 |
Public
Expenditure and Children Paper presented at the
A First Call for Children? Children - voiceless and at a particularly vulnerable stage of life - are dealt a mixed hand in the government budget. South Africa has ratified the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, and promised to place children's needs at the forefront of development. Further, the government has committed itself to specific goals for Child Health, Nutrition, Social Welfare Development, Education, Child Protection, Water and Sanitation, and Leisure and Cultural Activities in the national plan of action (NPA) for children. Government spending, particularly on social services, affects children directly. Yet, is the government able to meet its policy commitments to children in the face of tight budget constraints? Why is the Budget Important? The budget reflects a country's socio-economic policy priorities. As the most important economic instrument of the government, it translates policies and political platforms into expenditures and taxations, emphasising constraints and trade-offs in policy choices. Policy reprioritisation towards socio-economic change in South Africa is quantified in government spending programmes in the national and provincial budgets. This means that socio-economic transformation as specified under the government's Reconstruction and Development Programme (RDP), is particularly dependent on the efficient and effective reprioritisation of spending within the national and provincial budgets. As a result, the budget represents a powerful tool to redress socio-economic inequities and improve access to resources and opportunities for the majority of South Africa's peoples. What is Budgetary Reprioritisation? The link between policy and budgeting implies that budgets - as the implementing tool of policy directives - should follow policy changes and priorities. Budgets then plan how to allocate available resources in the most efficient way. However, in practice, reprioritisation of spending does not always follow changes in policy directives. Budgeting officials responsible for drawing up departmental budgets often do not understand new policies proposed, and policy makers setting policy priorities do not necessarily have enough grasp of budgeting principles to be able to challenge budgeting officials (De Bruyn and Seidman Makgetla, 1997). Reprioritisation at the macro level, that is between departments, is the responsibility of Cabinet and therefore predominantly a political decision. However, the division between policy makers and budgeting officials has led to limited reprioritisation of spending at the level of individual departmental programmes, which is more important to the targeting of children. What is needed is not just greater spending on children, but also more efficient spending. The first step of budgetary reprioritisation - re-allocation of expenditure between departments or spending agencies (termed budget 'votes'), that is, reducing expenditure on defence, and increasing expenditure on social spending, such as health, education, and welfare - was initiated before the 1990/91 budget (often referred to as the first 'RDP' budget). There had been substantial re-allocation between expenditure votes in the period 1987 to 1995 (See Figure 1: Source: Department of Finance, 1997). For instance, since 1990 the defence budget has been cut considerably, facilitating substantial increases in the policing budget (Batchelor, 1996). Scope for budgetary reprioritisation between votes has been virtually exhausted, and there is little room for further reprioritisation. In addition, merely increasing expenditure on social spending(1) by further reprioritisation between votes is not advisable, without consideration of efficiency of spending within votes. The government already allocates 60% of national and provincial spending on social services, and given limited resources, is unlikely to increase social spending in the near future. This highlights the importance of reprioritisation within budget votes. Following the 1995/96 budget, emphasis has shifted to reprioritisation within votes, such as moving from curative to preventative services in health and education. In practice, however, limited reprioritisation within budget votes has taken place. This is primarily due to the disjuncture between policy planning and budgeting. Continued spending on established programmes has deterred any real efforts aimed at reshaping the budget resulting in little, if any, real change to budgeting priorities within expenditure votes. This has serious implications for the delivery of basic socio-economic services, exacerbating poor living conditions for children in particular, for whom primary (e.g. basic schooling) rather than tertiary services (e.g. university education) are more important. Reprioritisation within votes is further exacerbated by the problem of re-allocation of resources, once the policy decision for reprioritisation of programme spending has been made. For instance, in the education sector 80% of provincial expenditure is spent on primary and secondary schooling, primarily teacher salaries. Changes to teachers' salary structure or to personnel deployment are dependent on negotiations in the Education Labour Relations Council. This means that there is little room for manoeuvre for reprioritisation within provincial education budgets. Moreover, the move in the 1997/98 budget to assign greater responsibilities to provinces in key areas of socio-economic delivery - notably, health, education, housing, and policing services - may have adverse implications in the short term for timely delivery of services that will improve basic living conditions, particularly for children. Greater devolvement of responsibility from national to provincial government is aimed at improving accountability in service delivery at the provincial level in the long term. However, lack of capacity within certain provinces, such as the Eastern Cape, Northern Cape and the North West Province, constrains the effective delivery of services(2) to those who are often among the poorest and most in need of basic services, such as children. Why Children and the Budget? Children form over 47% of South Africa's population, yet still suffer from poor nutrition, inadequate health services, clean water, sanitation and basic education. Budgetary programmes, specifically socio-economic expenditures, affect the well-being and life opportunities of children directly. Yet, children do not form a powerful political lobby, and cannot advocate themselves for more effective delivery of socio-economic services that meet their needs. The policy implication is that the lack of a detailed assessment of what government is spending on children inhibits the effective improvement of basic living standards of children in South Africa. The South African government has committed itself to following the universal declaration for a 'First Call for Children' in its ratification of the Convention on the Rights of the Child. The policy implications of this declaration necessitate that children's rights and needs are prioritised within the government's programme of reconstruction and development in South Africa. Government and civil society efforts to integrate the 'First Call for Children' into the RDP by drawing up the National Plan of Action (NPA), recognise that the long run future of South Africa is dependent on the quality of its people - their knowledge, skill, health and well-being. Children are the majority of both today's and tomorrow's population in South Africa. Placing children at the centre of the reconstruction process will allow for sustainable socio-economic development for all peoples in South Africa. What is the Children's Budget? The Children's Budget project aims to strengthen the 'First Call for Children' by:
