Asociación Civil por la Igualdad y la Justicia (ACIJ)
When ACIJ first started the EEP, it gathered information primarily through observation and speaking with principals and teachers in City schools. Over time, however, as its work has become better known, parents from poorer neighborhoods have approached the organization with concerns related to scholarships and transportation (to schools in wealthier neighborhoods that have classroom space).
The principal challenge that ACIJ has faced in its education budget work has been access to information. When it first started its work, Department of Education refused to provide the requested information. The organization took the matter to court on a couple of occasions, and the court each time ordered the Department to turn over the requested information. However, the courts in Argentina are weak, and the government often fails to obey court orders. The Department, nonetheless, has responded better to information requests from ACIJ following the litigation.
Now the principal problem ACIJ faces is that the data the Department compiles is insufficiently detailed and complete. For example, schools that are the recipients of infrastructure spending are named for only 50% of the funds spent; the recipients of the remaining funds are not designated. It has thus been impossible to determine where all the funding goes. As a result, ACIJ has had to limit its analysis to distribution of infrastructure funds to the 50% that is designated. In this situation, litigation will not help greatly, as the law is vague on what information the government is obliged to develop and release. In response ACIJ has presented a draft law to the local legislature proposing mechanisms whereby the government could generate precise information on matters of concern in the education sphere. ACIJ also makes up for some gaps in the government data by doing surveys itself.
ACIJ has been successful in making the City’s education budget visible. Prior to 2006 neither legislators nor the public knew what the education budget was being spent on or where it was being spent. Although many politicians were concerned about social spending, because of the lack of readily accessible information in the budget, it was very difficult for them to understand where the funding was going. Now ACIJ takes the executive’s budget when it is released and analyzes it by geography (by neighborhoods in the City) and spending area. It also tracks spending over time, to determine whether the government is working to progressively realize its obligations. It presents comments on its findings to the legislature and members of the executive branch. It also uses the media to good effect. Prior to ACIJ’s work, few people were aware of or talking about the human rights impact of education spending, particularly the rich vs. poor break?down in that spending. Some of these issues are now the subject of public debate. Crowding in schools has, however, not yet eased.
November 2009
Visit the (ACIJ) website (Argentina).
|
Centre for Social Accountability (CSA)
The vision of the Centre for Social Accountability (CSA) is the institutionalization in South Africa of the right to social accountability and the realization of social and economic rights through the effective management of public resources. Because South Africa has strong human rights provisions in its Constitution as well as a well-functioning judiciary, CSA relies a lot on a legal framework in its analysis and adopts a legal approach for a lot of its advocacy.
CSA’s predecessor was the Public Service Accountability Monitor (PSAM), which played a watchdog role, focusing on individual cases of government maladministration and misconduct. After 2004 PSAM decided to undertake more systematic monitoring. CSA, which came into being in 2007, continues to develop and implement the PSAM monitoring methodology, with a particular focus on the Eastern Cape Provincial Administration. With the use of the PSAM methodology, the Centre aims to improve public service delivery and the realisation of socio-economic rights to basic services (such as healthcare, education and housing), through the strengthening of social accountability processes (including resource allocation, strategic planning, performance monitoring, expenditure management, integrity and oversight processes).
Education has always been a central focus for PSAM (and CSA), because education has the largest single allocation in the national budget, and is also allocated 50% of the budget of Eastern Cape Province. The PSAM methodology comprises the following components:
-
A Planning and Budget Evaluation (that is, what resources are available to public service providers, whether government departments or private companies, to address social and economic needs and how do they plan to use these resources?)
An analysis is made of the consistency between state policy priorities and the budget allocations to service providers in the context of the needs and challenges confronting them. In addition, the responsiveness of service providers' strategic plans is evaluated against pressing social and economic needs and their own internal organisational challenges. Use is made of strategic plans, business plans, outsourcing contracts, service level agreements, and infrastructure development and maintenance plans. Oversight bodies and civic groups are informed of deficiencies in budget allocations and strategic plans.
