Program Based Budgeting 1

The Implementation of PBB in the Public Sector A Post Implementation Review
Submitted by
October 2012
Bsc Hons in Financial Management with specialisation in Public Finance
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:
Bsc Hons in Financial Management with specialisation in Public Finance 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 Initiative Report (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 , considerable progress 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 the Cabinet 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 to help 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 technical efficiency, expenditure prioritization and improving allocation of resources. One interesting finding from the study is about the mentality of officers at the Ministry ofFinance. 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 not provide a realistic resource allocation to the Ministries. In addition concern has been raised 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
3
Acknowledgement
Table of Content
Page No 1.0 Introduction.. 1.1 Reform in the Public Sector.. 1.2Need for the Study 1.3 Objective of the study.. 1.4 Research Questions... 1.5 Research outline 1.6 Conclusion 2.0 Literature Review. 2.1 Introduction.. 2.2 Budgeting. 2.3 Line Budgeting. 2.4 Performance Budgeting 2.5 Program Budgeting... 2.6PBB -an instrument of Policy Analysis. 2.7 Program Structure. 2.8Program Based Budgeting. 2.9 Program based budgeting as a Planning Process.. 2.10 Dilemma in implementing PBB. 2.11 Changing Form and Behavior.
5
12 12 14 14 15 15 15 16 16 16 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 22 23
Bsc Hons in Financial Management with specialisation in Public Finance 2.12 Performance and Management Information system... 2.13 Conclusion... 3.0 Research Design and Methodology (1192)... 3.1 Introduction.. 3.2 Research Methodology. 3.3 Data Collection Sources 3.4Population and Sampling.... 3.5Response Rate 3.6 Identifying the Constructs 3.7 Questionnaire Design 3.8Scale and measurement.. 3.9 Pilot Testing.. 3.10Data Analysis... 3.11 Ethical Considerations 3.12Conclusion 4.0 Analysis... 4.1 Introduction.. 4.2Demographic Analysis.. 31 4.2.1 Gender ... 4.2.2 Distribution of respondents by Position... 4.2.3 Distribution of Respondents by Ministries... 31 32 33 24 24 25 25 25 25 26 27 28 28 28 29 29 29 30 31 31
Bsc Hons in Financial Management with specialisation in Public Finance 4.2.4 Educational Level.. 4.2.5Involvement in Budgeting.. 4.2.6 Training in PBB.... 4.3 Achieving PBB Objectives... 4.3.1 Objective 1... 4.3.2 Objective 2... 4.3.3 Objective 3. 4.3.4 Objective 4... 4.3.5 Objective 5... 4.3.6 Objective6.. 4.3.7 Objective7...... 4.3.8 Overall Assessment 4.4 Rating by grade of officers... 4.5 The Implementation of PBB. 4.5.1 Rules and Regulations 4.5.2 Budget Policy and Planning Processes... 4.5.3 Budget Preparation Practices..... 4.5.4 Budget Execution and Accounting System.... 4.5.5 Monitoring and Evaluation 4.5.6 Performance Measurement 4.5.7Audit... 34 35 36 37 37 39 41 43 45 47 49 51 52 54 54 56 56 57 58 59 60
Bsc Hons in Financial Management with specialisation in Public Finance 4.6 Conclusion. 5.0 Conclusion and Recommendations......................................................... 5.1 Introduction............................................................................................ 5.2 Conclusion............................................................................................... 5.3 Recommendations. 5.3.1 Training.. 5.3.2 New Mindset of Budgeting Officers. 5.3.3 Program Evaluation and Performance Management. 5.3.4 Benchmarking 5.3.5Internal Audit. 5.3.6The Financial Information System.. 5.3.7 Gender Responsive Budgeting.. 5.4 Conclusion Questionnaire.. Section A. Section B. Section C Section D. Bibliography 61 62 62 62 65 65 65 65 65 66 66 66 66 67 68 69 73 74 77
List of Tables
Page No Table 1: Ministries. Table 2: Responses. Table 3: Scale.. Table 4: Gender. Table 5: Distribution of respondents by Position. Table 6: Distribution of Respondents by Ministries.. Table 7: Educational Level... Table 8: Involvement in Budgeting Table 9: Training in PBB.. Table 10: Objective 1 Table 11: Overall Achievement-Objective 1... 27 27 29 31 32 33 34 35 36 38 38 40 40 42 42 44 44 46 46
Table 12: Objective 2.. Table 13: Overall Achievement - Objective 2 Table 14: Objective 3.. Table 15: Overall Achievement: Objective 3. Table 16: Objective 4.. Table 17: Overall Achievement -Objective 4. Table 18: Objective 5. Table 19: Overall Achievement -Objective 5.
9
Bsc Hons in Financial Management with specialisation in Public Finance Table 20: Objective 6.. Table 21: Overall Achievement -Objective 6 Table 22: Objective 7.. Table 23: Overall Achievement- Objective 7 Table 24: Overall Achievement.. Table 25: Rating by grade of officers. Table 26: Rules and Regulations Table 27: Budget Policy and Planning Processes... Table 28: Budget Preparation Practices. Table 29: Budget Execution and Accounting System... Table 30: Monitoring and Evaluation. Table 31: Performance Measurement. Table 32: Audit... 48 48 49 50 51 53 55 56 57 57 58 59 61
10
List of Figures
Page No Figure 1: Gender Figure 2: Distribution of respondents by Position.. Figure 3: Distribution of Respondents by Ministries. Figure 4: Educational Level Figure 5: Involvement in Budgeting Figure 6: Training in PBB Figure 7: Overall Achievement-Objective 1... Figure 8: Overall Achievement - Objective 2. Figure 9: Overall Achievement - Objective 3. Figure 10: Overall Achievement -Objective 4 Figure 11: Overall Achievement -Objective 5 Figure 12: Overall Achievement -Objective 6 Figure 13: Overall Achievement -Objective 7 32 33 34 35 36 37 39 41 43 45 47 49 50
