UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY OF MAURITIUS

PUBLIC SECTOR REFORM Programme Based Budgeting A post implementation Survey

AARTEE BEEHARRY

SEPTEMBER 2011]

2

Abstract This paper deals with a survey that was carried out to obtain the views and opinions of top administrators and professionals in the public service on the implementation of Programme Based Budgeting(PBB) in Mauritius. The Programme Based Budgeting .was introduced as part of the reform initiatives for the effective management of public resources . Respondents were contacted using the snow ball approach and 22 respondents were interviewed .From the survey , it has been gathered that there was a lack of planning in all the phases of the project. Appropriate changes were not carried in the legal framework for introducing the PBB .line ministries and departments have not been provided with enough resources and support to undergo the changes that are required in a PBB framework The PBB was introduced to cover all Ministries and Departments unlike other countries the system was introduced on a pilot basis so as to gather enough experience as well as to develop the necessary capability . With such an approach and coupled with the lack of adequate resources to develop the competency of personnel , to build the management information system and to effect necessary changes to the legal framework , the result from the survey clearly demonstrate that the full benefits that was initially and widely claimed on its introduction have not been reaped in Mauritius . In this respect , appropriate recommendations have been made for the Ministry of Finance to provide support to line ministries and departments in term of training of personnel , changes to the management information system in line ministries and departments , formulation of a financial management manual , support to line ministries and departments to develop their strategic plans and their performance indicators , providing assistance to line ministries to reengineer their organization structure around programmes and subprogrammes etc Overall it can be concluded that all respondents have given a poor rating on the manner that PBB has been introduced in Mauritius . Above all , there is a need to carry out a study to look into the benefits that have been obtained from the introduction of PBB

3

TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 Introduction 1.1 Introduction 1.2 Objectives 1.3 What is public budgeting ? 1.4 The New Public Expenditure Management Framework 1.5 Budgeting Reform in Mauritius PBB 1.6 Programme Based Budgeting (PBB) 1.7Lesson learnt from other countries 1.8 Research Methodology 2.0 Literature Review 2.1Introduction 2.2 The acceptance required to adopt PBB 2,2.1Political acceptance 2.1.2 Managerial acceptance 2.1.3 PBB and the reform space 2.2 PBB adoption 4 4 4 4 6 7 7 9 10 10 10 10 11 11 12 13

4

2.2.1 Performance evaluation ability 2.2.2 Personnel ability 2.2.3 Technical ability 2.3 The authority to adopt PBB 2.3.1 Legal authority 2.3.2 Procedural authority 2.3.3 Organizational authority 2.4 Conclusion 3.0 Analysis and Findings 3.2Planning the introduction of PBB 3.2.1 Approach to PBB 3.2.2 Capacity Building 3.3Budget Coverage and Structure 3.4 Budget Policy and Planning 3.5 Budget Execution Practices 3.6 Accounting system 3.7 Auditing system 3.8 Performance Measurement 3.9 Overall rating 3.10 Limitation of the study 3.11 Conclusion Appendix: Bibliography5

13 13 14 14 15 15 15 15 16 16 16 17 19 20 20 21 22 22 23 24 24

1.0 Introduction 1.1 Introduction This chapter introduces the need for implementing Programme Based Budgeting (PBB )as part of the reform initiatives in Mauritius and it explains the PBB framework . In addition, it also covers the experience of other African countries which have implemented PBB . 1.2 Objectives This paper discusses the introduction of Programme Based Budgeting as part of the reform process for the better utilization and allocation of public resources . It identifies the various shortcomings and problem faced in the introduction of PBB . It conclude by stating that no study has been carried out to evaluate the effects and benefits obtained from the introduction of the new system of public expenditure management i.e the PBB framework. 1.3 What is public budgeting ? According, to Reed and Swain (1997) public budgeting is the planned acquisition and use of resources by public entities and a process of making decisions about public revenues and expenditures. Budgeting takes place within a political arena and the outcome is a political document through which money is appropriated according to value judgments by decision makers to reflect the community's values, preferences and priorities (Gildenhuys, 1997). In essence, the national budget is a document that once approved by the legislature, authorizes the government to raise revenues, incur debts and affect expenditures in order to achieve certain goals. Since the budget determines the origin and application of public financial resources, it plays a6

central role in the process of government fulfilling its economic, political, social, legal and administrative functions. The budget process is cyclical, and in almost all countries the cycle is annual. The budget cycle usually has four stages:1.