Spending is tracked against allocations. Emphasis is placed on whether service providers can account for expenditures against budget allocations and whether narrative explanations provide an adequate justification for any over- or under-expenditure. Questions are also asked about whether public resources were effectively managed and necessary financial controls were adhered to. Particular attention is paid to expenditure on infrastructure and maintenance and on human resource expenditure management. Use is made of quarterly and annual financial statements and internal audit and external audit (Auditor-General’s) reports. Oversight bodies and civic groups are informed of over- or under-spending and its impact on service delivery.
This involves monitoring performance of service providers in implementing the strategic plans. Use is made of quarterly and annual performance reports produced for management purposes, internal audits, external audits (i.e. performance reports by the Auditor-General), and reports by constitutional oversight bodies. Comparisons are also made between infrastructure development and maintenance plans, and reports on the implementation of infrastructure and maintenance projects. Oversight bodies and civic groups are informed of performance challenges and failures and their impact on service delivery and other accountability processes.
This involves the monitoring of disciplinary structures. In addition, the functioning of disciplinary processes in key service delivery departments is evaluated along with their capacity to respond. Use is made of annual reports by service delivery departments and reports from internal disciplinary databases. Advocacy is conducted around high profile cases of the abuse and/or misuse of public resources (including public office). Oversight bodies and civic groups are informed of challenges and weaknesses faced by integrity processes in public service departments and their impact on service delivery and other accountability processes.
An evaluation is made of the degree to which service providers and the executive make themselves accountable to constitutional oversight bodies. Emphasis is placed on whether committee recommendations/resolutions are implemented. Use is made of Auditor-General’s financial (and where possible, performance and forensic) audit reports. These reports are evaluated in order to establish the consistency of the audit opinion reached with regard to findings on the effective implementation of financial management and control systems. The findings and resolutions of Legislature oversight committees are also closely monitored. Oversight bodies are reminded of previous performance issues and recommendations and Legislature committees and civic groups are informed of accountability issues.
While CSA has seen certain improvements in the education sector in recent years, including more efficient spending, more schools being build and more textbooks available, pass rates are still too low. PSAM/CSA has concluded that, while the education budget is inadequate, the size of the budget is only one of a number of factors contributing to the under-performance of schools. Other factors include poor financial management, a lack of leadership, a low caliber of teaching and political interference in education decisions (for example, when the Department of Education tries to sack poorly-performing teachers).
While CSA does some field research, it does not work with communities. It instead focuses much of its work on legislatures, as well as on equipping and providing constructive criticism to the Department of Education, which is inadequately staffed. It also works closely with other organizations, such as the Legal Resources Centre, with whom it develops and pursues test cases in the courts.
November 2009
Visit the (CSA) website ( South Africa).
|
Civil Society Coalition for Quality Basic Education (CSCQBE)
The aim of CSCQBE is to achieve measurable change in the quality of basic education (primary education) for all in Malawi through supporting and influencing the implementation and monitoring of the government’s education policies, strategies and plans.
CSCQBE was formed in July 2000 as a coalition of independent, voluntary organizations, each having its own activities and constituencies. The Coalition has a membership of 75 CSOs and 27 District Networks. A District Network comprises member CSOs in the District, and these, in turn, feed information to the national Coalition.
The education sector in Malawi has faced a lot of challenges since the introduction of Free Primary Education in 1994. These include shortage of well-qualified teachers as well as teaching and learning materials, classrooms, and teachers’ houses; low salaries for teachers; poor maintenance of infrastructures; and lack of adequate community support to school governance. The result is a poor quality of education, absenteeism and a high dropout rate.
CSCQBE:
-
Advocates and lobbies for actions and policies needed to ensure that every citizen of Malawi can realize their rights to quality, free public education;
-
Provides a common platform and meeting point for CSOs to undertaken activities to advance quality basic education for all;Co-operates with national, sub-regional, regional and global networks in pursuit of its aims; and
-
Seeks to form a national movement to promote and monitor the implementation of the right to basic education and the achievement of related plans.
