Subnational Budget Process and Practices in Nepal : Findings and Observations from an Assessment in Three Pilot Districts
Nepal embarked on a process of decentralization, first through the 1999 Local Self Governance Act, which introduced major policy reforms to devolve decision-making power to local bodies, and later through its 2007 interim constitution, which abol¬i...
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Language: | English en_US |
| Published: |
Washington, DC
2014
|
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/2014/01/19904820/nepal-subnational-budget-process-practices-nepal-findings-observations-assessment-three-pilot-districts http://hdl.handle.net/10986/20086 |
| Summary: | Nepal embarked on a process of
decentralization, first through the 1999 Local Self
Governance Act, which introduced major policy reforms to
devolve decision-making power to local bodies, and later
through its 2007 interim constitution, which abol¬ished a
feudal state structure and established a federal system of
governance that prioritized local government. These reforms
presented an important opportunity to not only improve
efficiency but also engage citizens at the subnational
level. However, they have not yet translated into a more
efficient use of budget resources at the subnational level
or enhanced citizen under¬standing of budget processes. It
was in this context that the Budget Transparency Initiative
(BTI) piloted an innovative approach in 2011 to simplify,
analyze, and disclose budgets at the subnational level and
to build awareness and capacity among government officials
and citizens that could promote a public dialogue around
public expenditures through social accountability
approaches. In this context, under the aegis of the BTI, a
study was conducted in 2011 to assess the gaps between
policies and actual implementation of the budget at the
subnational level in three pilot districts in Nepal Kaski,
Dolakha, and Nawalparasi. nalysis from the study, in-depth
interviews, and focus group discussions revealed several
gaps between policy and prac¬tice in subnational budget
formulation and execution processes, such as the
predominance of top-down processes, lack of cost-benefit
analyses in budget allocation decisions, delays in
communication of budget ceilings and release of allocations,
and capture of user committees. This note describes the
institutional framework underlying this context, outlines
the methodology used, and presents key findings and
observations from the study. |
|---|