Budget formulation: when the budget plan is put together by the executive branch of government; Enactment: when the budget plan are debated, altered and approved by the legislative branch; Execution: when the policies of the budget are carried out by the executive branch ; and Reporting and auditing : when the actual expenditures of the budget are accounted by the executive and the account are audited by external auditors . The audit report is scrutinized and debated by the legislative branch

2.

3.

4.

Up to 2006-7 , the national budget was prepared using line item budgeting . The serious deficiency with such an approach is that it emphasize input without any link to output or outcome . More over , it encourages accounting officers to use up their budgetary allocation so as to avoid any cut in the next financial budget .In addition , two type of estimates were prepared: the recurrent and the capital budget . These were treated as two separate type of expenditure when it fact they are both complementary i.e any present capital expenditure will necessitate future recurrent expenditure in term of repair and maintenance . Overall , it force decision makers to adopt a short term perspective .It is part of the reform process that Mr R. Sithanen, the then Minister of Finance in his 2006-2007 Budget Speech. stated that

7

A countrys public finance is a crucial indicator of macroeconomic stability and a determining factor in global competitiveness. There are fundamental weaknesses in our tax and expenditure policies, in fiscal administration and expenditure procedures, and in debt management. There are also some serious institutional shortcomings among public sector corporations. All these must be addressed. But, the remedy is not in stop-go, disjointed and piecemeal actions. Therefore, there is need for deep-seated and comprehensive reforms in all these areas 1.4 The New Public Expenditure Management Framework The New Public Expenditure Framework has been adopted by many countries in the world as part of their reform initiatives, it revolve around the following concepts and principles: (a) A greater focus on performance i.e better results achieved from expenditure. (b) The need to engage all stakeholders (including civil society) in pursuit of budgetary and financial management reform. Adequate links between policy making, planning and budgeting. This is Essential to sustainable improvements in all dimensions of budgetary Outcomes. (d) A well-functioning accounting and financial management systems. These are among the basics that underpin governmental capacity to allocate and use resources efficiently and effectively. (f) Greater linkage between budgeting and financial management systems and other service-wide systems and processes of government such personnel management, procurement etc . A well-performing public sector requires that all these component parts function within an integrated framework

8

1.5 Budgeting Reform in Mauritius PBB It is within the context of public sector reform initiatives that the Finance Minister announced in his 2006/7 budget speech , the introduction of Programme 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. As such , 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 1.6 Programme Based Budgeting (PBB) Progamme Based Budgeting (PBB) 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 Programme Based Budgeting is a more modern concept which has been adopted by several countries in the world. In fact, international experience suggests Programme Based Budgeting can be a very effective tool in enhancing fiscal discipline, bringing efficiency gains and promoting good governance in the public sector. Programme based budgeting is both an approach and a process that relates resources to intended results. It includes a set of concepts, techniques and a structure. The overall structure of PBB consists of programmes and sub-programmes. Each programme and sub programme budgeting are framed to achieve a set of outputs aimed at a defined set of outcomes (measurable and specific) . In addition , control and

9

monitoring of achievement are undertaken within a well defined set of related performance indicators. In a nutshell, the basic technical preconditions for the introduction of PBB are:

there should be a three-year strategic framework leading to annual targets input analysis for each target is the foundation for budgeting; a structured coding system reinforces both the sequenced ranking of and the tracing of expenditure, to targets; and Performance is reviewed for progress (mid year), output performance (annually) and impact assessment (every third year), resulting in a new strategic framework.

Line item budget is a legacy of the colonial administration and as already mentioned , it has been used in Mauritius up to 2006 . As already mentioned Programme-Based Budgeting (PBB) has been introduced for making each line ministry to be more accountable for policy results and to improve their overall efficiency and effectiveness. In Mauritius it is important to note that PBB is still using the line item budgets to show the economic category of nine types of expenditure within each programmes/sub-programmes These are compensation of employees, goods & services, interest,

subsidies, grants, social benefits, other expenses , acquisition of non financial assets; and acquisition of financial assets.

10

1.7Lesson learnt from other countries According to the Public Expenditure Management Hand Book of the World Bank (1998) , some of the weaknesses that undermine public sector expenditure management around the world include: Poor planning; No links between policy making, planning and budgeting; Poor expenditure control; Inadequate funding of operations and maintenance; Little relationship between budget as formulated and budget as executed; Inadequate accounting systems; Unreliability in the flow of budgeted funds to agencies and to lower levels of government; Poor management of external aid; Poor cash management; Inadequate reporting of financial performance; and Poorly motivated staff. The World Bank is a strong supporter of and facilitator to many countries that wish to adopt the PBB framework for addressing the above weaknesses. As already, mentioned Mauritius is one among the many recipients of World Bank support Apart from the usual need for political support, top-management commitment and the necessary capacity building measures should be planned and implemented within the specific context of a country i.e what has worked in a country may not be relevant to another country . In addition , many countries (such as Uganda , Ghana , South Africa etc) have reported the following lessons in their implementation process (a) PBB fails at the first hurdle if the shift from input to output-based budgeting is not accepted and practiced by top management (b) PBB is conceptually redundant without a strategic context to condition the resource allocating process.

11

The difficulty of public annual reporting in terms of outcomes (wider societal impact) and outputs (organizationally specific, causally traceable achievements). . (d) The difficulty of reconciling the programme structure with the organizational structure it represents.

1.8 Research Methodology In order to meet the objectives of the research , the following methodology has been adopted: (a) Desk Research World Bank Report , National Budget (2006 to 2011) , Director of Audit Report (2006 to 2010), articles in the press and other relevant publications (b) Literature Review (c ) Interviews with top administrators (10 respondents) and professionals (12 respondents) in the public sector .Respondents were contacted using the snow ball effect approach . The interviews have been framed to gather information covering three phases planning the introduction of PBB , execution of PBB and lessons learnt from implementing PBB in Mauritius .

2.0 Literature Review 2.1Introduction This chapter dwells on the findings of research carried out on the subject of programme based budgeting in the literature. 2.2 The acceptance required to adopt PBB The factor regularly mentioned in the literature on PBB adoption is acceptance. Resistance to reform on the part of public officials, department12

heads and employees may be the biggest obstacle to the implementation and use of performance measures 2. 2.1Political acceptance The measurement and use of performance information has consequences for elected, appointed, and career officials. A number of articles emphasize those politicians often resist using performance information in allocations decisions because such information increases their vulnerability to constituencies (especially with regard to long-term programs that might not perform well in the short-run). Performance information also presents a threat to the political aspect of budgetary decision making (what discretion do politicians have in using performance information?), and increases the information density of budgetary decision making (information can make a document longer and more difficult to evaluate). The problem of political acceptance is being tackled in some countries by linking PBB motivation with short-term political success (especially where there is a social demand for performance-based government), ensuring that performance measures matter to politicians and developing critical competencies and appropriate technology to maximize the political value of performance information (Walters, 1999). All these efforts aside, political decision making remains largely untouched by performance data, and there is generally poor political acceptance of the potential role such data could play. The short-termism common to many political decisions complicates the issue even more, with many politicians not willing to support a reform that offers limited gains in the immediate time period. 2.1.2 Managerial acceptance The literature shows that PBB acceptance among managers is also critical to PBB adoption, especially related to the use of performance information in managerial decision making and in the creation of incentive schemes: A major challenge lies in convincing program managers of the value of strategic plans and performance measures (Carter, 1999, p. 26). The problem of managerial acceptance involves two issues:

13

1. if agencies feel that legislators will use performance information to reprimand agencies more often than reward them, they will probably not support the initiative; and 2. if agencies do not see performance information as useful in impacting decisions, they will not support PBB. To increase managerial acceptance of PBB, some states in the United States allow agencies to develop their own measures, hold strategic briefings to show how performance information relates to mission, and require performance data in budget publications. More managers use performance information than do politicians, but insufficient acceptance of reforms is still proving a problem for reform adoption. The acceptance issue is perhaps most evident when considering countries attempts to attach rewards and punishment to performance (performance incentives). Many managers accept that performance information might add value in their decision-making process, but do not trust a performance-based incentive scheme, limiting the ability of governments to develop and initiate the reform process 2.1.3 PBB and the reform space The motivating questions are focused on explaining why PBB reforms have not progressed to the point where governments are becoming increasingly performance-based. In keeping with a recent paper by Shah, three factors i.e authority, acceptance, ability have been presented to explain the limits evident in PBB experience . These factors combine into a framework where the interaction of authority, acceptance and ability are seen to form a reform space in which governments develop reforms like PBB. The reform space framework, in which the three factors intersect, is akin to a reform space where ability, authority and acceptance merge to facilitate reform adoption. In order to expand to more demanding elements of performance-based reform, it is important to expand one or more of the three factors and thus create a larger reform space This framework is meant to provide a vehicle for reformers to better understand why PBB interventions are having muted effects and to evaluate how best a reform program should be developed. The essence of the model is that PBB can only be developed from its formative stages when governments expand their reform space to facilitate new ideas, processes,14

and concentrations into their financial management systems. As shown in the evidence, most governments lack an effective combination of ability, authority or acceptance to reform According to Bales and Matwiczak, 2001 ,each government needs to consider which factor plays the biggest role in frustrating reform, and then to tackle that factor to expand the reform space and capacity of their organization. At the same time, it is vital that governments pay attention to the interaction of all three factors, as improving one does not mean that the reform space will increase. Having the ability to develop performance measures, for example, can actually impede reform progress if procedures fail to inform how such should be used. 2.2 PBB adoption One of the usual suspects of ineffective reform is capacity, or organizational ability. Case studies and commentaries on PBB adoption suggest that three aspects of organizational ability are central to complete PBB adoption: performance evaluation ability, personnel ability and technical ability: 2.2.1 Performance evaluation ability The ability to measure performance affects all stages of PBB adoption (Foltin, 1999). If countries lack the ability to measure performance in a way that people find useful, PBB is guaranteed to fail. At the same time, many governments find that developing outcome and output measures is difficult and time consuming and indeed many governments are still clarifying what outcomes and outputs are, and which of the two they intend to measure. The problem is much more focused on the question of whether governments can develop good performance information. Even if information is generated, one has to ensure that it is accurate and relevant. 2.2.2 Personnel ability Studies also emphasize the importance of ensuring that key personnel competencies exist when adopting PBB. The competency requirements differ from experience to experience and relate to all stages of PBB adoption. Dedicated staff are needed in the executive budget agency to drive15

the PBB process, with specific skills in measuring performance and maintaining and managing databases. Within the executive and legislative budget agencies, analysts are required to work with agencies in setting performance targets, ensuring communication between information users, and monitoring performance. Agencies need to develop abilities to identify and measure relevant performance, and to use performance data in a constructive way (Foltin, 1999). Personnel shortfalls are most evident in central budget agency where support staff often lacks the necessary skill in analyzing performance. 2.2.3 Technical ability Particular technical requirements relate the need to collect performance information and provide a commonly available database in which performance information is readily available, in appropriate formats, to a variety of users. Most of government data systems are not established to collect data on results or to collect useful information on performance across systems. The database must be compatible with a variety of other systems providing the basis for government accounting, monitoring, and reporting. If performance information data are separated technically from other budgeting and accounting operations, it is highly likely that PBB will not penetrate the decision-making processes associated with those who are at operation level . (Cornett, 1998; Willoughby and Melkers, 2000). It appears that many countries are still in the process of evaluating technology needs related to PBB adoption, and many lack systems relating performance data to varying user needs or to the financial management processes underlying decision making. Some authors identify the main problem as the influence of established, poorly suited systems while others argue that the problem is not the influence of existing systems, but a lack of financial resources needed to develop new systems that relate to the old ones. 2.3 The authority to adopt PBB . There are three important aspects of authority: legal authority, procedural authority, and organizational authority.

