Bridging gap between ‘promisemaking’...

Every November, the Budget Speech is read out in Parliament. It spells out how the government aims to (i) generate revenue through taxes and (ii) spend the tax money collected in the upcoming year.

During this ‘promise-making’ stage, the speech is widely discussed and debated among the public. However, during the ‘promise keeping’ stage, when the budget is being implemented, there is much less information and discussion.

To bridge the gap between promise making and promise-keeping, in 2017, Verité Research launched Budget Promises: Beyond Parliament, Sri Lanka’s pioneering budget monitoring platform. The platform tracks the government’s performance and openness on key promises made in its annual budget. It aims to answer two basic questions about the budget: Is the government doing what it is saying?

Is the government saying what it is doing? Budgetpromises.org tracks new

expenditure proposals or ‘promises’ in the Budget Speech (listed in Annex 2 of the speech) with an allocation of over Rs.1,000 million. In 2018, the platform tracked 38 promises worth Rs.149,350 million.

Is government doing what it is saying?

Overall, implementation of the promises has improved in 2018 compared to 2017. For example, in 2018, 47 percent of promises were categorised as having achieved substantial or full progress, compared to 27 percent in 2017.

Is government saying what it is doing?

In 2018, more ministries were responsive in sharing information when requested (either directly or via the RTI Act) compared to 2017. However, overall openness did not

improve significantly compared to 2017. The number of promises where information disclosure was closed or restricted remains unchanged. Hence, the government is still far from being open about its budgets.

Improving openness on budget promises can drive better budget-making

There are many credible reasons for why the government may fall behind in delivering a budget promise. For example, if preliminary work revealed that implementing it in fact leads to a negative public outcome, then it is in the public interest to delay implementation and address these concerns.

However, since it is funded using public money, it is vital that the public is aware of why it is delayed. Doing so increases the government’s credibility on its budget promises as well as public confidence that their tax money is being spent effectively.

However, while the government has improved in terms of sharing information reactively, it still fares poorly in terms of being proactively open. Proactive disclosure is where the government makes information available without the public having to request it. For example, the Megapolis and Western Development Ministry uploaded all its action plans and progress reports online. This type of disclosure can significantly improve the government’s credibility on budgets.

The lack of visibility about the government’s implementation of its budget promises is one factor that leads to poor public confidence in budgets. Improved information disclosure and explanation on budget implementation can lead to greater public awareness. This can enhance public participation and increase the answerability and credibility of the budget-making process in Sri Lanka, leading to better budgets.

(Verité Research is an independent think-tank based in Colombo that provides strategic analysis to high level decision makers in economics, law, politics and media. Comments are welcome. Email publications@veriteresearch.org. Visit Budget Promises: Beyond Parliament: www.budgetpromises.org)