The Revenue Management Practitioners' Guide
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Volume III USAID/INDIA REFORM PROJECT COMPENDIUM WITH PRACTITIONERS’ GUIDE To State Fiscal Management Reform The Revenue Management Practitioners’ Guide USAID/India REFORM Project Compendium with Practitioners’ Guide: State Fiscal Management Reform Authors: Dr. Pawan Aggarwal, REFORM Project; Dr. Brijesh Purohit, REFORM Project – Jharkhand; Dr. Soumen Bagchi, REFORM Project–Karnataka; Mr. Arunabha Maitra, REFORM Project; and, Dr. Robert Voetsch, REFORM Project. Compendium Disclaimer: The REFORM Project Compendium with Practitioners’ Guides is made possible by the support of the American People through the United States Agency for International Development (USAID). The contents of this compendium volume are the sole responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of USAID or the United States Government. 2 Volume III: The Revenue Management Practitioners’ Guide REFORM Rationale, Objective & Terms of Reference The REFORM Vision …… "State governments have the necessary organizational structures, analytical tools and decision-making processes, information sources and trained staff that enable them to make better informed choices on a transparent and accountable basis with respect to state public finances. Subsequently, this capacity is institutionalized into the mainstream of state government practices to ensure the sustainability of the effort." The Rationale: The starting point of the USAID/India Fiscal Management Reform Project (REFORM) is that the fiscal distress seen at the state level in early 2000 was, to a large extent, a result of the systemic weaknesses in state fiscal management (Box 1), including within the key departments of finance and planning. This prevented forward-looking fiscal decision-making grounded in careful analysis and leading to good governance. In short, the majority of Indian states needed better analytical capacity backed by appropriate institutional infrastructure to formulate and implement good fiscal policy. Box 1: Systemic Weaknesses in Fiscal Management The systemic weaknesses found in fiscal management at the state level may be described as "inadequate": • Technical know-how in modern fiscal management practices. • Comprehensive, current information databases. • Robust analytical tools and techniques that correspond to internationally accepted standards. • Integrated management information systems and systematic approaches to the fiscal decision-making processes. • Transparent, consistent and institutionalized fiscal practices, reporting systems, and structures that promote the desired accountability for the effective and efficient mobilization, allocation and utilization of public funds. Currently, therefore, many Indian states do not have the appropriate capacity1 and the necessary practices2 to perform relevant, economic and statistical analyses (Box 2). Box 2: Consequence of Systemic Weaknesses As a consequence of the systemic weaknesses, most Indian states, for example, have inadequate fiscal management expertise and institutional infrastructure to perform revenue and expenditure projections and distributional analysis, assess multiplier and elasticity effects, and run policy simulation and develop alternative policy scenarios. This includes their inability to establish strong links between budgetary outlays and program outcomes for efficient and effective delivery of results, establish debt and investment frameworks to improve their quality and profile, and conduct rigorous project appraisals to ensure selection of socio-economically viable projects. 1 i.e., fiscal management skill-sets, tools and techniques and organizational structures. 2 i.e., consistent, transparent and accountable processes. 3 USAID/India REFORM Project Compendium with Practitioners’ Guide: State Fiscal Management Reform Given increasing decentralization and the continued significance of public finance in India, many state governments will be required to assume greater responsibility for the design and implementation of their own development strategies. As a result, their ability to strike the right balance between fiscal policy, broad-based growth, and financial sustainability will be fundamental to promoting and sustaining development across every sector of the state economy and, consequently, the nation as a whole, especially in light of the new challenges posed by the opening-up of the Indian economy and state finances getting substantially linked with market forces. The Objective: As a response, USAID/India's REFORM project (September 2003 - 2008) was designed to provide practical hands-on "how to" skills transferal, based on international best practices, to strengthen fiscal analytical expertise, structures and systems of selected Indian states. The objective was to help these states to better plan and manage their public finances, especially in the light of the challenges they faced following the 2000-01 fiscal crisis. Jharkhand, Karnataka, and Uttarakhand were identified as the three REFORM partner states. The specific objectives of REFORM were: 1) To improve "informed" decision-making within state (sub-national) governments; 2) To ensure that decision-making processes followed consistent and transparent principles, leading to greater accountability; and, 3) To sustain the efforts by institutionalizing and mainstreaming the capacity built. REFORM, therefore, was not designed to advise or guide Indian state governments on specific policy decisions but rather to enhance their ability to evaluate and to address crucial policy choices and implementation options, based on an understanding of the environment - i.e., its potentials, its limits and its perceived needs.3 Terms of Reference: Based on discussions with the respective partner states, the REFORM terms of reference were to help enhance their fiscal management capacity in the following four (4) areas: • Revenue Management Capacity – To help states undertake detailed analysis of revenue projections and the implications of alternative tax policies and revenue choices. Interventions included: Introduction of improved revenue forecasting methodologies, an Input-Output (I-O) framework and macro-economic database. A practitioners’ guide was also developed along with hands-on training to build state capacity in the above areas. 3 Capacity-building as defined by the United Nations Center for Education and Development, (Agenda 21's definition, Chapter 37, UNCED, 1992). 4 Volume III: The Revenue Management Practitioners’ Guide • Expenditure Planning and Management Capacity – To help states improve quality and accountability of expenditures. Interventions included: Introduction of an outlays to outcomes budgeting methodology (i.e., program performance budgeting (PPB)) to help states’ prioritise the allocation of public funds, improve program planning, monitoring and evaluation, increase transparency, accountability, and consequently, the quality of public services delivery. A practitioners’ guide with related software was developed and delivered. Structured/hands-on training was provided across all levels and in almost all departments. Detailed public procurement guidelines were also developed for two out of the three states. • Debt and Investment Management Capacity – To help states to better document, track, analyze, and manage debt, contingent liabilities and investments, in the medium to long term. Interventions included structured and hands-on training as well as introduction of practical guides (with reporting templates). Comprehensive debt datasets were developed and migrated into a database using the Commonwealth Secretariat-Debt Recording and Management System (CS-DRMS) software. • Project Appraisal Capacity – To help states improve appraisal and selection of socio-economically viable capital projects. Interventions included: Training in the Harberger project appraisal technique which involves financial, economic, social and stakeholders’ risks analysis. A Project Appraisal practitioners’ guide with sector-specific guidelines was also developed and introduced to serve as a desk reference. To sustain and mainstream the above fiscal management reform efforts, four (4) institutional structures were designed and supported: • The Fiscal Policy Analysis Cell (FPAC) – To help states institutionalize continuous analysis of the implications of policies, procedures and regulatory decisions on the fiscal health of the states. An analytic unit supported by a team of dedicated and trained staff, with access to relevant and quality data, tools and techniques was established. • The Debt and Investment Management Cell (DMIC) –To help states identify, generate, and analyze data and support more effective and prudent debt/investment decision-making. Similar to the FPAC, an analytic unit supported by a team of dedicated and trained staff, with access to relevant and quality data, tools and techniques was established. • Project Unit (PU) – To help states offer a comprehensive range of services from project appraisal and monitoring, to final end-of-project evaluation, a project unit was designed that would also help promote public-private partnerships (PPPs). • Administrative Training Institutes (ATIs) and State Institutes for Rural Development (SIRDs) – To help state civil service training institutes (ATIs and SIRDs) train entry level and mid-career state civil servants in fiscal planning and management, training courses; training materials and reference guides were developed and provided. 5 USAID/India REFORM Project Compendium with Practitioners’