is noted that not much progress has been made in
meeting this objective
The overall mean score in achieving the second objective is illustrated below:
OBJ2
4.504.003.503.002.502.001.50
10
8
6
4
2
0
Std. Dev = .88
Mean = 3.13
N = 31.00
Figure 8: Overall Achievement - Objective 2
4.3.3 Objective 3
Objective 3: To use performance and evaluation data for policy planning and
management purposes, in particular for enhancing operational and technical efficiency,
expenditure prioritization and improving allocation of resources.
The frequency distribution, the mean and the standard deviation of the responses received
is given in the table below:
7/29/2019 Program Based Budgeting 1
42/79
Bsc Hons in Financial Managementwith specialisation in Public Finance
42
STATEMENTS S.D D N A SD MEAN S>D
1 PBB is using performance
and evaluation data forpolicy planning and
management
8 8 3 11 1 2.6452 1.3051
2 PBB is enhancing
operational and technical
efficiency,
2 1 2 18 8 3.9355 1.0307
3 PBB is enhancingexpenditure prioritization
5 12 1 6 7 2.9355 1.4818
4 PBB is improving
allocation of resources;
3 12 5 7 4 2.9032 1.2478
Overall mean score 3.1048 .7123
Table 14: Objective 3
On the basis of the above table, it is noted that26 out of 31 respondents of the respondents
are of the view that PBB is enhancing operational and technical efficiency. This is
confirmed by the mean score achieved for this question (M= 3.9355).
As for the other questions, the mean scores are in the range of 2.6 to 2.9. On the basis of
the data, it can be concluded that most of the respondents have opined that PBB is
notenhancing expenditure prioritization and it is not improving the allocation of
resources. Above all, data is not beingadequately used for policy planning andmanagement. In fact, most of the consultant reports have pointed out that theexisting
financial information system is weak in providing the relevant data to decision makers.
The overall rating of the respondents on the third objective is given in the table below:
Mean Score Frequency Percent Category
Between 1 and 2 0 0 Poor achievement
Between 2 and 3 14 45 Average achievement
Between 3 and 4 12 39 Good achievement
Between 4 and 5 5 16 Excellent achievement
Total 100
Table 15: Overall Achievement: Objective 3
7/29/2019 Program Based Budgeting 1
43/79
Bsc Hons in Financial Managementwith specialisation in Public Finance
43
The overall mean score and the standard deviation are respectively 3.1 and .71. This
means that, overall the respondents, have rated the achievement as average From the
data, it is found out that 14respondents have rated it as average , 14 respondents have
rated it as a good achievement, and 5 respondents have rated it as excellent .As such , it
can be concluded that effort should be directed to achieving this objective
The above findings are illustrated in a histogram below:
OBJ3
5.004.504.003.503.002.502.00
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
Std. Dev = .71
Mean = 3.10
N = 31.00
Figure 9: OverallAchievement - Objective 3
4.3.4 Objective 4
Objective 4: To provide information to help reallocate resources within and between
programs and sub-programs and to help reduce expenditure when necessary (efficiency
savings).
In order to obtain the view of respondents, the above objective has been framed as two
questions. The responses received are tabulated in the table below:
7/29/2019 Program Based Budgeting 1
44/79
Bsc Hons in Financial Managementwith specialisation in Public Finance
44
SN STATEMENTS S.D D N A SD MEAN S>D
1. PBB is providing
information to help reallocateresources within and between
programs and sub-programs
6 5 8 12 0 2.8387 1.1575
2. PBB is helping to reduce
expenditure which are not
necessary (efficiency gain )
2 10 5 10 4 3.1290 1.2039
Overall mean score 2.9839 1.7581
Table 16: Objective 4
From the above information, it is found out that 11 respondents as opposed to 12
respondents are not of the view that PBB is providing information to help reallocate
resources within and between programs and sub-programs.
As for the second question, 14 respondents as opposed to 12 respondents have stated that,
PBB is helping to reduce expenditure which is not necessary (efficiency gain).