Since its establishment, the CSCQBE has provided technical and moral support to the government of Malawi in its education and poverty reduction programs. The Coalition’s strategic activities include:
-
Undertaking budget monitoring, to hold the government accountable and transparent in the use of funds. It focuses on pro-poor expenditures: teaching and learning materials, teacher training and welfare, inspection, special needs education, and cross cutting issues of gender and HIV/AIDS. It focuses on the budget at all levels (national, district and school) to determine if the funding is adequate, and tracks allocations to see whether they are reaching their intended beneficiaries.
-
Carrying out research on educational issues to collect adequate information for planning and advocacy. The key emphases are on access, equity, quality and relevance of education, looking at enrolment of pupils, drop-out rates, absenteeism (both pupils and teachers), community work, HIV/AIDS impact, violence against pupils, teacher distribution, etc.
-
Building the capacity of CSOs attached to the Coalition in research, advocacy, policy analysis, communication, project management, monitoring and evaluation.
-
Advocating for the achievement of Education for All (EFA) goals as well as the education Millennium Development Goals (MDGS). In this regard it advocates for expansion of early childhood development, universal free and compulsory primary education, life skills development for out-of-school youth, increase in adult literacy, gender parity in primary and secondary education as well as improvements in quality and excellence in education.
-
Sensitizing and mobilizing CSOs and communities on policy and educational content issues, in order to enhance their participation in policy formulation, implementation, monitoring and review at all levels. The targeted groups are members of the Coalition, district assemblies and school governance structures like school management committees and Parents Teacher Associations.
The Coalition is able to have some input during national-level formulation of the budget, because of the reports and analyses it has produced on the education budget over the years. Once the budget is released, it does a quick analysis and provides simple materials to legislators (for example, in the education sub-committee) to assist them in posing appropriate questions to the government about the budget.
CSCQBE uses as its framework the EFA goals and the MDGs, together with child rights guarantees in Malawian law and the standards in international treaties that Malawi has ratified.
The Coalition’s strength derives from its 75 members’ speaking with one voice as well as from its evidence-based advocacy. While it has gained credibility with the government, policy-makers, legislators, the media and the public, it continues to get flak from government on occasion in response to its reports. Although it finds it relatively easy to get access to government information, other CSOs in the country do not, and access to information remains a challenge for them as Malawi does not have a freedom of information act.
The Coalition has succeeded in creating greater awareness about education and spending on education in the country. Recently, the education budget has increased slightly as a share of the overall budget (13%). Although that still falls considerably short of international standards (26%), it is an increase, which the Coalition sees this increase as, in part, a response to its work.
November 2009
Visit the (CSCQBE) website (Malawi).
|
HakiElimu
HakiElimu’s vision is that every person in Tanzania should be able to enjoy his or her right to basic quality education in schools that respect a person’s dignity, foster creativity, emphasize critical learning, and advance the notions of equity, human rights and democracy. The organization works to realize equity, quality, human rights and democracy in education by facilitating communities to transform schools and influence policy making, stimulating imaginative public dialogue and organizing for change, conducting critical research, policy analysis and advocacy, and collaborating with partners to advance common interests and social justice.
The organization’s four expected outcomes for the 2008-2011 period are:
1. Citizens are informed about basic education for liberation and democracy,
2. The quality of public debate is deepened,
3. Citizens are inspired to take action, and hold the government to account,
4. Government and other public institutions become more responsive to citizens’ views and demands.
HakiElimu’s work is grounded in the belief that major changes are driven by social movements where citizens were the proponents of change, as decision-makers are far more likely to respond to public pressure rather than to evidence or arguments standing alone. HakiElimu realizes its goals through:
-
Media Unit which disseminates accurate information about education and democracy, facilitates investigative journalism, creates opportunities for the public to have a voice, and commissions opinion polls;
-
A Policy Monitoring and Accountability program within CE enables Friends and other citizens to monitor, document, hold debates, take action and communicate any feedback on policy implementation and its impact in their communities.