11
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. 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.
12
Bsc Hons in Financial Management with specialisation in Public Finance 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 decisionmaking 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.Since its 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
13
Bsc Hons in Financial Management with specialisation in Public Finance 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 PBBimplementation in 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
14
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 investigated and the place where the study has been conducted .In addition, the research questions and objectives are discussed. ii. iii. The second chapter reviews literature on PBB 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 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 and acknowledges the inherent
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
15
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
16
Bsc Hons in Financial Management with specialisation in Public Finance 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 on a 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 measuring the 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 integration of activity information and budgeting. significant becauseit emphasized the
17
Bsc Hons in Financial Management with specialisation in Public Finance 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 costeffectivenessof 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.
18
Bsc Hons in Financial Management with specialisation in Public Finance 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)
19
Bsc Hons in Financial Management with specialisation in Public Finance 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
20
Bsc Hons in Financial Management with specialisation in Public Finance 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
21
Bsc Hons in Financial Management with specialisation in Public Finance 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.
22
Bsc Hons in Financial Management with specialisation in Public Finance 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
23
Bsc Hons in Financial Management with specialisation in Public Finance 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.
24
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
25
Bsc Hons in Financial Management with specialisation in Public Finance 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 weight was given to large Ministries. Thisis given in the table below:
26
Bsc Hons in Financial Management with specialisation in Public Finance Ministries Ministry of Health Ministry of Education and HR Ministry of Public Infrastructure Ministry of Finance Ministry of Civil Service Affairs and A.R Ministry of Public Utilities Ministry of Labor, industrial relation and Employment Ministry of agro industry and fisheries Table 1: Ministries Category Large Large Large Medium Small Large Small Medium Number of Officers 42 49 22 96 5 12 6 18 SAMPLE 21 25 11 22 5 12 6 10
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 Ministry of Health Ministry of Education and HR Ministry of Public Infrastructure Ministry of Finance Ministry of Civil Service Affairs and A.R Ministry of Public Utilities Ministry of Labor , industrial relation and Employment Ministry of agro industry and fisheries Total Table 2: Responses
27
Sample 21 25 11 22 5 12 6 10 112
Responses Response rate (%) 1 7 6 5 4 3 3 2 31 4 28 54 22 80 25 50 20
Bsc Hons in Financial Management with specialisation in Public Finance 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 Scale choices. 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:
28
Bsc Hons in Financial Management with specialisation in Public Finance S.N 1 2 3 4 5 Strongly disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly agree Abbreviations Scale S.D D N A SD 1 2 3 4 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
29
Bsc Hons in Financial Management with specialisation in Public Finance 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.
30
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 Male Female Total 18 13 31
Percent Cumulative Percent 58.1 41.9 100.0 58.1 100.0
Table 4: Gender 18 respondentsare male (58 %) and 13 respondents are female (42%). This information is illustrated in a pie chart below:
31
f emale
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 Percent Assistant Manager, 3 9.7 9.7 Financial Operation Senior Financial 5 16.1 25.8 Operations Officer Financial 8 25.8 51.6 Operations Officer Assistant Financial 15 48.4 100.0 Operations Officer 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
32
Bsc Hons in Financial Management with specialisation in Public Finance Operations Officers and 15 are Assistant Financial Operations Officers. This information is presented in the chart below:
16 14 12 10 8 6 4
Count
2 0 Assistant Manager, Financial Operations Assistant Financial Senior Financial Op
position
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 1 7 6 5 4 3 3 2 31 Percent 3.2 22.6 19.4 16.1 12.9 9.7 9.7 6.5 100.0 Cumulative Percent 3.2 25.8 45.2 61.3 74.2 83.9 93.5 100.0
Ministry of Health Ministry of education and HR Ministry of Public Infrastructure Ministry of Finance Ministry of Civil Service Affairs and A.R Ministry of Public Utilities Ministry of Labor , industrial relation and Employment Ministry of agro industry and Fisheries Total
Table 6: Distribution of Respondents by Ministries

