budget and expenditure analyses for centrally sponsored schemes addressing nutrition in india
TRANSCRIPT
Inter-governmental fiscal transfers: Lessons
from Centrally Sponsored Schemes
New Delhi, 10th November 2016
Why tracking finances matter?
Transparency: Give a sense of how much is being allocated and
spent for nutrition programmes
Resource Adequacy: Can determine gaps in financing and “bang
for buck” analysis
Planning and Decision-Making: Can realign plans with budgets
and determine which functional activity should be taken at which
level
Tool to measure State capacity: A look at expenditures and
decision-making can provide insights into state capacity
Opportunity: Impact
of 14th Finance
Commission
More money flowing
directly to states:
increase in untied
Increase in social sector
spending and higher
shares of expenditure on
social services
21% 23% 25% 26% 29% 31%38% 39% 40% 41% 43% 44% 45%
52%62% 62% 63% 64% 65%
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%
At least 20% increase in central transfers+devolution
Increases in social sector spending
-4%-2%0%2%4%6%8%
Odis
ha
West
…
Kera
la
Hary
ana
Raja
stha
n
Maha
ras…
Him
ach
a…
Bih
ar
Tam
il N
adu
Guj
ara
t
Karn
ata
ka
Chh
attis
…
Pun
jab
Uttara
kh…
Jhark
hand
And
hra…
Uttar…
Tela
ngana
Mad
hya
…
Change in share of budget to social services
Methodology
Unpacking state and union government budgets
Tracking plans, decision-making and utilisation of key social sector programmes
Engaging citizens in data collection process through simple tools
Understanding bureaucracy-time use studies, workflows etc
Most of funding for all social services
comes from state budgets
But state government fund mostly
salaries
0
200,000
400,000
600,000
800,000
1,000,000
1,200,000
20
05
/06
20
06
/07
20
07
/08
20
08
/09
20
09
/10
20
10
/11
20
11
/12
20
12
/13
20
13
/14
20
14
/15
20
15
/16
20
16
/17
Expenditure on social services
Union government State government
Where does social sector funding in India come from?
NA
Source: RBI. Note in Rs. Billions
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Salary Administration Medicine,equipment, etc.
State health budget composition (2004-05)
High income states Middle income states
Low income states
A significant portion of nutrition spending is
from CSS
Important role of the CSSs
0
20000
40000
60000
80000
100000
120000
140000
160000
2013-14 Actuals 2014-15 Actuals
2015-16 Revised Estimates 2016-17 Budget Estimates
Limited fiscal space available at the
Centre
12%
23%
1%
8%
56%
Total Union expenditure (2016-17)
Defence Interest Payments
Loans and Advances Pay and Allowances
Everything else!
Lessons learnt from tracking CSSs
HOW BEST TO USE OUR LIMITED
RESOURCES?
Bottom-up planning has
problemsBut so does top-down planning
Significant difference between what is proposed by states and what is approved
Only 69% of total state proposals for NRHM were approved in 2014-15
Delays in approval process
Disincentives in comprehensive planning
What is a plan process?
Format filling exercise (Bihar’s 32 page SDP format)
District plan:
Plans made but process are rarely taken seriously.
Limited flexibility: Uniform norms across the country
For state government schemes: no plan at all!
Allocations not always releasedReleases are often very delayed, even
for routine activities
Problems in last mile delivery
Example in 2014-15 in Uttar
Pradesh only 54% of funds
approved for NHM were
released to the State
Only 10% of this released till
November 2015.
Salart No
Delay
1m 2m 3m 4m
AWW 78% 7% 5% 3% 8%
And not always
spent wisely!
“We got money for a
boundary wall. But
the real problem in
our school is poor
quality drinking
water” - (Bihar HM)
Funds not always spent
Salaries and Entitlements such as JSY get spent: Limited
expenditure on other components (especially training,
IEC, untied funds, innovations etc)
70%
56%
43%
83%79%79%
72%67%
84%78%
84%
48%
62%
90%
76%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Bihar Chhattisgarh Jharkhand Orissa Uttar Pradesh
Expenditure as a % of RCH Approvals
% spent out of approvals in 2013-14 % spent out of approvals in 2014-15
% spent out of approvals in 2015-16
Opportunity: CSS reform efforts are underway
CSS reforms are underway
• Rationalisation
• Flexibility: Ministries to permit flexibility in the choice of activities to states
• Flexifund: 25% for states and 30% for UTs of the overall allocations under each schemes so that
it can be better structured according to state needs
IT reforms: Public Finance Management Systems to track real-time
release of funds and simplification of approvals
Coupled with 14th Finance Commission Devolution an opportunity for
nationally relevant, targeted and prioritised nutrition expenditures.
With State Governments With Union Government
To ensure that states use additional untied money efficientiy for important nutrition interventions
To propose new programs and interventions which states can undertake
Strengthen quality of grassroots planning (VHSC, AWW, RKS)
To use flexibility in CSSs to meet state-specific priorities
Advocate for greater flexibility to frontline (untied funds, less paperwork)
To ensure that state sectoral
allocations are protected, or
compensated by Union
To play coordinating role in creating
best practices, building States’
capacities
To build more robust monitoring and
evaluation mechanisms for schemes
Regular tracking of fund flows down
till the last mile
Going forward: Advaocacy and Research