The overall rating of the respondents on the third objective is given in the table below:
Mean Score Frequency Percent Category
Between 1 and 2 0 Poor achievement
Between 2 and 3 10 32 Average achievement
Between 3 and 4 15 48 Good achievement
Between 4 and 5 6 20 Excellent achievement
Total 100
Table 17: Overall Achievement -Objective 4
The overall mean is 2.9839 and the standard deviation is .7581. Overall, it can be
concluded that achievement level on thefourth objective can be rated as average. This is
7/29/2019 Program Based Budgeting 1
45/79
Bsc Hons in Financial Managementwith specialisation in Public Finance
45
substantiated by the fact that the ratings for 10 respondents areaverage, it is good for 15
respondents and it is excellent for 6 respondents.
The above data is illustrated below:
OBJ4
4.504.003.503.002.502.001.50
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
Std. Dev = .76
Mean = 2.98
N = 31.00
Figure 10: Overall Achievement -Objective 4
4.3.5Objective 5
Objective 5: To institutionalize gender equity throughout the process of aligning budgets
to policy priorities and increasing the transparency and accountability of the system.
The relevant statistics for this objective is given in the table below:
7/29/2019 Program Based Budgeting 1
46/79
Bsc Hons in Financial Managementwith specialisation in Public Finance
46
SN STATEMENTS S.D D N A SD MEAN S>D
1. PBB has institutionalized
gender equity throughout the
process of aligning budgets to
policy priorities
9 15 2 3 0 2.1613 1.1575
2. PBB has increased
transparency in the public
sector
4 7 1 14 5 3.2903 1.3464
3. PBB has increased
accountability in the public
sector
1 6 0 16 8 3.7742 1.1463
Overall mean score 3.0753 .5882
Table 18: Objective 5
From the above the table, the lowest mean score relate to the institutionalization of
gender equity throughout the process of aligning budgets to policy priorities. This is
explained by the fact that 24 respondents do not concur with the statement.
However, it is noted that most of the respondents have given a high weighting to both
transparency and accountability.
The overall rating on the fifth objective is given in the table below:
Mean Score Frequency Percent Category
Between 1 and 2 0 0 Poor achievement
Between 2 and 3 11 36 Average achievement
Between 3 and 4 18 58 Good achievement
Between 4 and 5 2 6 Excellent achievement
Total 100
Table 19: Overall Achievement -Objective 5
7/29/2019 Program Based Budgeting 1
47/79
Bsc Hons in Financial Managementwith specialisation in Public Finance
47
The mean score for the three statements is 3.0753 and the standard deviation is 0.5882.
The low mean score is explained by the fact that the institutionalization of gender equity
is rated as low as compared to transparency and accountability.
On the basis of the above table, 11 respondents have rated the achievement on the fifth
objective as average, 18 respondents have rated it as good and 6 respondents have rated
it as excellent. The above findings are illustrated by a histogram:
OBJ
4.504.003.503.002.50
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
Std. Dev = .59
Mean = 3.08
N = 31.00
Figure 11: Overall Achievement -Objective 5
4.3.6 Objective6
Objective 6: To improve effectiveness of government Ministries /Departments when
developing and implementing their programs and sub-programs of activities;
The information collected on this objective is tabulated below:
7/29/2019 Program Based Budgeting 1
48/79
Bsc Hons in Financial Managementwith specialisation in Public Finance
48
STATEMENTS S.D D N A SD MEAN S>D
PBB has improved
effectiveness of government
Ministries /Departments
when developing andimplementing their
programs and sub-programs
of activities
2 6 1 10 12 3.7742 1.3344
Overall mean score 3.7742 1.3344
Table 20: Objective 6
From the above table, most of the respondents (i.e. 22) have given a high rating to the
achievement of this objective.