The Children's Budget is not a separate budget for children. Rather, it is a first attempt to examine what resources government is allocating to programmes that benefit children, and whether these programmes adequately reflect the needs of children. This will enable both government and civil society to monitor the performance of government departments in an effort to meet policy commitments, such as the NPA, towards children in South Africa. Essentially, the Children's Budget has two target groups. On the one hand, the Children's Budget project provides a critical information and analytical resource for civil society children's advocacy groups, such as the National Committee on the Rights of the Child (NCRC). On the other hand, it is intended that the research analyses provide policy makers and policy implementers the necessary information to consider the particular needs of children. This will help decision-makers to be aware of the impact of policies when drawing up 'child-friendly' programmes for departmental budgets. Rather than tackle the budget in its entirety, the pilot phase of the Children's Budget project selects five key sectors important to the survival, protection and development of children in South Africa - health, welfare, education, justice, and policing. In addition, a cross-cutting paper on institutional concerns investigates what happens when the government does not provide the necessary services for children, particularly in the welfare sector. Researchers for the Children's Budget project were selected from a range of NGOs active in children's rights advocacy. Sectoral resource persons, with expertise in relevant sectors, provided key support and guidance to the researchers. The project was structured in a way that drew a balance of socio-economic skills and expertise into the research group and provided a forum for interactive debate. This has built capacity in several NGOs to start engaging in budgetary debate in key sectors affecting children. The ability to relate policy critiques and alternative proposals to 'hard' budgetary figures will strengthen the advocacy efforts of civil society groups, such as the NCRC and those NGOs involved with the Children's Budget, at a time when government departments are facing severe budgetary constraints. What approach did the Children's Budget research take? Although the provision of many services needed by children involves the collaboration of two or more departments - for instance, child protection services - research on the Children's Budget was undertaken on a sectoral basis. As budgets are drawn up along departmental lines, this approach, while recognising the intersectoral nature of service provision to children, ensures the link between departmental responsibility and allocation of limited resources towards children. The underlying theme weaving through the sectoral investigations focuses on "Equity, Access and Redress" in the delivery of quality services to children in South Africa. Each chapter:
Research on the Children's Budget notes that in order for the government to attain its budget deficit targets as set in its Growth, Redistribution and Employment (GEAR) macroeconomic strategy, government will limit further real increases in social spending(3). While not excluding the possibility of recommendations for increased spending in certain sectors, particularly welfare, the sectoral investigations explore opportunities for further reprioritisation within sectoral spending towards children. Do Budgets Follow Policy? In general, do policies recognise the needs of children? Do budgets tend to follow policies that give priority to the needs of children and reprioritise spending to meet children's needs? The Children's Budget sector studies reveal mixed results, in this regard. There has been some progress at the national level, particularly as regards presidential lead projects in health and education, and moves to redistribute spending across the provinces. However, redistribution of spending that prioritises the needs of children is proving to be problematic at the level of provincial departments. For instance, at the national level, the health sector with its focus on primary health care policy and two child-related RDP projects (the Primary School Nutrition Programme [PSNP] and Free Health Care [FHC] for women and children under six years) directs considerable resources to health. In education too, the bulk of the considerable budget is directed towards children. Both these sectors are tackling redress of racial and geographic access to basic services. There are moves to redistribute spending across the provinces in line with the Financial and Fiscal Commission (FFC) proposals, and in education to equalise teacher: pupil ratios. The health sector continues to be challenged by questions of quality and efficiency, particularly at the provincial level. More specifically, challenges are posed by the lack of basic infrastructure in many rural and peri-urban areas and insufficient personnel to staff new clinics recently built under the RDP clinic building programme. Constraints in education have been considerable. The move to equity between provinces has not necessarily resulted in shifting resources from the privileged to the disadvantaged sectors of the population. With 80% of the entire provincial education budget fixed in personnel costs, and any changes to this dependent on the negotiations in the Education Labour Relations Council, difficulties associated with increasing the teacher:pupil ratio and the redeployment of teachers limits the extent of reprioritisation within provincial education budgets. In the welfare sector, while policies are being substantially reformed to target those who are vulnerable, particularly women and children, welfare is still heavily weighted towards the elderly - 79% of all welfare expenditure is directed towards the aged and disabled. Children lose out of two counts: firstly, social security comprises 88% of welfare spending and is largely directed at paying old age pensions and disability grants. While children also benefit from