16

2.3.1 Legal authority Formal budgeting processes are often tightly legislated. New reforms (or reform elements) cannot be adopted if they conflict with such legislation. Some states in America also experience problems with legislation regarding the use of performance information by management, with requirements that budgets be organized and managed around inputs rather than outputs and outcomes. The primary problem for using performance information in many states is that the law requires that budgets be organized in terms of line items, not potential results. (Harris, 2001, ). A number of states have attempted to counter these issues by explicitly legislating in favor of PBB, and these states appear to be more advanced than others. . 2.3.2 Procedural authority Performance measurement and potential uses of performance information are often grafted into existing budget processes. These existing processes are characterized by established procedures that act as rules binding budgeting behavior. Successful reform adoption requires compatibility of the reform model with these rules and procedures (Xavier, 1998, p. 115). Many remnants of the traditional budgeting approach have remained despite the best efforts to get decision-makers to use PBB-generated information and data (Young, 2003, p. 30) 2.3.3 Organizational authority Lines of organizational authority also influence PBB adoption, being especially influential when it comes to using performance information. PBB appears to be most effectively adopted when discretion is devolved, allowing administrators to make decisions about staffing, budgeting, reporting, and so forth. Authority lines need to allow for such creative discretion. Regularly, however, organizational structures develop their own constituencies that are hard to uproot(Kettl, 1992, p. 74). 2.4 Conclusion On the basis of the literature review , it can be concluded that the introduction of PBB requires a fundamental paradigm shift among both17

politician and administrators , the need to build capacity and above all , the need for an adaptive reform space

3.0 Analysis and Findings 3.1 Introduction This chapter covers the findings and analysis of the interviews carried out among public administrators and professionals .

3.2

Planning the introduction of PBB

3.2.1 Approach to PBB There is a general consensus among the respondents that the introduction of PBB has not been well planned both in term of its scope and coverage . The Government has adopted a full fledged and comprehensive approach that covers all Ministries and departments while other counties has adopted a more cautious approach by introducing the system in one or two pilot ministries . Uganda initially adopted the first approach and it has to stop its implementation . It was some few years later that PBB was reintroduced on a pilot basis . The conclusion that can be drawn is that we have failed to learn from the mistakes of our African counterpart . Although Mauritius has not been required to adopt a stop and go policy as Uganda , the question that remained unanswered up to now is :Is the introduction of PBB a success ? Did we had the capability and capacity to go for a full fledge approach ? Is it working effectively . The survey pointed out most of the respondents have some apprehension on theses areas It should be pointed out that the World Bank who was a major catalyst in this project has yet to carry out an evaluation study as to whether government is getting value for money and the public is benefitting from a quality service

18

3.2.2 Capacity Building From the literature review , a country has to build and nurture its capability to obtain the full benefits of PBB . The information gathered from the respondents on the flaws in implementing the system are set out below : (a) Use of too many experts Mauritius resorted to the expertise of the World Bank to implement the system . There was a lack of a consensus among the expert on the approach to be adopted . In its initial phase , the Ministry of Finance provided the line ministries with a budget framework based on one consultant report (UNDP)and this was subsequently revised some 3 months on the recommendations of another expert (World Bank) later when work had already started in line ministries This has a much wider implication on line ministries which were required to continually change the framework to be adopted for the preparation of the budget , thus adding to confusion and dismay among the Accounting Officers and their supporting staff .

(b) Legal reform The implementation of PBB has not been concurrently supported by appropriate legislation . It is worth pointing out that these form the basis for the strategic focus of reforms in a public sector financial management as it determine the rules of the game for resource allocation and resource use. The formal rules are embodied the Constitution, the organic budget law, the appropriation bills and finance regulations . It is noted that the introduction of PBB was not a priori supported by the appropriate legislation. The Finance and Audit Act in respect of reallocation / virement was amended well after the introduction of PBB. This demonstrates that there was a lack of a comprehensive plan for the introduction of PBB. The lesson that one can learn from this is that appropriate measures need to be taken for ensuring that any reform to public sector financial management is adequately supported by the timely introduction of the necessary legal framework ( c) Culture