33
Bsc Hons in Financial Management with specialisation in Public Finance 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:
8 7 6 5 4 3 2
Count
1 0
in ro ag of , ur try is bo in La M of U try is li c in ub M P of try Se is il in iv M C of e try nc is in na M Fi of I try is li c in ub M P of io try at is uc in ed M of try is l th in M ea H of
try is in M
Ministry
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 up to S.C up to HSC Degree Masters or Professional Total
Frequency Percent 13 14 3 1 31 41.9 45.2 9.7 3.2 100.0
Cumulative Percent 41.9 87.1 96.8 100.0
Table 7: Educational Level
34
Bsc Hons in Financial Management with specialisation in Public Finance 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:
16 14
12 10
6 4
Count
2 0 up to S.C up to HSC Degree Masters or Prof essio
education
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 Low Moderate High Total 2 9 20 31 6.5 29.0 64.5 100.0 Cumulative Percent 6.5 35.5 100.0
Table 8: Involvement in Budgeting
35
Bsc Hons in Financial Management with specialisation in Public Finance 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:
low
moderate
high
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: Training No training Limited training Extensive Training Total Frequency Percent 18 7 6 31 58.1 22.6 19.4 100.0 Valid Percent 58.1 22.6 19.4 100.0 Cumulative Percent 58.1 80.6 100.0
Valid
Table 9: Training in PBB
36
Bsc Hons in Financial Management with specialisation in Public Finance 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.
20 18
16 14
12
10 8
Count
6 4 no training limited training extensive trainin
trainning in PBB
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.
37
Bsc Hons in Financial Management with specialisation in Public Finance This objective has been framed under two questions. The responses are tabulated below: SN STATEMENTS 1 PBB is now providing a 1 framework for public financial management which is more resultsoriented PBB is now making 3 Public Financial Management to be more geared to achieving development outcomes Overall mean S.D 4 D 3 N A 16 SD 7 MEAN S>D 3.7742 1.0555
13
3.4516
1.2607
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 Between 1 and 2 Between 2 and 3 Between 3 and 4 Between 4 and 5 Total
Frequency 5 9 15 2
Percent 16 29 48 7 100
Category Poor achievement Average achievement Good achievement Excellent achievement
Table 11: Overall Achievement-Objective 1
38
Bsc Hons in Financial Management with specialisation in Public Finance 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 analysis is depicted below:
14
The result of the
12
10
Std. Dev = .77 Mean = 3.61 N = 31.00 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 4.50 5.00
OBJ1
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:
39
Bsc Hons in Financial Management with specialisation in Public Finance SN STATEMENTS 1. PBB is promoting a high quality, client-responsive public services PBB is now maximizing value for money in service delivery Overall mean score S.D 1 D 4 N 7 A 13 SD 6 MEAN S>D 3.6129 1.0544
2.
12
2.6452
1.1986
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 Between 1 and 2 Between 2 and 3 Between 3 and 4 Between 4 and 5 Total Frequency 0 12 11 8 Percent 0 39 35 26 100 Category Poor achievement Average achievement Good achievement Excellent achievement
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
40
Bsc Hons in Financial Management with specialisation in Public Finance 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:
10
2 Std. Dev = .88 Mean = 3.13 0 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 4.50 N = 31.00
OBJ2
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:
41
Bsc Hons in Financial Management with specialisation in Public Finance STATEMENTS 1 PBB is using performance and evaluation data for policy planning and management 2 PBB is enhancing operational and technical efficiency, 3 PBB is enhancing expenditure prioritization 4 PBB is improving allocation of resources; Overall mean score 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 S.D 8 D 8 N 3 A 11 SD 1 MEAN S>D 2.6452 1.3051
18
3.9355
1.0307
5 3
12 12
1 5
6 7
7 4
2.9355 2.9032 3.1048
1.4818 1.2478 .7123
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 and management. 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 Between 1 and 2 Between 2 and 3 Between 3 and 4 Between 4 and 5 Total Frequency 0 14 12 5 Percent Category 0 Poor achievement 45 39 16 100 Average achievement Good achievement Excellent achievement
Table 15: Overall Achievement: Objective 3
42
Bsc Hons in Financial Management with specialisation in Public Finance 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:
12
10
Std. Dev = .71 Mean = 3.10 N = 31.00 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 4.50 5.00
OBJ3
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:
43
Bsc Hons in Financial Management with specialisation in Public Finance SN STATEMENTS 1. PBB is providing information to help reallocate resources within and between programs and sub-programs PBB is helping to reduce expenditure which are not necessary (efficiency gain ) Overall mean score S.D 6 D 5 N 8 A 12 SD 0 MEAN S>D 2.8387 1.1575
2.
10
10
3.1290
1.2039
2.9839
1.7581
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 Between 1 and 2 Between 2 and 3 Between 3 and 4 Between 4 and 5 Total Frequency 0 10 15 6 Percent 32 48 20 100 Category Poor achievement Average achievement Good achievement Excellent achievement
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
44
Bsc Hons in Financial Management with specialisation in Public Finance 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:
14
12
10
Std. Dev = .76 Mean = 2.98 N = 31.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 4.50
OBJ4
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:
45
Bsc Hons in Financial Management with specialisation in Public Finance SN STATEMENTS 1. PBB has institutionalized gender equity throughout the process of aligning budgets to policy priorities PBB has increased transparency in the public sector PBB has increased accountability in the public sector Overall mean score S.D 9 D 15 N 2 A 3 SD 0 MEAN S>D 2.1613 1.1575
2.
14
3.2903
1.3464
3.
16
3.7742
1.1463
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 Between 1 and 2 Between 2 and 3 Between 3 and 4 Between 4 and 5 Total Frequency 0 11 18 2 Percent Category 0 Poor achievement 36 58 6 100 Average achievement Good achievement Excellent achievement
Table 19: Overall Achievement -Objective 5
46
Bsc Hons in Financial Management with specialisation in Public Finance 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:
14
12
10
Std. Dev = .59 Mean = 3.08 N = 31.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 4.50
OBJ
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:
47
Bsc Hons in Financial Management with specialisation in Public Finance STATEMENTS PBB has improved effectiveness of government Ministries /Departments when developing and implementing their programs and sub-programs of activities Overall mean score S.D 2 D 6 N 1 A 10 SD 12 MEAN S>D 3.7742 1.3344
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 Between 1 and 2 Between 2 and 3 Between 3 and 4 Between 4 and 5 Total Frequency Percent Category 2 6 1 22 7 19 3 71 100 Poor achievement Average achievement Good achievement Excellent achievement
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 or excellent. Assuch, it can be concluded that much progress has been made on this objective The above data is illustrated in the table below:
48
14
12
10
Std. Dev = 1.33 Mean = 3.8 N = 31.00 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0
OB6J
4.3.7Objective7 Objective 7: To provide more concrete information to the Cabinet on performance for decision 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 PBB is providing more concrete information to the Cabinet on performance for decision making purposes Overall mean score S.D 3 D 7 N 0 A 10 SD 11 MEAN 3.6129 S>D 1.4301
3.3226
.9447