old age pensions, particularly within extended families, welfare services - which cater largely to the needs of children - are severely underfunded at only 9% of the welfare budget. Secondly, only 10.5% of social security transfers support maintenance grants for poor children. The Lund Committee on child support proposed that in the interests of equity, the present system be phased out and replaced with a flat rate child support benefit. This policy proposal has been extremely contentious, as it greatly reduces the amount to each family currently receiving the grant, in the interests of wider and more equitable coverage. Recent proposals indicate that the Minister of Welfare and Population Development and the Department of Welfare have acknowledged both positions in the debate, and are seeking a compromise, that will redress past inequities and prioritise children in welfare spending with limited available resources. At the other end of the scale, within the justice and police sectors, budget programmes do not reflect any changes in policy priorities towards children. Further, children are prioritised in some policies and not in others. For instance, the national crime prevention strategy identifies child victims and offenders as priority groups, but provincial police plans do not. This means that budget programmes for child protection services, which are administered at the provincial level, are not prioritised in the competition for limited funding. The budget allocation to child protection units is only 0,15% of the entire police budget. In the context of reported crimes against children having increased by 117% between 1993 to 1996, child protection units are severely constrained and unable to deliver an equitable and quality service. Similarly, in the justice sector, although policy transformation specifically prioritises both juvenile offenders and children in need of care and protection, there is no specific allocation in the justice budget for a separate juvenile justice system, nor does justice spending prioritise special courts for the prosecution of child abuse cases. For the most part, children are subject to the same legislative provisions as are adult offenders. While there are certain differences in judicial procedures for juvenile offenders - children's cases are held 'in camera', diversion from the criminal justice system into restorative programmes is possible for less serious offenders, and in certain cases, children are able to have criminal charges converted into welfare inquiries - these cannot alone form an effective juvenile justice system. Recent policy proposals strongly recommend that juvenile offenders be handled in a 'restorative' rather than a retributive manner, and as many cases as possible be diverted out of the criminal justice process into rehabilitative care. These policy changes are not been reflected within the justice budget. Neither is there any recognition that diversion of juvenile justice cases from the criminal justice system into rehabilitative care transfers responsibility to the welfare department and non-government welfare services. The first step, then, in reprioritising government spending towards children is to ensure that budget programmes follow and complement over-arching and sectoral policies targeting children. Targeted spending towards children involves more than just allocating funds to arbitrary programmes directed towards children; improving the situation of children in South Africa calls for the delivery of quality services to children. Policy Challenges in Service Delivery to Children When limited budgetary resources call for wise and efficient government spending, there are certain policy challenges in delivering quality services to children. Recommendations from the Children's Budget across all sectors include:
Recommendations on specific issues include:
The Next Step? The Children's Budget is a first step towards evaluating what government is spending on children in South Africa. The studies included in this collection will provide a valuable resource to children's rights advocacy groups, as well as key government departments that deliver socio-economic services to children. We hope that the Children's Budget will provide pertinent information to all those advocating for a 'First Call for Children' in South Africa. In addition, recommendations and indicators identified in the studies will support efforts to monitor government performance in meeting its policy commitments, such as the NPA, to children in South Africa. Monitoring expenditure on budgetary programmes directed towards children is the basis for 'mainstreaming' children in policy dialogue. This is part of the first step towards advocating a 'child-centred' development strategy in South Africa. Civil society groups active in children's rights have a particularly important role to play in intervening to:
The Children's Budget Project notes that although government has acknowledged the appalling situation of many children in South Africa, and committed itself to a First Call for Children, budgets do not yet reflect government's visionary policies for children. Is there the political will to "walk the walk" and let the commitments made be reflected in actual programmes and, eventually, in action? References Abedian, I., 1995, The Budget Book: Choice, Challenge and Change, Idasa: Public Information Centre Batchelor, P., 1996 'Policing the Provinces: A Budgetary Analysis', Working Paper, Idasa: Public Information Centre (forthcoming) De Bruyn, J. and Seidman Makgetla, N, 1997 'Restructuring the Budget Process' in The Women's Budget II, Idasa: Public Information Centre (forthcoming) Department of Finance, 1996, Growth, Employment and Redistribution: A Macroeconomic Strategy, Pretoria Department of Finance, 1997, Budget Review, Pretoria De Vylder, S., 1996, Development Strategies, Macroeconomic Policies and the Rights of the Child, Discussion paper for Rädda Barnen Robinson, S and Biersteker, L, (eds), 1997, First Call: The South African Children's Budget, Idasa, Cape Town Walker, L., 1996, 'Budget Reform, the MTEF, and Budget Roll-overs', Business Day End Notes: 2. Budgetary roll-overs, i.e. unspent funds, amounted to R8,9 billion for 1995/6. The bulk of these roll-overs are located at the provincial level, and result from lack of capacity to operationalise service delivery at the provincial level (Walker, 1996). 3. GEAR notes that there is limited scope for increased public spending on social services. This means that allocations to budget votes, such as health, education, and welfare, will not increase by much in real terms (Department of Finance, 1996). Rather, improved service delivery has to be sourced from greater reprioritisation and increased efficiency in the use of resources, and by developing effective partnerships with other key role-players, particularly NGOs that deliver services to children. |
|
| Back to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities |
