Document Library

Following the Money: Do Public Expenditure Tracking Surveys Matter?

Author: Geir Sundet
Date: 2008
Size: 28 pages (296 KB)

Access full text: available online

Summary

Expenditure tracking, or ‘follow the money’, has become a byword in development circles for interventions that look into whether the money gets to where it is supposed to be going. The best known ‘follow the money’ initiative is the Public Expenditure Tracking Survey (PETS) methodology that was developed in Uganda in the 1990s. The Uganda PETS found that 80% of the funds intended for primary schools were diverted on the way. This large ‘leakage’ was subsequently cut to only 20%, an improvement that was attributed to a public information campaign that was initiated after the publication of the first PETS. This U4 Issues Paper reviews the evidence concerning the efficacy of expenditure tracking, recommending closer attention to the political context of the various methods of expenditure tracking and budget monitoring.

Taking a closer look at the famous Ugandan PETS success story, the paper refers to a recent review by Paul Hubbard, where he argues that the public information campaign was only one of many factors that brought about the sharp decrease in leakage, and possibly not even the most important one. The story of a Tanzanian PETS, which was rejected by the Tanzanian government, provides additional evidence on why the Ugandan ‘success’ has been so hard to replicate. It is argued that the usefulness of PETS is very much dependent on the political will to act on their recommendations.

The paper then looks at civil society experiences of expenditure tracking. It presents a number of cases from a recent publication by the International Budget Partnership (IBP), which covers well-known success stories, including the MKSS right to information movement in Rajasthan, India, and the social audits of CCAGG in Philippines, both of which grew out of local movements. These and others are compared with more recent experience of expenditure tracking conducted by CSOs from Tanzania and Malawi. The paper argues that while many of the cited examples have undoubtedly registered successes, there is a tendency in the literature too readily to accept reported cases as successes.

A general lack of documentation and critical investigation of tracking activities, both large-scale, “official” PETS and tracking exercises by CSOs, indicate a significant missed opportunity to learn from what works and what does not. Learning requires active sharing of information and critical analysis of results. The incentives are not in place for this to be realised.

The final part of the paper provides a number of strategic recommendations for the different types of actors that engage in various methodologies of ‘following the money’. In the public sector, much could be achieved at the national level by establishing a system for more continuous and ‘automatic’ tracking of resources, as this would be less vulnerable to political intervention.

With regard to the CSO sphere, there is a need for more critical reviews of what works where. The paper suggests that PETS as such is not a particularly well suited tool for CSOs, and that they would be better advised to concentrate on other methodologies, such as ‘report cards’ and ‘social audits’. There is also considerable scope for the integration of CSO initiatives into existing monitoring systems. A proposal is made for using both official tracking systems and CSO tracking to construct an “expenditure tracking dashboard".

Expenditure tracking is a tool for realising a change for the better in accountability systems. This is, first and foremost, a political challenge. There is therefore a need to pay much closer attention to the political context of the various methods of expenditure tracking and budget monitoring.

Access full text: available online

Source: Sundet, G., 2008, 'Following the Money: Do Public Expenditure Tracking Surveys Matter?', U4 Issue 2008:8, U4 Anti-Corruption Resource Centre, Chr. Michelsen Institute, Bergen, Norway
Author: Geir Sundet , gsundet[at]gmail.com
Organisation: Chr. Michelsen Institute (CMI), http://www.cmi.no