19

Although the PBB is centered on performance, its introduction has not been accompanied by enough sanctions for overspending and poor program and project performance. In France, an Accounting Officer is pecuniary liable for any mismanagement of public fund. The introduction of PBB was an occasion to bring in a new culture in the public sector by introducing tough measures on this issue. This is evident by the findings of the Report of the Director of Audit which point out the same weaknesses year after year in particular the management of capital projects in the public sector. As such, the relevance of the PBB on this area is still questionable today. There has not been much change in the cultural set up of public sector organizations (d) Organisation Structure The life blood of PBB is the management of programmes and this has to be accompanied by the necessary changes in the organization structure, authority, responsibility and accountability in the implementing agency. From the responses obtained, there have not been many changes in the organization structure of Ministries and departments. In fact, they have not been reengineered around the concept of programme managers. As such the responsibility of managing programmes is still blurred in those organizations (e)Personnel Dedicated and competent staff are needed in a line Ministry to drive the PBB process, and they should be equipped with specific skills in measuring performance and maintaining and managing databases. The central budget agency i.e the Ministry of Finance need to develop abilities to identify and measure relevant performance, and to use performance data in a constructive way to assist and support line ministries (Foltin, 1999). Personnel shortfalls are most evident in both the line ministries and the Ministry of Finance where staff lacks the necessary skill in analyzing performance This aspect has not been fully considered in the implementing of PBB. From information gathered, there has been a limited training of a few public officers by the World Bank expert. In such situation, it is natural that PBB would take a long time to gather the necessary momentum and impact. (f) Strategic Planning20

One of the preconditions of PBB is for line ministries to develop their strategic plan. Most of the interviewees have opined that inadequate attention coupled with lack of time and resources have been devoted to strategic planning. In their views, what is being term as plan is no more but a statement of intent . Some of the respondents have opined that their strategic plan is not taken on board by the Ministry of Finance during budget negotiation. The latter is more concern with budgetary ceiling limits rather than the funding of the plan 3.3 Budget Coverage and Structure

The basis for sound government finances is generally a single central fund into which revenues is received and out of which public activities for citizens are paid. For good macroeconomic management, controls need to be exercised over all revenues and expenditures. However , this concept has not been fully implemented as there are many funds that fall outside the purview of PBB . More so, it does not include government investment in public companies such as State Investment Corporation etc The PBB aim to integrate the recurrent and capital budget under programme with a view that Accounting Officers have a comprehensive understanding of the impact of their decision in particular capital expenditure on future expenditure . However , up to now , capital expenditure is being planned in the traditional manner and such techniques such as life cycle costing , leasing etc still remain to be introduced in the public sector .This point out that PBB has failed to introduced a new mindset and culture in the public sector i.e public administrators are not thinking outside the black box

21

3.4

Budget Policy and Planning

Under PBB, the policy and planning system should force governments to understand better the realities of what is affordable over the medium term and to address sect oral priorities strategically. The system needs to provide a medium-term framework for public expenditure by identifying the resources that are to be available and the sectoral priorities that will drive resource use and political ratification (legitimacy) to the policies and programs that will be the basis of subsequent public expenditure proposals. However past experience shows that information on the outcome of macroeconomic and revenue projection are not comprehensive. It is not being understood by both the politician and the administrators In addition, past report shows that the Public Sector Investment Programme is not functioning as there is still a lack of consensus among the political masters on sectoral priorities. A recent example is the Medpoint affair where the purchase of a building for the running of a geriatric hospital was not approved by the Capital Project Investment Committee but was approved by Cabinet . Presently, this a subject of investigation by ICAC In addition, there has been an upward trend in the adverse audit report on the management of capital expenditure of government projects. As already pointed out, government capital expenditure is the basis for the socio economics development of a country. As such, it can be concluded that PBB has not contributed to the much needed reform in this area 3.5 Budget Execution Practices According to Young, 2003, p. 30, many remnants of the traditional budgeting approach have remained despite the best efforts to get decisionmakers to use PBB-generated information and data . The Mauritian public service is not an exception From responses gathered, much emphasis on still being placed by administrators to stay within their budget limits and the achievement of the agreed outcomes are being given a secondary consideration.

