预算改革预算管理质量外文文献Word格式.docx

1、 Francis, Iyoha出版物名称: Journal of Accounting and Auditing卷: 2014页: 1-15页数: 15出版年份:出版商: IBIMA Publishing LLC出版物国家/地区: United StatesProQuest 文档 ID: 1644455313文档 URL: http:/ezproxy.scu.edu.au/login?url=版权 2015 ProQuest LLC。 保留所有权利。 - 条款与条件The Impact of Budget Reforms on the Quality of Budget Management

2、in NigeriaAbstractBudget management reforms were the major areas of the Nigerian public service reforms undertaken from the inception of civilian administration in 1999. The major objective was to enhance budget discipline among others. This was predicated on the theoretical considerations that impr

3、oving the process and management of budgeting through reforms would be ultimately translated into improved budgetary outcome. This paper empirically investigated the impact of budget reforms on the quality of budget management in Nigeria. The Medium Term Expenditure Framework （MTEF） and the Fiscal R

4、esponsibility Act （FRA） form the proxies for budget reforms, while budget discipline （BDISC） and fiscal discipline （FDISC） were used as proxies for the quality of budgeting. Historical time series data representing 7years before and 7 years after the adoption of MTEF, and 5 years before and 5 years

5、after the enactment of FRA were collected and analysed using the pre-test/post-test design of a Paired Sample T-test. The result favoured our initial proposition that budget reforms （MTEF and FRA） had not significantly impacted on the quality of budget management （BDISC and FDISC） in Nigeria. It was

6、, therefore, recommended that the government should provide the leadership and political will, not only to enforce the provisions of FRA, MTEF and other reforms, but to sanction those that short circuit the system to their advantage. This will go a long way to enhance compliance with the reforms, an

7、d bring about the expected improvement in the quality of the nations budget management.Keywords: Budget, Reforms, Quality, ManagementIntroductionThe relevance of a budget in any economy cannot be overemphasized. The budget does not only function as a mechanism for resource mobilisation and allocatio

8、n, it also serves as a tool for economic management （Olomola, 2009 and Government Integrated Financial Management Information System （GIFMIS）, 2011）. This is because the budget document sets the direction for the entire economy, determines who gets what and when, as well as provides funds to impleme

9、nt new initiatives/policies through legal, rational and acceptable means （Bengali, 2004）. In fact, it will be very difficult if not impossible for the government in any modern economy to realise her vision in any fiscal year without the instrumentality of budgeting （Olomola, 2009）. This is why, the

10、development of a nations budget is considered to be the governments single most important activity in any given year （Government Finance Officers Association （GFOA）, 1999; National Democratic Institute （NDI）, 2003）.However, for a budget to function as an instrument of fiscal cum macroeconomic engine

11、ering, both the budget process and budget management must be sound. By sound budgeting, we mean a well-planned and implemented public spending strategy that promotes technical efficiency, allocative efficiency and equity （Lucien, 2002）. It is the budget process that is characterised by fiscal discip

12、line and efficiencies in both operational and allocative dimensions （Olomola, 2006, Olomola, 2009）. The lack of these basic ingredients of sound budgeting in most African countries, including Nigeria, has justified the description of their budgetary performances as disappointing, and underscores the

13、 need for reforms in public financial management in general and budget management in particular （Lienert &Sarraf, 2001）.In Nigeria, budget management reforms were the major areas of the public service reforms undertaken from the inception of civilian administration in 1999. Prominent among these ref

14、orms were: the Medium Term Expenditure Framework （MTEF） introduced in 2005, and the Fiscal Responsibility Act （FRA） passed into the law in 2007. The objectives of these reforms were to improve resource management by curtailing wasteful spending, and to ensure budget discipline among others （Governme

15、nt Integrated Financial Management Information System, 2011）. After seven （7） years of the adoption of MTEF and five （5） years of the enactment of FRA, the realisation of the reforms objectives does not seem to be evident.It is against this back drop that this study was conceptualised. The objective

16、 is to empirically investigate the impact of MTEF and FRA on the quality of budget management in Nigeria. The rest of the paper is organised into four sections namely: literature review and theoretical framework, the study methodology, data analysis and conclusion.Literature Review and Theoretical F