49
Bsc Hons in Financial Management with specialisation in Public Finance 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 Between 1 and 2 2 7 Between 2 and 3 6 19 Between 3 and 4 11 35 Between 4 and 5 12 39 Total score 100 Table 23: Overall Achievement- Objective 7 Category Poor achievement Average achievement Good achievement Excellent achievement
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:
10
2 Std. Dev = .94 Mean = 3.32 0 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 4.50 5.00 N = 31.00
OBJ7
50
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 Objective5 Statement To institutionalize gender equity throughout the process of aligning budgets to policy priorities and increasing the transparency and accountability of the system To reform the framework governing public management in order to make it moreresults-oriented and geared to achieving development outcomes; To provide more concrete information to the Cabinet on performance for decisionmakingpurposes and for setting future targets and priorities. To promote high quality, client-responsive public services and to maximize value formoney in service delivery; To improve effectiveness of government Ministries /Departments when developing and implementing their programs and sub-programs of activities; To provide information to help reallocate resources within and between programs and sub-programs and to help reduce expenditure when necessary(efficiencysavings) 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 Mean Score 3.7742 Ranking 1st
Objective1
3.6129
2nd
Objective 7
3.3226
3rd
Objective2
3.1290
4th
Objective 6
3.0753
5th
Objective 4
2.9839
6th
Objective3
2.9032
7th
Table 24: Overall Achievement
51
Bsc Hons in Financial Management with specialisation in Public Finance 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:
52
SN STATEMENTS 1 To reform the framework governing public management in order to make it moreresultsoriented and geared to achieving development outcomes To promote high quality, client-responsive public services and to maximize value for money in service delivery 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 To provide information to help reallocate resources within and between programs and sub-programs and to help reduce expenditure when necessary (efficiency savings) To institutionalize gender equity throughout the process of aligning budgets to policy priorities and increasing the transparency and accountability of the system To improve effectiveness of government Ministries /Departments when developing and implementing their programs and subprograms of activities To provide more concrete information to the Cabinet on performance for decision making purposes and for setting future targets and priorities.
AM 1
SFO FO AFO TOTAL 0 2 2 5
10
14
10
11
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
53
Bsc Hons in Financial Management with specialisation in Public Finance 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 in achieving 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:
54
SN 1
STATEMENTS The existing budgetary rules and regulation assist your Ministry to deliver an effective service Extra budgetary funds are now more transparent There are incentives for working with the best possible estimates of resources Next years budget is not based primarily on what was spent in, or appropriated for, this year. The Ministry of Finance is not relentlessly pursuing savings at the cost of program implementation The Rules require timely publication of information for transparency and to enhance accountability and credibility
S.D 4
D 5
N 3
A 9
SA 10
MEAN 3.5161
2 3
1 3
11 10
0 1
15 9
4 8
3.3226 3.2903
12
2.9677
12
2.8387
16
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).
55
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 1 Policy and planning by the Ministry of Finance provides a realisticresource allocation to your Ministry Governments policies are clearly articulated for your Ministry Affordability by Government influences the policies and strategies of your Ministry
S.D D 7 12
N 2
A 5
SA 5
MEAN 2.6452
2 3
1 4
7 7
3 2
17 12
3 6
3.4516 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:
56
Bsc Hons in Financial Management with specialisation in Public Finance SN 1 2 STATEMENTS The budget circular is timely and provides a clear set of rules for the budget process Sufficient time is devoted by the Ministry of Finance to your Ministry to consider the funding of new policy and priority S.D D 5 6 7 8 N 0 1 A 13 10 S.A MEAN 6 6 3.3913 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 1 The accounting system is fully operational 2 The FMM manuals provide a comprehensive overview of the new accounting system. 3 Budget execution data (revenue and expenditures) are prepared in a timely manner
S.D 2 2
D 6 6
N 1 4
A 11 10
SA MEAN 7 9 3.3548 3.5806
13
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:
57
Bsc Hons in Financial Management with specialisation in Public Finance 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 1 2 3 There is a system in the Ministry to conduct program evaluation The result of the evaluation is published Client surveys are routinely and frequently carried out as part of these evaluations S.D 3 11 7 D 12 15 13 N 16 5 8 A 0 0 2 SA 0 0 1 MEAN 2.4194 1.8065 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 not
published
58