22

There is a general consensus among top administrators that the introduction of PBB has not been accompanied by a sound policy of resources availability. In relative term, most respondents have opined that there has been a drastic reduction in their budget. As such , they are being called upon to achieve a set of deliverables without being given the necessary resources .Most of the posts in the Public sector have been frozen and there is a general malaise among public servants : both from top to bottom . There is a general perception that performance information is a mean to reprimand agencies in the form of budgetary cuts rather than rewarding them Another dilemma is the introduction of Performance Management System to support PBB. Public officers are now being required to account for their performance while the Ministry of Finance is not providing adequate resources to implement their programmes , thus adding salt to injury . Overall, it can be concluded that there is a negative apprehension on both the PBB and PMS among public officers The above scenario has set the ground for apprehension and resistance to reform on the part of public officials, department heads and employees. As already pointed out in the literature review, this is the biggest obstacle to the implementation and use of the PBB framework 3.6 Accounting system The accounting system is at the heart of an integrated financial management system because other subsystems depend upon it for useful, timely and reliable data necessary for the full range of decisions made as part of the resource allocation, budgeting, and financial management system and process. Up to now, government data systems have not been reengineered to collect data on results or to collect useful information on performance across systems. The existing computerized system (TASS) has and is still configured to deal with line item budgeting Successful reform adoption requires compatibility of the reform model with the appropriate rules and procedures. From information gathered, public officers are still using the Financial Management Manual which came into operation since 1985. In addition, the preparation of an operating procedure manual in the public sector has been done in a fragmented way such that23

today there is a financial manual, a personnel manual, an internal control manual etc i.e there is a constellation of islets without connecting bridges. Such a scenario demonstrates that there has been a lack of planning in the implementing of PBB. This could be summarized in a few words i.e. we have put the cart before the horses 3.7 Auditing system The focus of auditing is to determine whether public funds have been spent for the purposes for which they were designated. However, it is noted that internal auditors have not received any training in performance auditing which is a prerequisite for the implementation of PBB . , Moreover, the formulation of an audit manual is still at the horizon and top managers are not knowledgeable about the importance of performance auditing. As to date the internal auditors are still conducting procedural audit after 5 years since PBB was introduced .This again support the argument that introduction of PBB was not well planned

3.8 Performance Measurement Performance measurement refers to measuring the performance of a program, service or function. Performance indicators refer to what specifically is to be measured for each aspect of performance, Most of the respondents feel that the systematic collection, analysis and reporting of performance information so as to verify compliance with strategic goals and to provide a sound basis for future policy making and implementation are too vague. There is a general feeling among the respondents that they have not been adequately supported by professionals to develop outcome and output measures and up to now there are still clarifying their outcomes and outputs. More so there is still some confusion on which of the two they should measure. From the budget of the Police Department, it has been found out that one of their performance indicator is the number of house burglary reported at police stations instead of the percentage of the reported case that has been fully resolved by the Department .Such type of inconsistencies is a general feature in practically all line ministries

24

3.9 Overall rating From the statistics gathered , the respondents opinion on the implementation of PBB has been rated using a point Likert Scale : 1 2 3 4 5 very poor poor neutral good excellent

The relevant statistics are given below

Overall , it can be concluded that most respondents have opined that the system has not been adequately planned and implemented

25

3.10 Limitation of the study The survey has been carried out among 22 respondents. Although the sample is not statistically reliable, it give an insight into the overall feeling of public officers on the effectiveness of PBB implementation in Mauritius. This topic could thus be an area for a more comprehensive study in the future 3.11 Conclusion and recommendations From the survey , it has been gathered that there was a lack of planning in all the phases of the project. Appropriate changes were not carried in the legal framework for introducing the PBB . This was made at a later stage when PBB was already made operational .On the capacity building side , personnel has not been adequately trained . The PBB was introduced to cover all Ministries and Departments unlike other countries the system was introduced on a pilot basis so as to gather enough experience as well as to develop the necessary capability . With such an approach and coupled with the lack of adequate resources to develop the competency of personnel , to build the management information system and to effect necessary changes to the legal framework , the result from the survey clearly demonstrate that the full benefits that was initially and widely claimed on its introduction have not been reaped in Mauritius . In addition , there was serious flaws in the approach in view that no changes were effected to the organization structure in Ministries and departments to support PBB . In fact , PBB requires that organization should be restructured to support the management of programmes and sub programmes It is noted that the PBB was introduced without allowing enough time for Ministries and Departments to prepare their strategic plans . It should be pointed out that it is a prerequisite of the PBB framework that programmes and subprogrammes should be designed to achieves strategic objectives There is a general consensus among top administrators that the introduction of PBB has not been accompanied by a sound policy of resources26

