News/Comment

24th February 2002

INDEX | FRONT PAGE | EDITORIAL | NEWS/COMMENT | EDITORIAL/OPINION | PLUS | BUSINESS | SPORTS | MIRROR MAGAZINE | TV TIMES | HOME | ARCHIVES | TEAM | SEARCH | DOWNLOAD GZIP
The Sunday Times on the Web
INDEX

FRONT PAGE

EDITORIAL

NEWS/COMMENT

EDITORIAL/OPINION

PLUS

BUSINESS

SPORTS

MIRROR MAGAZINE

TV TIMES


HOME

ARCHIVES

TEAM

SEARCH

DOWNLOAD GZIP


The Sunday Times Economic analysis

Decline in accountability must be arrested soon

By the Economist
It has been quite clear for sometime that successive governments have been lax about the accountability of public funds. The media has exposed many instances of such irresponsibility in the past, especially with respect to the use of funds and materials by the last regime. The situation got out of hand in the last months of the last regime. What the press stated has now been confirmed and documented by the new government. However criticisms of the last government's lack of accountability would not do much good, if the new government does not take meaningful steps to ensure that they themselves adhere to the principles of accountability. Those who come into office do not follow what they said while in opposition. This in fact is the reason for the continuous erosion in accountability over the years.

It is now time to return to the accepted principles of public accountability in the use of public funds. The basic principle of public accountability is that the people's representatives in parliament must control the allocation and use of funds. This has two aspects. First there is the need to ensure that the total amount of money that is allocated is spent and that this amount is not exceeded. Second, the allocation of funds must be fairly specific to ensure meaningful accountability. 

If funds are allocated to a particular ministry and spent without adhering to specific intended uses then the use of such funds could be a diversion from the intended allocations of parliament. Both these areas of accountability have not been adhered to. One of the subtle ways by which governments have eroded public accountability in a constitutional manner is by not including actual expected expenditures in the budget, but passing additional amounts through supplementary votes. This may not seem an erosion of accountability for parliament does approve such expenditures. The fact is that these supplementary votes are not fully debated, often rushed through parliament and in many cases a depleted house passes these votes. Therefore unlike the case of the budget, when the membership of the full house of parliament is focused on the revenue and expenditure estimates, supplementary estimates are hardly examined in detail. Further, when such supplementary estimates are very large the original scrutiny of the budget becomes meaningless. In fact it has been said that the budget debate is on a fictitious budget, as the final out-turn is vastly different to the budget estimates. This is especially so with respect to the expenditure of the government. 

There has also been a tendency in recent years for budget allocations to be general rather than specific and for ministries to shift funds from one item to another. Where such shifting is significant, it leads to considerable erosion of parliamentary responsibility. 

There is another area of abuse that has occurred where public property has been used for private purposes. This tendency gains momentum at times of elections, when vehicles, building, fuel stationery and other materials and services of the government are used to provide services to parties, politicians and ministers, in particular. A further abuse is by the use of resources of public corporations. Since large scale use of resources of corporations add to their expenditures and then ultimately to their bottom line, there is either a loss of revenue through decreased profits or increased subsidies to corporations that should have run up profits. The government must act in several ways to ensure that public funds are used responsibly. 

First, it is necessary to appoint a parliamentary committee to investigate the abuses of the past. Second, the established procedures to control public finances must be made more effective and operative. The Public Accounts Committee must be constituted with competent members with the opposition playing a key role and armed with more powers to deal with abuses. Third, the government must refrain from excessive use of supplementary estimates and ensure that the budget reflects the actual out-turn. There is also perhaps a need to put in place mechanisms that would ensure an accountability of expenditure from special funds that are not voted annually by parliament.



Return to News/Comment
News/Comment Archives

INDEX | FRONT PAGE | EDITORIAL | NEWS/COMMENT | EDITORIAL/OPINION | PLUS | BUSINESS | SPORTS | MIRROR MAGAZINE | TV TIMES | HOME | ARCHIVES | TEAM | SEARCH | DOWNLOAD GZIP


 
Please send your comments and suggestions on this web site to
The Sunday Times or to Information Laboratories (Pvt.) Ltd.