c. Client surveys are not routinely and frequently beingcarried out as part of these
evaluations
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
1
STATEMENTS Nonfinancial data are accumulated andprocessed for purposes of performancemeasurement There is a uniform flow of information (financial and nonfinancial data) to management during the budget cycle Government fosters an environment thatsupports and demands performance There are feedback mechanisms to supply data on performance, and data are published
S.D
S.A
MEAN
12
10
2.9032
17
2.9032
10
7 3.3558
23
2.3226
There is a systematic collection, analysis andreporting of performance information to verifycompliance with strategic goals Your Ministry benchmark its performance with otherMinistries
13
2.9677
10
19
2.5484
Table 31: Performance Measurement
59
Bsc Hons in Financial Management with specialisation in Public Finance 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 internal control unit in Ministries carries out the internal audit The Director of Audit report is tabled in the Legislative Assembly and it is examined by the Public Account Committee.
60
Bsc Hons in Financial Management with specialisation in Public Finance In this respect, the views of the respondents have been sought on the institutionsin term of their capacity to operate under PBB . The relevant data is given in the table below:
SN
1
STATEMENTS
SD
SA
MEAN
The National Audit Office has a capacity to do conduct performance audit. The PAC will now be provided with better information on performance of Ministries The internal control in your Ministry has a capacity to do conduct performance audit.
13
3.6129
10
3.5484
12
2.8387
Table 32: Audit
From the above information, respondents are of the view that the
Audit Office has a
capacity to do conduct performance audit. (M=3.6129 but they have some apprehension concerning the internal control unit in their respective ministries (M=2.8387). Overall, respondents are of the view that the Public Account Committee will nowbe provided with better information on performance of Ministries.
4.6 Conclusion
This chapter has analyzed the data that are contained in the questionnaires. The nest chapter will conclude the study and it will also provide some recommendations for further improving the PBB process.
61
5.0 Conclusion and Recommendations