availability. In relative term, most respondents have opined that there has been a drastic reduction in their budget Another dilemma is the introduction of Performance Management System to support PBB. Public officers are now being required to account for their performance while the Ministry of Finance is not providing adequate resources to implement their programmes . Successful reform adoption requires compatibility of the reform model with the appropriate rules and procedures. From information gathered, public officers are still using the Financial Management Manual which came into operation since 1985. It should be recalled that this manual has been framed around the operation of a line item budgeting In addition internal auditors have not received any training in performance auditing which is a prerequisite for the implementation of PBB Finally , there is a general feeling among the respondents that they have not been adequately supported by professionals to develop outcome and output measures and up to now there are still clarifying their outcomes and outputs. In view of the above , it is recommended that the Ministry of Finance should addressed all the above shortcomings so as to reaped the full benefits of PBB . These include training of personnel , changes in the management information system in line ministries and departments , formulation of a financial management manual , support to line ministries and departments to develop their strategic plans and their performance indicators , providing expertise to line ministries to reengineer their organization structure around programmes and subprogrammes etc From the above, it can be concluded that the introduction of PBB has been fraught with many planning pitfalls. As already mentioned , its impact on the quality of public service delivery has yet to be researched

27

Bibliography Andrews, M., Hill, H. (2003), "The impact of traditional budgeting systems on the effectiveness of performance-based budgeting: a different viewpoint on recent findings", International Journal of Public Administration, Vol. 26 No.2, pp.135-55. Carter, K. (1999), "Performance budgets: here by popular demand", State Legislatures, Vol. 20 No.1, pp.22-7. Foltin, C. (1999), "State and local government performance: it's time to measure up!", The Government Accountants Journal, Vol. 48 No.1, pp.40-6. Friedman, M. (1997), "A guide to developing and using performance measures in results-based budgeting", Baltimore, Maryland, Fiscal Policy Studies Institute, pp.31. Gallego, P. (1999), Using performance information in the budget/oversight process, . Harris, J.L. (2001), Performance budgeting in Maine, paper presented at the Managing Performance Conference, Baltimore, MD, 11 October,2005 Joyce, P.G. (1999), "Performance-based budgeting", in Meyers, R. (Eds),Handbook of Government Budgeting, Jossey Bass, San Francisco, CA, pp.567-619. Kettl, D. (1992), Deficit Politics, Macmillan Publishing, New York, NY, . Kline, J.K. (1997), "Local government outcome based performance measures and customer standards: has their time come?", The Government Accountants Journal, Vol. 45 No.4, pp.46-50. Public Expenditure Management : World Bank Report (1998)

28

Shah, A. (1998), Balance, Accountability, and Responsiveness: Lessons aboutDecentralization, World Bank, Washington, DC, The World Bank Policy Research Working Paper Series, . Tucker, L. (2000a), GASB SEA Research Case Study: State of Arizona Focus on Performance, Government Accounting Standards Board, Washington, DC, . Tucker, L. (2000b), GASB SEA Research Case Study: State of Illinois Emphasis on Accountability and Managing for Results, Government Accounting Standards Board, Washington, DC, . Tucker, L. (2000c), GASB SEA Research Case Study: State of Texas, Government Accounting Standards Board, Washington, DC, . Young (2003), Case Study: Maine. Use and Effects of Using Performance Measures for Budgeting, Management and Reporting, Government Accounting Standards Board, Washington, DC, . Willoughby, K., Melkers, J. (2000), "Implementing PBB: conflicting views of success", Public Budgeting and Finance, Vol. 20 No.1, pp.105-20.

29