It conducts research on primary and secondary education, budget simplification and analysis, and also monitors newspaper columns, relevant working documents and the implementation of relevant government policies. Since 2008 HakiElimu has expanded its budget work and has mainstreamed it into all units, following on a realization that the government’s budget is closely related to all of the organization’s work. The budget work undertaken in the different units is overseen by the Policy Analysis and Advocacy Unit.
HakiElimu’s education budget work:
-
The organization analyzes the national education budget, together with policies, directives, plans, etc., at the national and sub-national level, with a specific attention to aspects that affect the quality of education (e.g., materials, teacher training, capitation grant). It uses its result in various forms of advocacy and in creating awareness among citizens and members of parliament.
-
The organization reviews the Auditor General’s report, summarizes it, and translates the summary into Swahili, making it widely available so that other organizations and ordinary citizens can question authorities, and legislators can raise appropriate question in sessions of the legislature.
-
This past year the organization has started up a social accountability monitoring project, training FoE, and other CSOs in the use of a simple tool to track education funds at the district level and to monitor projects’ performance where they are occurring.
-
The organization also trains FoE, district officials and citizens in public expenditure tracking at the school and district levels through a simple tool that combines plans, policy, budgets and programs. The focus is on both primary and secondary education.
-
The organization has also recently introduced a youth program, training youth to do simple policy and budget analysis, to encourage and enable them to fight back against corruption, and to demand and expect government accountability.
HakiElimu works first and foremost within the framework of Tanzania’s National Education and Training Policy (1995), which is a good policy. When appropriate and useful, the organization also works with the right to education and other standards in the international human rights treaties that Tanzania has ratified.
The problem in Tanzania is less with the education policies themselves, and mostly with their implementation. In 2000-2001, for example, Tanzania (re)introduced universal primary education, which guarantees accessibility and availability of primary education for all. The government, with community contribution, built a large number of new schools, and enrollment in schools has increased dramatically. However, the government did not plan properly to ensure that there would be a corresponding increase in the number of trained teachers, so the quality of teaching is quite poor, and the student: teacher ratio has increased dramatically. In addition, children in some remote areas still have to walk 5-15 kilometers to the nearest school, and many schools have no latrines, no materials, and at the secondary school level, no labs. Transportation to school remains a substantial problem even in urban areas.
Management of the education sector is not good. In particular, there is mismanagement and corruption in the use of education funds, with many schools, for example, receiving only a portion of the funds allocated to them.
The most significant challenge that HakiElimu faces in its education budget work is access to information. The Ministry of Finance does not make budget documents available in a timely fashion, and bureaucrats often act as if the public has no right to information. In addition, there is a lack of capacity at the sub-national level to make information available, as those levels of government often themselves do not receive the necessary information from the national government in a timely fashion, if at all.
While the government tends to view HakiElimu as in opposition, it provides information to international donors and development partners, so that HakiElimu often relies on the latter for access to the budget and related information it needs.
HakiElimu has found that government officials themselves often lack the capacity to analyze the budget and/or to package it for different audiences, and are quite defensive in response to requests from citizens for budget information. Very few NGOs and CBOs can work on the budget, as the latter not only uses technical terms, but is published in English, while Swahili, in addition to being an official language, is the one most commonly used in the country. This is one reason why HakiElimu devotes considerable attention and resources to making budget information readily available in Swahili.
November 2009
1 HakiElimu’s work with audit reports is described in greater detail in IBP’s publication, Our money, Our responsibility, pp. 120-125. Available at: http://www.internationalbudget.org/resources/expenditure/index.htm Visit the HakiElimu website (Tanzania).
|
Instituto de Estudos Socioeconômicos (INESC)
The goal of the Instituto de Estudos Socioeconômicos–INESC is to contribute to the improvement of representative and participatory democracy in Brazil, and to ensure the realization of human rights through strengthening the voice of civil society so it is better able to influence national and international governance forums. INESC seeks to ensure the development and adoption of public policies and government budgets designed to realize all human rights (economic, social, cultural, civil, political, and environmental) on a non-discriminatory basis.
