April 2018 | By International Budget Partnership Kenya
Each year Kenya’s Parliament must decide how national revenue will be shared between national and county governments. This discussion is informed by recommendations from the Commission on Revenue Allocation and the National Treasury. This analysis compares the recommendations made by both agencies on the equitable share and conditional grants and explores the main drivers of their differences. Three key issues emerge:
Both agencies do not agree on the revenue growth factor that should be used to determine the growth of the equitable share between 2017/18 and 2018/19.
The formation and allocation to conditional grants do not seem to follow any predictable pattern, and the growth in their allocations from one year to the next appear to be arbitrary.
The distribution criteria for some of these funds is inequitable and unfair to recipients of the funds.
The Public Expenditure and Financial Accountability (PEFA) program is a multidonor partnership that aims to improve how public finances are managed throughout the world. An important function of the program is to measure the quality of public financial management (PFM) systems, processes, and institutions through the PEFA framework.
In early 2014, PEFA called for submissions on how to revise their framework. Together with civil society organizations (CSOs) from around 50 countries, the International Budget Partnership issued a joint response offering three main recommendations on how the framework could be improved:
Strengthen transparency indicators.
Include a new indicator on public participation in budgeting.
Reinstate donor aid indicators.
In late 2014, PEFA issued a newsflash summarizing the submissions they received. Unfortunately, public participation and aid transparency were not included among the revisions under consideration. IBP then teamed up with Publish What You Fund, the Global Initiative for Fiscal Transparency (GIFT), and others to issue a second response (also available in French and Spanish). Additionally, GIFT submitted a proposal on public participation, developed in collaboration with CSOs. This proposal (available in English, French, and Spanish) serves as a helpful resource to shape norms and advocacy on public participation.
Prior to the Open Budget Survey (OBS) 2015, the average overall Open Budget Index transparency score of francophone countries were much lower than those of comparable non-francophone countries. This led some French-speaking observers to question whether the OBS is biased against francophone countries. To answer the question of whether there are specific features of francophone countries’ PFM system that are not captured by the OBS, or that may result in bias, IBP commissioned public finance expert Ian Lienert to examine:
The trends in budget transparency as measured by the Open Budget Index in francophone countries through the OBS 2015.
The main factors contributing to the level of fiscal transparency.
The specific features of francophone countries that may, or may not, contribute to bias in OBS results.
February 2018 | by the International Budget Partnership and United Nations Development Programme
Funds to respond to climate change are likely to be the single largest source of development finance for the foreseeable future, with global estimates upwards of US$100 billion a year. Whether from domestic sources or international assistance, these funds will be managed primarily through government budget systems. Ensuring that these funds are managed effectively and with full accountability is essential.
While there have been efforts to assess the formal accountability systems of countries that will receive, generate, and manage substantial climate change funds, there has been little work to date that assesses the roles, relationships between and among, and interactions of the range of state and nonstate actors in the climate finance “accountability ecosystem.”
In response, the United Nations Development Programme’s Governance of Climate Change Finance Team partnered with the International Budget Partnership to assess these systems in Bangladesh, India, Nepal, and the Philippines. This report establishes a climate finance accountability framework, and examines the the “accountability ecosystems” in which government, formal oversight institutions, civil society, citizens, and media in each country engage in decision making and monitoring of the use of public funds for climate action. It aims to draw lessons and guide actors — both global and domestic — on entry points to strengthen systems.