Abstract
Donors have provided foreign aid in the form of budget support in order not only to promote growth and poverty reduction but increasingly also to strengthen domestic accountability in the recipient country. Yet, despite numerous studies and evaluations, little information has been provided on how individual elements of budget support work towards domestic accountability. This article reconstructs the donors’ accountability-claim and hypothesises effects of budget support on budget transparency and domestic accountability. Evidence from empirical research in Mozambique confirms the effectiveness of budget support to improve budget transparency, and therefore supports the core accountability-claim. Moreover, the article provides insights from the demand-side, where domestic accountability institutions play an active role in the process of answerability.
Abstract
Les donneurs ont attribué des aides étrangères sous la forme d’un soutien budgétaire dans le but de promouvoir la croissance et de réduire la pauvreté mais également de plus en plus pour renforcer la responsabilité nationale dans le pays bénéficiaire. Désormais, malgré de nombreuses études et évaluations, peu d’informations sur la manière dont les éléments individuels sur le travail d’aide budgétaire envers le pays bénéficiaire ont été divulguées. Cet article reconstitue l’affirmation de responsabilité des donneurs et d’hypothétiques effets de l’aide budgétaire sur la transparence budgétaire et sur la responsabilité nationale. Une preuve provenant d’une recherche empirique au Mozambique confirme l’efficacité de l’aide budgétaire pour améliorer la transparence budgétaire et ainsi aider le cœur de l’affirmation de responsabilité. De plus, l’article fournit des aperçus du côté de la demande, où les institutions de la responsabilité nationale jouent un rôle actif dans le processus de responsabilité.
Notes
Early expectations of budget support comprise reduced transaction costs, greater predictability of aid flows, increased allocative efficiency in public spending, increased effectiveness of the state and public administration, and stronger domestic accountability (Lawson et al, 2003).
In 2005, the international community agreed upon five principles to improve the effectiveness of foreign aid by signing the Paris Declaration on aid effectiveness. These principles comprise: (i) ownership, (ii) alignment, (III) harmonisation, (iv) managing for results, (v) mutual accountability. These principles have been reaffirmed in subsequent agreements in Accra (2008) and Busan (2011).
The views and assessments have been attained during a field trip to Maputo in May/June 2014 in semi-structured interviews with representatives from CSO, parliament, media firms, governance experts as well as budget support donors. The empirical work presented in this paper substantially benefited from the author being embedded into an evaluation of accompanying measures to budget support (see Krisch et al, 2015) by the German Institute for Development Evaluation (DEval).
A recent evaluation of budget support to Mozambique, for instance, did not take into account the perspective of representatives from DAI (Lawson et al, 2014).
Narrow definitions like Huntington’s (1991) ‘two turnover’ concept have been opposed by more comprehensive and continuous understandings of democratic consolidation (see Przeworski, 1991; Linz and Stepan, 1996; O’Donnell, 1996; Diamond, 1997).
This article adopts the definition of democracy as ‘liberal democracies’ inherent to Schedler’s (1998) concept. Concurring with Robert Dahl’s concept of polyarchy, a liberal democracy entails civil and political rights as well as fair, competitive and inclusive elections (see Schedler, 1998, p. 92).
The most widely-shared intervention logic, applied in numerous multi-donor evaluations of budget support, has been established by OECD/DAC (2012, p. 9).
In addition, budget transparency has been described as pre-requisite for increased domestic accountability in various strategy documents and evaluations (EC, 2008, p. 19; DFID, 2011, p. 6; Dijkstra et al, 2012, p. 35; EC, 2012, p. 39; DANIDA, 2013, p. 17).
Budget support was first discussed in 1998 among four donors: Denmark, Norway, Sweden and Switzerland (Batley, et al, 2006, p. 18). The group expanded to the G19 that includes the following donors: African Development Bank, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, European Union, Finland, France, Germany, Italy, Ireland, Norway, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, The Netherlands, The United Kingdom, and The World Bank (Lawson et al, 2014, p. 50).
Between 2005 and 2012, the largest number of indicators (17 per cent on average, 57 in total) in the PAF dealt with PFM. With the latest reduction of indicators, the relevance of PFM increased up to 20 per cent in 2012. (see Lawson et al, 2014, p. 64).
Referring to the donors’ use of budget support as a leverage for technocratic and democratic governance, Molenaers et al, (2010, p. 18) distinguish between policy and political dialogue, respectively.
