1. Public Expenditure Tracking and Service Delivery Surveys
Flagship Course on Governance and Anti-corruption
April 21, 2003
Magnus Lindelow
Development Research Group
The World Bank

2. The presentation Why new tools for public expenditure analysis?
Characteristics of PETS and related approaches
The Uganda experience
Some conceptual and practical challenges in designing and implementing PETSs
Examples of more recent surveys
What have we learnt about designing and implementing a PETS?

3. Why new tools to analyze public spending and service delivery?
Evidence shows limited impact of public spending on growth and human development indicators
Demand for evidence on efficiency of spending and quality in service delivery
Lack of reliable data in many developing countries
New approaches to aid delivery
Move towards budget support (e.g., PRSC)
Focus on poverty-focused strategic framework (PRSP)
Related fiduciary and accountability concerns

4. New challenges… Are budget allocations pro-poor?
Are budget outturns consistent with established allocations?
Quantitative measurement of corruption
Do expenditures result in intended outputs and outcomes?

5. The ideal situation… Policy framework Government program PRSP
Sector strategies
Budget allocation
Outturn
Timely disbursements in accordance with established policies and priorities
Outputs
Impact
Outcomes

6. The “typical” situation…
Lack of clarity about how resource allocation relates to policies and priorities
- budget not comprehensive
- classification system
Political economy
Nontransparent process
- Poor reporting on execution
- High level of aggregation
- Discretion in allocation
Weak service delivery
Accountability
Efficiency
- Quality
Inherently difficult to assess
- Household surveys
- Participatory approaches
- Social Impact Assessment
Unclear policy framework
Weak management information systems
- limited coverage
- poor data quality
- late and scattered reporting 
Policy framework
Govt. program
PRSP
Sector strategies
Budget allocation
Timely disbursements in accordance with established policies and priorities
Outputs
Impact
Outcomes
PUBLIC EXPENDITURE TRACKING
SERVICE DELIVERY SURVEYS

7. Characteristics of PETS
Diagnostic or monitoring tool to understand problems in budget execution
delays / predictability
leakage
discretion in allocation of resources
Data collected from different levels of government, including service delivery units
Reliance on record reviews, but also interviews
Variation in design depending on perceived problems, country, and sector

8. Characteristics of service delivery surveys
Perception based surveys
Interviews with households, providers, firms, key informants, focus groups (e.g., score-card approaches)
Quantitative surveys (QSDS)
Focus on frontline service providing unit (e.g., health facilities or schools)
Inspired by micro-level household and firm surveys
Resource flows (financial and in-kind)
Availability / adequacy of inputs
Service outputs and efficiency
Quality
Focus on cost analysis, dimensions of performance in service delivery, comparisons across ownership.

9. Hybrid approaches
Link facility surveys with surveys of administrative levels “upstream” (public officials)
Why different performance in the same system?
Link facility surveys with household surveys
Effect of school/facility characteristics on household behavior and outcomes?
Mix quantitative and perception-based approaches (e.g., exit polls, staff interviews, focus group discussions)
Relationship between perceptions and observable characteristics of schools or facilities?

10. The Ugandan experience
Many improvements since 1992
macroeconomic stability and growth
shift of public resources from defense to roads and social sectors
decentralization
Poverty Eradication Action Plan (PEAP)
Poverty reduced from 56% in 1992/93 to 35 % in 2000
Strong budget management
MTEF, Poverty Action Fund (PAF)
Sector level performance did not keep up

11. The PETS 1996 Health and education sectors.
Data collected from different levels of administration, including 250 schools and 100 health facilities.
Only 13 percent of intended capitation grant actually reached schools ( ).
Large schools with wealthier parents and qualified teachers were able to obtain more of their budget allocation.
Other findings
Enrollment trends differed from published data.
Importance of parental contributions.

12. Impact and follow-up
Mass information campaign by Ministry of Finance (the press, posters)
A signal to local governments
Lower the cost of information to parents
Follow-up surveys in the education sector
Ministry of Education initiative and local implementation
shows a major improvement
Follow-up surveys in health sector
Broadening agenda: service delivery

13. Impact and follow-up (2)

14. Some conceptual and practical challenges
UGANDA (Education)
LESS IDEAL CONDITIONS FOR TRACKING
Donor contributions
MoF
MoF
Budget allocation
Capitation grant
Sector
Ministry
Sector
Ministry
Sub-national
Level 1
Sub-national
Level 1
Discretionary allocation
financial resources
material
staff, etc.
SDU
SDU
Assessment of leakage more difficult – compare amount received at SDU with…? But…
Possible to assess leakage in narrow sense
And there are other issues…
Equity
Delays and other problems in budget execution
Service delivery issues
Leakage is assessed by comparing amount received at SDU level with amount allocated, but…
Leakage = corruption (embezzlement) ?

15. “Leakage” and data discrepancies in Mozambique
Discrepancies in financial records (75% of districts) but no systematic pattern
Facility reporting of user fee revenues approx. 70% of expected amounts
Discrepancies in drug records
Lack of information about HR across levels (provincial admin., district admin, facilities)
Difficult to make confident statements about leakage, but clear evidence of lack of control

16. Equity in district financing for health care (Mozambique)

17. Delays in budget transfers (Mozambique)

18. PETS in other countries
Tanzania (1999 and 2001)
Tracking of pro-poor expenditures in priority sectors at all levels
Ghana (2000)
Expenditure tracking based on data collected at facility, district, and central level
Honduras (2000)
Survey looking at ghost workers, absenteeism, and “job-migration”
Other past, ongoing, or future surveys
Bolivia, Chad, Georgia, Laos, Madagascar, Mozambique, Nigeria, PNG, Peru, Rwanda, Zambia.

19. Absenteeism studies

20. Emerging issues Many good reasons for doing surveys
Diagnosis of problems, such as corruption – shaping the agenda
Analysis: guiding reform
Monitoring over time / benchmarking
Tool for understanding and creating dialogue about PEM and service delivery systems – useful for donors and governments
Research
But questions remain
Surveys only give part of the answer (what about allocations? Link with outcomes?)
Surveys provide information but is it used?

21. Survey Design: Surveying what? Why?
What are the problems? Are there important gaps in our understanding of the nature, extent, and source of problems? (Potential usefulness of qualitative work)
Is a survey the appropriate tool? Stand-alone or as a complement? Worth the cost?
Is it feasible? How is the budget structured and implemented?
Who is the audience and is there a likely impact? Is there a political demand?
Will the information be used? By whom?

22. Implementation issues: Who? How?
Requires skills like any other micro survey
Steps in implementation
Concept – what are the issues?
Buy-in across the board
Questionnaire design
Identify (and contract) implementing agency
Pilot
Enumerator training
Field work (including quality control and data entry)
Analysis and dissemination

23. Implementation issues
Who can do it?
Local or international?
Capacity building objective?
Who does the analysis?
Getting quality data
Field test important
Quality control in field and data entry
Promoting impact
Strategic partnerships (between ministries, using university or local research institutes, civil society involvement)
Linking into existing instruments and systems ~~