The overall rating on the fifth objectiveis given in the table below:
Mean Score Frequency Percent Category
Between 1 and 2 2 7 oor achievement
Between 2 and 3 6 19 verage achievement
Between 3 and 4 1 3 Good achievement
Between 4 and 5 22 71 xcellent achievement
Total 100
Table 21: Overall Achievement -Objective 6
The overall mean score is 3.7742 and the standard deviation is 1.3344. From the above
table, it is noted that only 2 respondents have given a poor rating to achievement on this
objective and 6 have rated it as average. 22 respondents have rated it as either good orexcellent. Assuch, it can be concluded that much progress has been made on this
objective
The above data is illustrated in the table below:
7/29/2019 Program Based Budgeting 1
49/79
Bsc Hons in Financial Managementwith specialisation in Public Finance
49
OB6J
5.04.03.02.01.0
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
Std. Dev = 1.33
Mean = 3.8
N = 31.00
Figure 12: Overall Achievement -Objective 6
4.3.7Objective7
Objective 7: To provide more concrete information to the Cabinet on performance fordecision making purposes and for setting future targets and priorities.
The frequency distribution of the responses in respect of objective 7 is given in the table
below:
STATEMENTS S.D D N A SD MEAN S>D
PBB is providing more
concrete information to
the Cabinet onperformance for decision
making purposes
3 7 0 10 11 3.6129 1.4301
Overall mean score 3.3226 .9447
Table 22: Objective 7
7/29/2019 Program Based Budgeting 1
50/79
Bsc Hons in Financial Managementwith specialisation in Public Finance
50
From the above table, it is noted that most of the respondents have opined that PBB is
providing more concrete information to the Cabinet on performance for decision making
purposes as well as providing more information to the Cabinet for setting future targets
and priorities.
The overall rating on the seventh objective is given in the table below:
Mean Score Frequency Percent Category
Between 1 and 2 2 7 Poor achievement
Between 2 and 3 6 19 Average achievement
Between 3 and 4 11 35 Good achievement
Between 4 and 5 12 39 Excellent achievement
Total score 100
Table 23: Overall Achievement- Objective 7
From the table, it can be noted that only 2 respondents have rated the achievement as
poor, 6 respondents have rated it as an average achievement, 11 have rated it as good and
12 respondents have rated it as excellent. Overall, this objective has received a very
highrating. This is confirmed by the mean score of 3.2.
The above finding is illustrated by a histogram as set out below:
OBJ7
5.004.504.003.503.002.502.001.50
10
8
6
4
2
0
Std. Dev = .94
Mean = 3.32
N = 31.00
Figure 13: Overall Achievement -Objective 7
7/29/2019 Program Based Budgeting 1
51/79
Bsc Hons in Financial Managementwith specialisation in Public Finance
51
4.3.8Overall Assessment
This section present a summary of the findings on progress achieved in meeting the 7
objectives of PBB as set out in the PBB Manual The achievement on the 7 objectives
have been ranked on the basis of the overall mean score .The relevant statistics are given
in the table below:
Objective Statement Mean
Score
Ranking
Objective5 To institutionalize gender equity throughout the
process of aligning budgets to policy priorities andincreasing the transparency and accountability of the
system
3.7742 1st
Objective1 To reform the framework governing publicmanagement in order to make it moreresults-oriented
and geared to achieving development outcomes;
3.6129 2nd
Objective 7 To provide more concrete information to the Cabineton performance for decisionmakingpurposes and for
setting future targets and priorities.