Note that existing evaluations of budget support have applied a narrow definition of budget support related TA/CD. For example, Lawson et al (2014, p. 76 f) conceive additional programmes and projects as elements of budget support only if they are part of the same financing agreement with budget support or if their existence is closely related to the budget support programme.
Note that some agencies did not reply to the query. Figures are therefore lower bound estimations.
See also Macuane et al (2008, p. x), who conclude that government and donors are the most influential actors in the budget process.
For a detailed list of reforms in PFM, see Lawson et al (2014, p. 102 f).
The DAI perspective coincides with the assessment of a recent IMF report. It states that the roll out of e-SISTAFE substantially increased the budget system coverage and helped to improve the frequency and timeliness of high quality fiscal reports (IMF, 2015, p. 7).
Donor initiatives to support parliamentarians (by UNICEF, AWEPA and the Westminster Foundation) to increase their capacity in budget oversight have been ongoing. Yet, a direct link to donors’ engagement in budget support was denied by interviewed MPs.
For alternative data sources confirming this trend, see the assessments of Public Expenditure and Financial Accountability (PEFA) (http://www.pefa.org/en/assessment_results?country_value[0]=MZ&tid[]=302 (accessed 11 February 2016). See also IMF (2015, p. 30).
References
Alvarez, R.C. (2010) The Rise of Budget Support in European Development Cooperation: A false Panacea. Policy Brief, No. 31, January 2010, ISSN: 1989 - 2667, FRIDE - A European Think Tank for Global Action.
Barómetro africano da media (2014) O primeiro exercício de análise concebido localmente sobre situaçao dos media em África – Moçambique 2014. Windhoek, Namibia: Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung.
Batley, R., Bjørnestad, L. and Cumbi, A. (2006) Evaluation of General Budget Support: Mozambique Country Report. Birmingham: International Development Department, School of Public Policy University of Birmingham.
Bertelsmann Stiftung (2014) Mozambique Country Report. Gütersloh, Germany: Bertelsmann Stiftung.
BMZ (2008) Konzept zur Budgetfinanzierung im Rahmen der Programmorientierten Gemeinschaftsfinanzierung (PGF). Bonn, Germany: Bundesministerium für wirtschaftliche Zusammenarbeit und Entwicklung.
Bratton, M. and van de Walle, N. (eds.) (1997) Democratic Experiments in Africa: Regime Transitions in Comparative Perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Brinkerhoff, D.W. (2001) Taking Account of Accountability: A Conceptual Overview and Strategic Options. Washington DC: U.S. Agency for International Development.
Brown, S. (2005) Foreign aid and democracy promotion: Lessons from Africa. The European Journal of Development Research 17(2): 179–198.
Burnell, P. (2004) The domestic political impact of foreign aid: Recalibrating the research agenda. The European Journal of Development Research 16(2): 396–416.
Caputo, E., Lawson, A. and de Kemp, A. (2011) Application of New Approach to the Evaluation of Budget Support Operations: Findings from Mali, Zambia and Tunisia – Synthesis of Main Results. Brussels, Belgium: European Commission.
Carothers, T. (2002) The end of the transition paradigm. Journal of Democracy 13(1): 5–21.
DANIDA (2013) Guidelines for Development Contracts. DANIDA, http://amg.um.dk/en/technical-guidelines/development-contracts/, accessed 2 May 2016.
de Renzio, P. and Simson, R. (2013) Transparency for What? The Usefulness of Publicly Available Budget Information in African Countries. London: ODI and IBP.
DFID (2011) Implementing DFID´s strengthened approach to budget support: Technical Note, https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/implementing-dfid-s-strengthened-approach-to-budget-support-technical-note, accessed 2 May 2016.
Diamond, L. (1997) Introduction: In search of consolidation. In: L. Diamond, M. Plattner, Y.H. Chu and H.M. Tien (eds.) Consolidating the Third Wave Democracies: Themes and Perspectives. Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press.
Dijkstra, G., de Kemp, A. and Bergkamp, D. (2012) Budget Support: Conditional Results – Review of an Instrument (2000–2011). The Hague, The Netherlands: Policy and Operations Evaluation Department (IOB).
Domingo, P., Wild, L., Hudson, A. and Wathne, C. (2009) Domestic and Mutual Accountability for Aid: Building Stronger Synergies Literature Review and Conceptual Framework. London: ODI.
European Commission (EC) (2008) Budget Support – A Question of Mutual Trust. Brussels: European Commission (EC).