In its budget work, INESC undertakes the following principal activities:
-
Monitoring the public budget and working to influence the formulation and execution of the budget;
-
Producing budget analyses and providing budgetary data to strategic partners and to others through newsletters and reports;
-
Calling for increases in social expenditures as well as greater access to and transparency of public information to facilitate the society's participation and social control;
-
Advocating for proposals submitted to the National Congress designed to establish and institutionalize channels for civil society’s participation in formulation of the public budget.
INESC participates in the Brazilian Budget Forum (Fórum Brasil de Orçamento - FBO), a civil society grouping. FBO spearheads analysis processes and holds public hearings with parliamentarians and competent authorities to discuss budget proposals. INESC develops draft amendments to budget proposals, sometimes on its own and sometimes in collaboration with FBO, that are considered by the Congress’s Budget Commission (Comissão Mista de Orçamento).
INESC also translates the technical information on public budgets into more accessible language, preparing booklets designed to facilitate the Brazilian population’s understanding of the relevance of the budget to their lives. INESC also sponsors courses for its CSO partners. Focusing on the budget, the courses aim to strengthen the popular political actors vis-à-vis the State and government institutions, and enhance their capacity to advocate for human rights.
INESC uses national, regional and international human rights standards in its policy analysis and budget work. It is strongly committed to a rights framework, believing that such a framework is a fundamental way to address values and notions of citizenship. It has used the rights framework to address a range of social issues, including those affecting indigenous people, youth, the environment, land and agrarian reform and the right for food. These social issues are priorities for the organization, and INESC monitors related policies, such as Hunger Zero, and social security policies related to income transfer programs targeted at poor people, children, the elderly, etc. INESC has concluded that human rights standards are the most valid way for the government and legislators to formulate, enact and implement the government’s budget.
Until 2004 INESC’s work was almost exclusively at the national level. That year it started working with social movements at the local level, to build up their knowledge of human rights and capacities in budget work. With this shift INESC expanded its work to include not just the national budget, but also state and municipal budgets. INESC finds that in this state and municipal level work it can see more concrete results from its efforts.
In order to take on work at the state and municipal levels, it spent two years working with a network of 60 civil society grassroots groups in Maranhão in the northeast of the country, adapting its methodology to the state and municipal levels. After it had satisfactorily tested its new methodology in Maranhão and another state, two years ago it initiated a project with public schools at periphery of Brasilia and few of which are in very poor areas of the city.
This latter project was INESC’s first significant initiative related directly to the education budget. In this project the organization works with adolescents in six schools, discussing with them about budgets, human rights and citizenship. It has taught them budget analysis. The project has been very successful. The students, for example, identified what were to them the most important elements in the right to education. Using the results of their budget analysis they successfully lobbied for an increase in the local education budget by US$1 million.
While INESC has had a number of successes in its budget work, it still faces significant challenges. Currently one of those challenges is enhancing the concrete impact of its methodology. It is in dialogue with the government and working with consultants to develop a theoretical basis to ensure that its approach and methodology are strong. It is also working to develop “shadow budgets” at both the national and local levels using a human rights framework. The central question is: How is it possible to build a budget using human rights and human rights obligations?
November 2009
Visit the (INESC) website (Brazil).
|
Integrated Social Development Centre (ISODEC)
The Integrated Social Development Centre (ISODEC) was established in 1987 to advance economic, social and cultural rights. A lot of its work in the beginning was focused on service delivery, for example, through rural water projects. Over time the organization concluded that it was neither feasible nor desirable for NGOs to continue playing such a service delivery role, and that it was and is the responsibility of the government to take on that role.
NGOs should instead monitor and do advocacy around government policies, programs and activities. Because one of the principal channels through which the government undertakes service delivery is the budget, ISODEC established its Centre for Budget Advocacy (CBA) in 2000.
The CBA is the only initiative in Ghana that does budget work with a pro-poor perspective. In its work it prioritizes essential services—health, education and water. It does budget analysis and expenditure monitoring as well as capacity-building for government, legislators and civil society. It also examines macroeconomic policies to determine if they are geared to poverty reduction and ensuring the delivery of these essential services.