5.1 Introduction
The previous chapter has analysed the questionnaire from the survey .This chapter conclude the study and make recommendations for improving the effectiveness of PBB implementation
5.2 Conclusion
The aim of PBB is to attain 7 objectives in the management of public fund. The study shows that some progress has been made with respect to 4 objectives.
1) PBB has increased transparency and accountability in the system,
2) Public management is more results-oriented and geared to achievingdevelopment outcomes, 3) PBB is providing more concrete information to the Cabinet on performance for decision making purposes and for setting future targets and priorities and 4) It is promoting high quality, client-responsive public services which are aimed at maximizing value for money in service delivery.
However, slow progress is noted with respect to 3 objectives. The main areas of concern are: i. improving effectiveness of government Ministries /Departments to develop
and implement their programs and sub-programs of activities
ii.
providing information to help reallocate resources within and between program and sub-programs and reducing expenditure as part of efficiency gain
iii.
Using performance and evaluation data for policy planning and management purposes andenhancing operational and technical efficiency, expenditure
62
Bsc Hons in Financial Management with specialisation in Public Finance prioritization and improving allocation of resources. The otherspecific area which has received a low rating isthe institutionalization of gender equity through policy priorities.
The analysis point out that in general , officers in the Assistant Manager are not satisfied with the system of allocating resource between programs and sub programs .As for Senior Finance officers , they have opined that PBB has not set out the framework to make public financial management to be more results-oriented and geared to achieving development outcomes;
Finance Officers have in general a certain apprehension on use of 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. This view is shared by the Assistant Finance Officers.
In addition, Assistant Finance Officers are of the view that notmuch progress has been made in respect of institutionalizing gender equity throughout the process of aligning budgets to policy priorities and increasing the transparency and accountability of the system.
The study points out that the mentality of officers at the Ministry of the Ministry has 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 processat the Ministry of Finance does not provide a realistic resource allocation to the Ministries. In addition concern hasbeen raised with respect to the time devoted by the Ministry of Finance to consider the budget of a Ministry.
63
Bsc Hons in Financial Management with specialisation in Public Finance On the positive side, the accounting system is fully operational, the FMM manual
provide a comprehensive overview of the new accounting system and budget execution data (revenue and expenditures) are prepared in a timely manner.
With respect to program evaluation, many criticism have been made in particular, there is a not an inadequate system in the Ministry to conduct program evaluation, , the result of the evaluation is not published and client surveys are not routinely and frequently being carried out as part of these evaluations.
In general, it is noted that that respondents have given a relatively high rating to Government initiative to foster an environment that supports and demands performance.
However, the performance management system has been considered to be stale in view that nonfinancial data are not being accumulated and processed for purposes of performance measurement. There is not auniform flow of information (financial and non financialdata) to management during the budget cycle, there are no feedback mechanisms to supply data on performance, and data are not published. Moreover, there isnot a systematic collection, analysis and reporting of performance information to verify compliance with strategic goals. Finally it is noted that benchmarking technique is not being used to compare performance with other Ministries.
Respondents are of the view that the Audit Office has a capacity to do conduct performance audit but they have some apprehension concerning the internal control unit in their respective ministries Overall, respondents are of the view that the Public Account Committee will now be provided with better information on performance of Ministries.
64
5.3 Recommendations
In order to further improve the effectiveness of PBB implementation, the following recommendations are being made:
5.3.1 Training
The study shows that officers in the Financial Operation Cadre have not been adequately trained. It has been reported that this was due to the late publication of the PBB manual. In view that the manual is now available, the Ministry of Civil Service Affairs and the Ministry of Finance should organize training for officers in this cadre.It is suggested that new ways of training could be explored such as e learning or distance education.
5.3.2 New Mindset of Budgeting Officers

The study shows that officers at the Ministry of Finance are using the same attitude and mentality that was prevalent under the line item budgeting. It is suggested that there should be some effort on the part of the officers of the Ministry of Finance to adopt a muchmore positive attitude with Line Ministries.
5.3.3 Program Evaluation and Performance Management

In view that the PBB is operational in all ministries and enough experience have been gained, it is recommended that the next phase should concentrate on program evaluation and performance management.
5.3.4 Benchmarking
Benchmarking is a technique which is widely used in the private sector. It is recommended that benchmarking technique should be encouraged in the public sector.
65
5.3.5Internal Audit
The study shows that there is some apprehension on the part of the respondents on the capability of the Internal Control Unit to conduct performance Audit. In this respect, it is recommended that internal auditors should be trained in performance auditing.
5.3.6The Financial Information System

It has been gathered from the study that the current MIS is poor with respect to the collection of non financial data. This is an area that needs to be addressed by the authorities.
5.3.7 Gender Responsive Budgeting