European Commission (EC) (2012) Budget support guidelines: Programming, design and management – A modern approach to budget support. In: EuropeAid Development and Cooperation Directorate-General (ed.) Tools and Methods Series. Brussels, Belgium: European Commission (EC).
European Commission (EC) (2015) Mozambique – Mapping of support to PFM reforms, unpublished document.
European Court of Auditors (ECA) (2014) EuropeAid’s Evaluation and Results-Oriented Monitoring System. Luxembourg: European Union.
European Union (EU) (2009) European Union Election Observation Mission to Mozambique Final Report on the Presidential, Legislative and Provincial Assembly Elections – 2009, http://www.eods.eu/eom-reports/, accessed 2 May 2016.
European Union (EU) (2016) Aid spendings and projects in Mozambique since 2010, European Commission – DG DEVCO – development and humanitarian assistance to Mozambique, https://open-data.europa.eu/en/data/dataset/europeaid-iati-mozambique/resource/8771714e-0917-4971-bca8-78bcb1e375cf, accessed 9 January 2016.
Faust, J., Leiderer, S. and Schmitt, J. (2012) Financing poverty alleviation vs. promoting democracy? Multi-donor budget support in Zambia. Democratization 19(3): 438–464.
Fox, J. (2007) The uncertain relationship between transparency and accountability. Development in Practice 17(4–5): 663–671.
GoM (2011) Aide Memoire RP 2011 – Annexo 1: QAD do Governo 2012–2014 – versao aprovado no PAF CoG 07/10/2011, http://www.mpd.gov.mz/, accessed 19 September 2015.
GoM and PAP (2004) Memorandum of understanding between government of the republic of Mozambique and the programme aid partners for the provision of direct budget and balance of payments support, http://www.mpd.gov.mz/, accessed 15 May 2015.
GoM and PAP (2009) Memorandum of understanding between government of the republic of mozambique and the programme aid partners for the provision of general budget support, http://www.mpd.gov.mz/, accessed 15 May 2015.
Hanlon, J. (2010) Donor strike ends. News reports & clippings, 18 March, http://www.open.ac.uk/technology/mozambique/sites/www.open.ac.uk.technology.mozambique/files/pics/d119577.pdf, accessed 9 January 2016.
Hesselmann, E. (2011) The limits of control: The accountability of foundations and partnerships in global health. In: S. Rushton and O.D. Williams (eds.) Partnerships and Foundations in Global Health Governance. Houndmills, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
Huntington, S. (1991) The Third Wave. Democratization in the Late Twentieth Century. Norman, OK: University of Oklahoma Press.
IBP (2012) Open Budget Survey 2012 – Open Budgets. Transform Lives. Washington DC: International Budget Partnership (IBP).
IMF (2015) Government of mozambique: Fiscal transparency evaluation. IMF Country ReportWashington: International Monetary Fund, pp. 15–32.
Informal Governance Group Alliance (IGGA) (2010) Aid and Budget Transparency in Mozambique – Constraints for Civil Society, the Parliament and the Government. Informal Governance Group Alliance (IGGA).
Koeberle, S., Stavreski, Z. and Walliser, J. (eds.) (2006) Budget Support as More Effective Aid: Recent Experiences and Emerging Lessons. Washington DC: World Bank Publications.
Krisch, F., Schmitt, J. and Dörr, U. (2015) Accompanying Measures to General Budget Support in Sub-Saharan Africa, Evaluation Report. Bonn: German Institute for Development Evaluation (DEval).
Lawson, A. (2014) Synthesis of Budget Support Evaluations: Analysis of the Findings, Conclusions and Recommendations of seven Country Evaluations of Budget Support. London: FISCUS, ADE.
Lawson, A., Bartholomew, A. and Bibi, M. (2014) Independent Evaluation of budget support in Mozambique: Final Report Volume 1. East Sussex: ITAD, FISCUS, MB Consulting.
Lawson, A., Booth, D., Harding, A., Hole, D. and Naschold, F. (2003) General Budget Support Evaluability Study Phase 1 – Synthesis Report Evaluation Report (Vol. EV643): DFID.
Linz, J.J. and Stepan, A. (eds.) (1996) Problems of Democratic Transition and Consolidation: Southern Europe, South America, and Post-Communist Europe. Baltimore, MD: JHU Press.
Loquai, C. and Fanetti, E. (2011) Support to domestic accountability in developing countries – Taking stock of the approaches and experiences of German Development Cooperation. Synthesis Report. Maastricht: European Centre for Development Policy Management.