17、rameworkThe Budgetary Reforms in NigeriaOne of the major concerns of the government from the inception of the democratic civilian administration in 1999 was the rate of extra budgetary spending, and blatant disregard to budget rule perpetrated by previous （military） administrations （Ben-Caleb &Agbud

18、e, 2013）. Specifically, during the military regimes, the budget process was said to be thrown into disarray with major defects which precluded the budget from performing its role effectively as a tool for economic transformation, rather pressurised the nation into economic instability （Obasanjo, 199

19、9）. Expectedly, a number of reforms were embarked upon aimed at revamping the processes, programmes and policies considered ailing, in order to bring the economy on tract with the new democratic agenda and to delivering value to the people. The public sector in general and the public budget process

20、in particular were among the areas for which reforms were exigent.Consequently, a number of budget related reforms were introduced into the Nigeria budget process. These include; Oil-Price based on fiscal rule, the Medium Term Expenditure Framework （MTEF） 2005, and the Fiscal Responsibility Act 2007

21、 among others （Garba, 2011）. The reforms centred on five major aspects namely; administrative procedures, budget preparation, management of government spending, budget implementation, as well as budget monitoring and evaluation. They were intended to achieve the following objectives among others; re

22、duce the cost of governance, improve the management of resources by curtailing extravagances, increasing the level of productivity and efficiency, as well as ensure budget discipline （i.e. adherence to limits） （Olomola, 2009; GIFMIS, 2011）Specifically, the Medium Term Expenditure Framework （MTEF） wa

23、s introduced into the Nigerian budgetary process in 2005; although its legal backing came via the Fiscal Responsibility Act in 2007. According to Pascua （2005）, MTEF entails annual budgeting system in which budget decisions relating to new programs and projects are made at every budget preparation s

24、ession based on three-year fiscal scenarios, to ensure that projects financed for the next three years will be approved under the annual system and will be consistent with the baseline budgeting approach. Its emphasis is on a multi-year （three years） budget packaging. The specific objectives for the

25、 adoption of MTEF in Nigeria were to improve the allocation of resources to strategic priorities among and within sectors, as well as provide MDAs with a hard budget constraint among others （Olomola, 2009; State Partnership for Accountability, Responsiveness and Capability （SPARC）, 2009）.Similarly,

26、the Fiscal Responsibility Act （FRA） was signed into the law by President Musa YarAdua in 2007. It was meant to ensure prudent management of national resources, a mandate consistent with section 16 of the 1999 constitution, among others. Besides, the FRA was set to promote greater accountability and

27、transparency in fiscal operations and processes within the medium term fiscal policy framework （Omolehinwa &Naiyeju, 2011）. In summary, the enactment of FRA formed the legal basis for the MTEF, and gave impetus to other budget reforms as well.The Relationship between Budget Reforms and Budget Manage

28、mentBudget reforms involve making changes to the ways and manner in which the budget is formulated, implemented and evaluated for the purpose of facilitating effectiveness, efficiency and economy （Allen 1998 cited in world Bank 2001）. It is about restructuring the process and/or management of a nati

29、ons budgeting system in order to improve its feasibility as a fiscal policy vehicle. By implication, therefore, budget reforms must have direct impact on the quality of budget management, otherwise it would be unnecessary.Supportably, the five planks of the reforms mentioned earlier in this paper （i

30、.e. administrative, preparation, management, implementation and monitoring/evaluation） resonated with both, the four phases of the budget cycle （formulation, enactment, execution and evaluation）, and the five major elements of budget management （efficiency, effectiveness, discipline, transparency an

31、d accountability）. It is this interconnectedness that forms the fulcrum of the conceptual and theoretical underpinning of this study as depicted in figure 1.Figure 1 demonstrates a relationship among the three budgets constructs （Reforms, process and management）. The thick arrows represent direct re

32、lationships or feedforwards, while the thin arrows represent feed-backs. The implication exemplified in the model is that budget reforms instigate changes in the process, as well as the management of the budget in order to improve its workability as an economic management tool. It is also in conformity with the theoretical postulates by institutional economists that institutional reforms are a necessary condi