The analysis has shown that gender based budgeting has not been implemented in Ministries. In view that it a component of the PBB framework, it is suggested that the Ministry of Finance should take the initiative to promote Gender Responsive Budgeting in the public sector.
5.4 Conclusion
The study has dealt with the effectiveness of PBB and the implementation of the PBB framework in 8 out of the 22 Ministries. It is suggested that similar studies be carried out in the other 14 Ministries.
66
QUESTIONNAIRE
Appendix AQuestionnaire
67
SECTION A
1. Gender
Female
Male
2. Position
Assistant Manager, Financial Operation Senior Financial Operations Officer Financial Operations Officer Assistant Financial Operations Officer
3. Ministry
.
4. Involvement in the preparation of the Budget
Low Moderate High
3 Training in PBB
No training Limited Extensive Training
68
SECTION B
(i)
OBJECTIVES OF PBB
On the scale provided under each statement, list the degree that you believe that PBB is meeting its objectives. Please circle the statement below.
1. PBB is now providinga framework forpublic financialmanagement whichis more results-oriented
2. PBB is now making Public Financial Management to be more geared to achieving development outcomes 1 2 3 4 5
3. PBB is now promoting a high quality, client-responsive public services 1 2 3 4 5
4. PBB isnow maximizing value for money in service delivery;
5. PBB is using performance and evaluation data for policy planning and managementpurposes,
5
69
6. PBB isenhancing operational and technical efficiency,
7. PBB is enhancing expenditure prioritization
8. PBB isimproving allocation of resources
9. PBB is providing information to help reallocate resources within and between programsand sub-programs
10. PBB is helpingto reduce expenditure which is not necessary (efficiency savings)
11. PBBhas institutionalized gender equity throughout the process of aligning budgets to policy priorities
70
12. PBB hasincreased transparency in the public sector
13. PBB has improved effectiveness of government Ministries /Departments when developingand implementing their programs and sub-programs of activities
14. PBB isnow providing more concrete information to the Cabinet on performance for decisionmakingpurposes and for setting future targets and priorities.
15. PBB has increased accountability in the public sector
71
SECTION B (ii) PRATICES ON LAW AND RULES
SN
1.
STATEMENTS
S.D
MEAN
The existing budgetary rules and regulation assist your Ministry to deliver an effective service
2.
Extra budgetary funds are now more transparent
3.
There are incentives for working with the best possible estimates of resources. Next years budget is not based primarily on what was spent in, or appropriated for, this year.
4.
5.
The Ministry of Finance is not relentlessly pursuing savings at the cost of program implementation
6.
The Rules require timely publication of information for transparency and to enhance accountability and credibility.
72
SECTION C
BUDGET POLICY AND PLANNING PRACTICES
SN
STATEMENTS
Very Poor Acceptable Good Excellent poor
1.
Policy and planning by the Ministry of Finance provides a realistic resource allocation to your Ministry
2.
Governments policies are clearly articulated for your Ministry
3.
Affordability by Government influences the policies and strategies of your Ministry
73
SECTION D (i) BUDGET PREPARATION PRACTICES
SN
STATEMENTS
Very poor Acceptable Good Excellent poor
1.
2.
The budget circular is timely and provides a clear set of rules for the budget process Sufficient time is devoted by the Ministry of Finance to your Ministry to consider the funding of new policy and priority
(ii)
ACCOUNTING SUBSYSTEM
SN
STATEMENTS
Very Poor Acceptable Good Excellent poor
.1 2. 3.
4.
The chart of accounts is comprehensive The accounting system is fully operational The FMM manuals a comprehensive overview of the new accounting system. Budget execution data (revenue andexpenditures) are prepared in a timely manner
74
(iii)
SN
EVALUATION
STATEMENTS Very Poor Acceptable Good Excellent poor
1 2 3
There is a system in the Ministry to conduct program evaluation The result of the evaluation is published Client surveys are routinely and frequentlycarried out as part of these evaluations
(iv)
PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT
SN
STATEMENTS
Very poor Acceptable Good Excellent poor
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Nonfinancial data are accumulated andprocessed for purposes of performancemeasurement There is a uniform flow of information to management during the budget cycle Government fosters an environment thatsupports and demands performance There are feedback mechanisms to supply data on performance, and data are published There is a systematic collection, analysis andreporting of performance information to verify compliance with strategic goals Your Ministry benchmark its performance with other Ministries
75
(v)
AUDIT
SN 1.
STATEMENTS Audit Office has a capacity to do conduct performance audit
SD
SA
2.
The PAC will now be provided with better information on performance of Ministries
3.
The internal control in your Ministry has a capacity to conduct performance audit
76
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. Chin, Young Kon, Current Fiscal Reform Effort of Korea, and Ministry of Planning and Budget, November 2004. Diamond, Jack, From Program to Performance Budgeting: The Challenges for Emerging Market Economies, IMF Working Paper, WP/03/169, June 2003 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 resultsbased 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. Novick, David, Which Program Did We Mean in Program Budgeting, The Rand Corporation, May 1954
Public Financial Management assessment for Mauritius based on PEFA Report (2007)
Premchand A. (2001), "Public Budgeting And Economic Development: Evolution And Practice Of An Idea", International Journal Of Public Administration, P.1023.
77
Bsc Hons in Financial Management with specialisation in Public Finance .Pearson, Mark (2002), "Medium Term Expenditure Frameworks (MTEFs)", DFID's Health Systems Resource Centre for the UK Department for International Development, London. Pollitt, Christopher, Bouckaert, Geert, Public Management Reform, Oxford, 2000 Programme-based budgeting Experiences and lessons from Mauritius CABRI Joint COUNT RY case study (JCCS) June 2010 Allen, Richard and Daniel Tommasi (2001), Managing Public Expenditure A Reference Book for Transition Countries, SIGMA, OECD. Rajaram, Anand and Mallika Krishnamurthy (2001), "Public Expenditure Management and Accountability: Evolution and Current Status of World Bank Work", Poverty Reduction and Economic Management Network Operation Policy and Country Services Network, (April). Schick, Allen (2001), "The Changing Role of the Central Budget Office",OECD Journal on Budgeting, Volume 1, No. 1. Shah, A. (1998), Balance, Accountability, and Responsiveness: Lessons about Decentralization, World Bank, Washington, DC, The World Bank Policy Research Working Paper Series, . Schick, A. (1998b) Why Most Developing Countries Should Not Try New Zealand Reform In World Bank Observer vol. 13 no.1 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.
78
Bsc Hons in Financial Management with specialisation in Public Finance The World Bank (1998), "Public Expenditure Management Handbook", Washington, D.C., The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development/ The World Bank, p.17-52.
79