Lynch, G. and Crawford, G. (2011) Democratization in Africa 1990–2010: An assessment. Democratization 18(2): 275–310.
Macuane, J.J., Maduela, A., Costumado, M., Dava, L. and Dionísio, J. (2008) Participatory budget monitoring and resource tracking in Mozambique: Situation analysis and learning needs assessment. Maputo: Centre for Public Integrity (CIP), Centre for Economic Governance and Aids in Africa (CEGAA).
Mail and Guardian (2014) Donors slash Mozambique aid over corruption claims, Mail and Guardian, 14 June, http://mg.co.za/article/2014-06-14-donors-slash-mozambique-aid-over-corruption-claims, accessed 11 January 2016.
Manning, C. and Malbrough, M. (2012) The Changing Dynamics of Foreign Aid and Democracy in Mozambique. Helsinki: UNU Wider. Working Paper (Vol. 18).
Mfunwa, M.G. (2006) Strengthening internal accountability in the context of programme based approaches in sub-Saharan Africa. DIE discussion paper. Bonn: German Development Institute (DIE).
Mills, L. (2013) Foreign Assistance and Fiscal Transparency: The Impact of the Open Budget Initiative on Donor Policies and Practices. Washington DC: IBP International Budget Partnership.
Mkandawire, T. (2010) Aid, accountability, and democracy in Africa. Social Research: An International Quarterly 77(4): 1149–1182.
Molenaers, N., Cepinskas, L. and Jacobs, B. (2010) Budget Support and Policy / Polititical Dialogue - Donor Practices in Handling (Political) Crisis. Antwerp: University of Antwerp - Institute of Development Policy and Management.
Musatti, A. (2013) General budget support to mozambique: Alive again?, 3 April, Belgian Development Agency (BTC) https://www.btcctb.org/en/blog/general-budget-support-mozambique-alive-again, accessed 11 January 2016.
Nilsson, M. (2004) Effects of Budget Support: A Discussion of Early Evidence. Stockholm, Sweden: SIDA.
Nuvunga, A. and Adalima, J. (2011) Mozambique Democratic Movement (MDM): An Analysis of a New Opposition Party in Mozambique. Maputo, Mozambique: Friedrich Ebert Stiftung (FES).
O'Donnell, G.A. (1996) Illusions about consolidation. Journal of Democracy 7(2): 34–51.
OECD/DAC (2012) Evaluating Budget Support: Methodological Approach. Paris: OECD/DAC.
Przeworski, A. (1991) Democracy and the Market: Political and Economic Reforms in Eastern Europe and Latin America. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Rønsholt, F.E. (2014) Review of Budget Support Evaluations. Kopenhagen, Denmark: DANIDA.
Santiso, C. (2001) International co-operation for democracy and good governance: Moving towards a second generation? European Journal of Development Research 13(1): 154–180.
Schedler, A. (1998) What is democratic consolidation? Journal of Democracy 9(2): 91–107.
Schedler, A. (1999) Conceptualizing accountability. In: A. Schedler, L.J. Diamond and M.F. Plattner (eds.) The Self-Restraining State. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner Publishers.
Schmitt, J. and Beach, D. (2015) The contribution of process tracing to theory-based evaluations of complex aid instruments. Evaluation 21(4): 429–447.
SECO (2014) Budget support strategy, http://www.seco-cooperation.admin.ch/shop/00008/03021/index.html?lang=en, accessed 11 January 2016.
Tavakoli, H. and Smith, G. (2013) Back under the microscope: Insights from evidence on budget support. Development Policy Review 31(1): 59–74.
Woll, B. (2008) Donor harmonisation and government ownership: Multi-donor budget support in Ghana. European Journal of Development Research 20(1): 74–87.
Acknowledgements
The author would like to thank the interviewees for sharing their experiences and insights with him. He is grateful for inputs from colleagues at the German Institute for Development Evaluation (DEval) as well as participants of the 4th Global Conference on Transparency Research held in June 2015 who commented on the draft version of this article. The author would also like to thank the anonymous referees for their feedback, and Christof Hartmann for peer reading and advice in the publication process. The author is indebted to the German Institute for Development Evaluation (DEval) for facilitating an extended field trip to Maputo.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Schmitt, J. Budget Support, Budget Transparency and Domestic Accountability in Mozambique. Eur J Dev Res 29, 246–262 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1057/ejdr.2016.17
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/ejdr.2016.17