3.3226 3rd
Objective2 To promote high quality, client-responsive publicservices and to maximize value formoney in service
delivery;
3.1290 4th
Objective 6 To improve effectiveness of government Ministries/Departments when developing and implementing
their programs and sub-programs of activities;
3.0753 5th
Objective 4 To provide information to help reallocate resourceswithin and between programs and sub-programs and
to help reduce expenditure when
necessary(efficiencysavings)
2.9839 6th
Objective3 To use performance and evaluation data for policy
planning and managementpurposes, in particular for
enhancing operational and technical efficiency,expenditure prioritization and improving allocation
of resources
2.9032 7th
Table 24: Overall Achievement
7/29/2019 Program Based Budgeting 1
52/79
Bsc Hons in Financial Managementwith specialisation in Public Finance
52
From the above table, it is noted that there is a general perception among the respondents
that significant progress has been made in achieving 4 objectives: These are:
(a)Objective 5: To institutionalize gender equity throughout the process of aligning
budgets to policy priorities and increasing the transparency and accountability of
the system
(b)Objective 1: To reform the framework governing public management in order to
make it moreresults-oriented and geared to achieving development outcomes
(c)Objective7: To provide more concrete information to the Cabinet on performance
for decision making purposes and for setting future targets and priorities
(d)Objective 2:To promote high quality, client-responsive public services and to
maximize value for money in service delivery
From the table it is noted that the least rated objective is the seventh one and it is about
performance management Overall, little progress has been made with respect to
objectives 3, 4 and 6.
4.4 Rating by grade of officers
This part of the analysis identifies the position of the respondents who have given a very
poor rating to the achievement of PBB objectives. The number of respondents in each
grade is given in the table below:
7/29/2019 Program Based Budgeting 1
53/79
Bsc Hons in Financial Managementwith specialisation in Public Finance
53
SN STATEMENTS AM SFO FO AFO TOTAL
1 To reform the framework governing public
management in order to make it moreresults-
oriented and geared to achieving development
outcomes
1 0 2 2 5
2 To promote high quality, client-responsive
public services and to maximize value for
money in service delivery
0 3 4 3 10
3 To use performance and evaluation data for
policy planning and managementpurposes, in
particular for enhancing operational and
technical efficiency, expenditure prioritizationand improving allocation of resources
1 3 3 7 14
4 To provide information to help reallocate
resources within and between programs and
sub-programs and to help reduce expenditure
when necessary (efficiency savings)
2 3 2 3 10
5 To institutionalize gender equity throughout the
process of aligning budgets to policy priorities
and increasing the transparency and
accountability of the system
1 3 2 5 11
6 To improve effectiveness of government
Ministries /Departments when developing
and implementing their programs and sub-
programs of activities
1 1 2 4 8
7 To provide more concrete information to the
Cabinet on performance for decision making
purposes and for setting future targets and
priorities.
1 1 2 4 8
Table 25: Rating by grade of officers
From the abovetable, itis noted
a) Those officers in the Assistant Manager grade have given a low ratingin the
achievement of 6 out of the 7objectives. However, a relatively higher proportion
7/29/2019 Program Based Budgeting 1
54/79
Bsc Hons in Financial Managementwith specialisation in Public Finance
54
of the officers have given a lower rating to the achievement on objective 4 i.e. to
provide information to help reallocate resources within and between programs.
b) Those officers in the grade of SFO have given a verypoor rating to the
achievement of 6 objectives. However, no officers in this grade have rated the
framework governing public management as poor
c) Officers in the FO cadre have given a very poor rating in the achievement of all
the seven objectives contained in PBB. In relative term, most of them do not
consider that PBB is promoting high quality, client-responsive public services
and is maximizing value for money in service delivery
d) Officers in the Assistant Finance Officers have given a very poor rating inachieving all the 7 objectives. In relative terms, they consider that PBB hasfailed
to promote the use of performance and evaluation data for policy planning and
management purposes, and it is not institutionalizing gender equity throughout the
process of aligning budgets to policy priorities and increasing the transparency
and accountability of the system.
4.5 The Implementation of PBB
This part of the analysis deal with the implementation of PBB in Ministries.
Respondentswere required to give their views on the implementation of PBB in their
respective Ministries ona5 points Likert Scale.
4.5.1 Rules and Regulations
This part deals with the effectiveness of the existing rule and regulation for implementing
PBB. The responses received are tabulated below:
7/29/2019 Program Based Budgeting 1
55/79
Bsc Hons in Financial Managementwith specialisation in Public Finance
55
SN STATEMENTS S.D D N A SA MEAN
1 The existing budgetary rules and
regulation assist your Ministry todeliver an effective service
4 5 3 9 10 3.5161
2 Extra budgetary funds are now
more transparent
1 11 0 15 4 3.3226
3 There are incentives for working
with the best possible estimates of
resources
3 10 1 9 8 3.2903
4 Next years budget is not based
primarily on what was spent in, or
appropriated for, this year.
5 12 2 7 5 2.9677
5 The Ministry of Finance is not
relentlessly pursuing savings at the
cost of program implementation
5 12 2 7 5 2.8387
6 The Rules require timely
publication of information for
transparency and to enhance
accountability and credibility
4 6 3 16 2 3.1935
Table 26: Rules and Regulations
From the above table , it is noted that respondents have indicated that (a) there are
incentives for working with the best possible estimates of resources (M=3.2903) ,(b)the
existing budgetary rules and regulation assist the Ministry to deliver an effective
service,(M= 3.5161), (c )Extra budgetary funds are now more transparent(M= 3.3226)
and (d) the rules require timely publication of information for transparency and to
enhance accountability and credibility(M=3.1935)
However , it is noted respondents consider that budgetary allocation by the Ministry of
finance is still based on what was spent last year , a practice which was very current
under the line budgeting system (M=2.8387). In addition, they are of the view that the
Ministry of Finance is perpetuating the old practice ofrelentlessly pursuing savings at the
cost of program implementation (M=2.8387).
7/29/2019 Program Based Budgeting 1
56/79
Bsc Hons in Financial Managementwith specialisation in Public Finance
56
4.5.2 Budget Policy and Planning Processes
This part looks into the existing policy and planning process that are now prevailing in
the public sector following the introduction of PBB.
The frequency distribution and the mean for the 3 statements are given below:
SN STATEMENTS S.D D N A SA MEAN
1 Policy and planning by the Ministry of
Finance provides a realisticresource
allocation to your Ministry
7 12 2 5 5 2.6452
2 Governments policies are clearlyarticulated for your Ministry
1 7 3 17 3 3.4516
3 Affordability by Government
influences the policies and strategies
of your Ministry
4 7 2 12 6 3.2903
Table 27: Budget Policy and Planning Processes
On the basis of the mean scores, it is noted that under PBB, respondents are of the view
that Governments policies are clearly articulated for theirrespective Ministries(M=
3.4516) and it is affordability by Government that influences the policies and strategies
of their respective Ministry. However, respondents have some reservation against the
Ministry of Finance. In their views, policy and planning by the Ministry of Finance does
not provide a realistic resource allocation to their Ministries
4.5.3 Budget Preparation Practices
Two questions were given to the respondents to obtain their views on the existing budget
preparation practice. The relevant statistics are given in the table below:
7/29/2019 Program Based Budgeting 1
57/79
Bsc Hons in Financial Managementwith specialisation in Public Finance
57
SN STATEMENTS S.D D N A S.A MEAN
1 The budget circular is timely and provides a
clear set of rules for the budget process
5 7 0 13 6 3.3913
2 Sufficient time is devoted by the Ministry
of Finance to your Ministry to consider
the funding of new policy and priority
6 8 1 10 6 2.7391
Table 28: Budget Preparation Practices
From the information contained in the table, most of the respondents have a positive view
on the timeliness and clarity of the budget circular for the preparation of the budget.
However, there is a perception among the respondents that sufficient time is not devoted
by the Ministry of Finance to consider the funding of new policy and priority for their
respective Ministries. This is substantiated by the low mean score of 2.7391.
4.5.4 Budget Execution and Accounting System
The responses received on budget execution and accounting system are tabulated below:
STATEMENTS S.D D N A SA MEAN
1 The accounting system is fully
operational
2 6 1 11 7 3.3548
2 The FMM manuals provide a
comprehensive overview of the new
accounting system.
2 6 4 10 9 3.5806
3 Budget execution data (revenue and
expenditures) are prepared in a timely
manner
2 6 2 13 8 3.6129
Table29: Budget Execution and Accounting System
From the information contained in the table, it can be noted that the mean scores for the
all the 3 statements are above 3. As such, it can be concluded that:
7/29/2019 Program Based Budgeting 1
58/79
Bsc Hons in Financial Managementwith specialisation in Public Finance
58
a) The accounting system is fully operational
b) The FMM manuals provide a comprehensive overview of the new accounting
system
c) Budget execution data (revenue and expenditures) are prepared in a timely
manner
4.5.5 Monitoring and Evaluation
As part of the PBB process, there is a requirement that there should be a continuous
monitoring and evaluation of programs and subprograms. According to the PBB Manual,
performance monitoring and evaluation is a continuous process of collecting and
analyzing data to comparehow well a policy is being implemented. The respondents
views on program monitoring and evaluation is tabulated below.
SN STATEMENTS S.D D N A SA MEAN
1 There is a system in the Ministry to
conduct program evaluation
3 12 16 0 0 2.4194
2 The result of the evaluation is
published
11 15 5 0 0 1.8065
3 Client surveys are routinely andfrequently carried out as part of these
evaluations
7 13 8 2 1 2.2581
Table 30: Monitoring and Evaluation
From the statistic contain in the above table, it can be noted that program evaluation is
not being effectively carried out in Ministries .This is substantiated by the fact that:
a. There is not an inadequate system in the Ministry to conduct program evaluation
b. For ministries that have a system for evaluation, the result of the evaluation is notpublished
7/29/2019 Program Based Budgeting 1
59/79
Bsc Hons in Financial Managementwith specialisation in Public Finance
59
c. Client surveys are not routinely and frequently beingcarried out as part of theseevaluations
4.5.6 Performance Measurement
According to the PBB Manual,performance measurement is a system for quantifying delivery of
performance for each activity. It includes outputs; performance indicators and performance
targets .It also include information on results by Government intervention and the
assessment of how the results were achieved and/or the costs of achieving those results.
The views of the respondents on performance measurement have been gathered on a set
of 6 statements. These are tabulated below:
SN STATEMENTS S.D D N A S.A MEAN
1 Nonfinancial data are accumulated
andprocessed for purposes of
performancemeasurement
0 12 10 9 0 2.9032
2 There is a uniform flow of
information (financial and non-
financial data) to management
during the budget cycle
1 7 17 6 0 2.9032
3 Government fosters an environmentthatsupports and demands
performance
3 10 2 9 73.3558
4 There are feedback mechanisms to
supply data on performance, and data
are published
0 23 6 2 0 2.3226
5 There is a systematic collection,
analysis andreporting of
performance information to
verifycompliance with strategic
goals
4 13 8 0 6 2.9677
6 Your Ministry benchmark its
performance with otherMinistries
2 10 19 0 0 2.5484
Table 31: Performance Measurement
7/29/2019 Program Based Budgeting 1
60/79
Bsc Hons in Financial Managementwith specialisation in Public Finance
60
From the above table, the mean scores on 5 statements are below 3. These indicate that
performance measurement has not being effectively put into practice. The main
weaknesses are:
Nonfinancial data are not being accumulatedandprocessed for purposes of
performance measurement
There is not uniform flow of information to management during the budget cycle
There are no feedback mechanisms to supplydata on performance, and data are
not published
There is a systematic collection, analysis andreporting of performance
information to verifycompliance with strategic goals
Benchmark technique is not being used to compare performance with other
Ministries
The above findings confirm the overall low rating that was identified for third objective
of PBB i.e. To use performance and evaluation data for policy planning and management
purposes, in particular for enhancing operational and technical efficiency, expenditure
prioritization and improving allocation of resources.
However, it is noted that respondents have given a relatively high rating in respect of
Government initiative to foster an environment thatsupports and demands performance.
4.5.7Audit
The National Audit Office is the external auditor to Government and the int