Program Based Budgeting 1

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Program Based Budgeting 1

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Implementation of PBB in the Public Sector A Post Implementation Review

Bsc Hons in Financial Management with specialisation in Public Finance

Bsc Hons in Financial Management with specialisation in Public Finance

Bsc Hons in Financial Management with specialisation in Public Finance

Bsc Hons in Financial Management with specialisation in Public Finance

Bsc Hons in Financial Management with specialisation in Public Finance

Bsc Hons in Financial Management with specialisation in Public Finance

1.2Need for the Study

1.3Objective of the study

Bsc Hons in Financial Management with specialisation in Public Finance

1.4 Research Questions

Bsc Hons in Financial Management with specialisation in Public Finance

2.0 Literature Review (2571 words)

2.3 Line Budgeting

2.4 Performance Budgeting

2.5 Program Budgeting

2.6PBB -an instrument of Policy Analysis

2.7 Program Structure

2.8Program Based Budgeting as a means of Improving Managerial Performance

2.9 Program based budgeting as a Planning Process

2.10 Dilemma in implementing PBB

2.11 Changing Form and Behavior

2.12 Performance and Management Information system

Bsc Hons in Financial Management with specialisation in Public Finance

3.0 Research Design and Methodology (1192)

conduct a research have also been highlighted.

3.2 Research Methodology

3.3 Data Collection Sources

3.4Population and Sampling

Responses Response rate (%) 1 7 6 5 4 3 3 2 31 4 28 54 22 80 25 50 20

3.6 Identifying the Constructs

3.7 Questionnaire Design

3.8Scale and measurement

3.9 Pilot Testing

3.11 Ethical Considerations

Bsc Hons in Financial Management with specialisation in Public Finance

This part presents the demographic profile of the respondents.

Gender Frequency Male Female Total 18 13 31

Percent Cumulative Percent 58.1 41.9 100.0 58.1 100.0

Bsc Hons in Financial Management with specialisation in Public Finance

4.2.2 Distribution of respondents by Position

2 0 Assistant Manager, Financial Operations Assistant Financial Senior Financial Op

Figure 2: Distribution of respondents by Position

4.2.3 Distribution of Respondents by Ministries

Table 6: Distribution of Respondents by Ministries

in ro ag of , ur try is bo in La M of U try is li c in ub M P of try Se is il in iv M C of e try nc is in na M Fi of I try is li c in ub M P of io try at is uc in ed M of try is l th in M ea H of

Figure 3: Distribution of Respondents by Ministries

4.2.4 Educational Level

Education up to S.C up to HSC Degree Masters or Professional Total

Frequency Percent 13 14 3 1 31 41.9 45.2 9.7 3.2 100.0

Cumulative Percent 41.9 87.1 96.8 100.0

Table 7: Educational Level

2 0 up to S.C up to HSC Degree Masters or Prof essio

Figure 4: Educational Level

Table 8: Involvement in Budgeting

Figure 5: Involvement in Budgeting

4.2.6 Training in PBB

Table 9: Training in PBB

6 4 no training limited training extensive trainin

Figure 6: Training in PBB

4.3 Achieving PBB Objectives

Table 10: Objective 1

Category Poor achievement Average achievement Good achievement Excellent achievement