The CBA analyzes the national and district budgets, determining the share of the budget directed to social sectors in general, and the education sector specifically, relative to the overall budget. In looking at the budget CBA is concerned not just with the allocation for education, but the breakdown of that allocation into primary, secondary and tertiary education. It wants to ensure that this breakdown reflects a pro-poor bias and prioritizes primary education.
Most local-level expenditure in education comes from the national government in the form of direct payments of teacher salaries. At the same time the district is responsible for funding of education facilities, so CBA also monitors the district budget to ensure that the district, in its own budget allocations, gives appropriate priority to education.
CBA uses this information in advocacy and other interactions with government, elected representatives and civil society at the two levels.
In addition to analyzing the budgets, CBA is also involved in monitoring education expenditures at the district level to ensure that they are made efficiently and effectively. This monitoring is undertaken in collaboration with the Ghana National Education Campaign Coalition (GNECC), a network of NGO working on education issues, whose formation ISODEC facilitated. GNECC asked CBA to develop a questionnaire for monitoring usage of capitation grants. It uses these questionnaires in interviews with students, teachers, etc. GNECC undertakes regular surveys and CBA assists the Coalition in analyzing the data produced. The Coalition uses the reports produced to engage the Ministry of Education and officials at the school level.
In its work CBA uses the right to education guarantees in Ghana’s Constitution. However, these are quite broad and there are debates, for example, about what the guarantee of “free” primary education means. In the absence of a national education policy and because the guarantees in the Constitution like these are not very clear, CBA looks to international standards to help fill in the gaps.
A principal challenge that CBA has faced in its education budget work is securing multi-year funding for its research. Short-term funding does not allow it to track developments and build its database over a period of years.
Another challenge is, of course, access to information. The government has itself identified as a problem that it does not produce adequate, appropriate information. The availability and quality of information also typically varies from district to district, making comparisons between districts difficult. In addition, where the information exists, it is often difficult for civil society to access it.
At the same time CBA has been successful in producing and disseminating very widely regular reports on the budget. It also had a success in facilitating the formation of the GNECC, and with the Coalition producing regular reports on expenditures at the school level. In addition it collaborates with the Coalition in working to influence education policies and allocations, and this appears to be having some impact.
November 2009
Visit the (ISODEC) website (Ghana).
|
Pattiro – Centre for Study and Regional Learning
Pattiro was established in 1999 with a vision of a society where social justice and good governance are realized through enhanced participation by individuals and civil society in the public decision-making process, particularly at the local level.
Pattiro’s mission is to:
Encourage the fulfillment of basic rights by the State through equity in the allocation of public budgets,
Develop models of good governance that enable the society to realize social justice,
and strengthen the capacity of civil society to participate actively in the decision-making process.
Pattiro’s work falls into three areas:
Pattiro is involved in pro-poor policy and budget advocacy, with a particular attention to the situation of women. The organization believes that one of the causes of poverty is the lack both of government capacity and of a commitment to encourage the involvement of women and marginalized groups in public processes. To bring about a change in this situation, Pattiro undertakes capacity-building with civil society groups and women as well as local government.
Economic Policy
Pattiro believes that good governance results in improved welfare for people. To enhance good governance, the organization works for transparency in government processes as well as greater access to government information, as these, in turn, will increase public participation. By being able to participate more fully in government, people can ensure that it better meets their needs. In particular, Pattiro believes that regional resources can enhance the well-being of people at the local level.
Social Policy
Pattiro believes that the decentralization that was introduced in 2001 in Indonesia can be used to solve problems of poverty, through encouraging active participation of the local community and a strong commitment of local government to poverty alleviation. Pattiro is involved in capacity-building of local government, and in enabling and encouraging community participation in monitoring government programs. In addition, although Indonesia ratified the ICESCR in 2005, neither the government nor the people have much understanding of the rights guaranteed therein. Pattiro believes that increased knowledge of the ICESCR will strengthen each party's commitment to poverty reduction and the realization of economic and social rights, especially for vulnerable and marginalized groups. In particular, the organization is concerned that many of the poor are not enjoying the right to education, and so is trying to create a school accountability system as a way to make sure that education is within reach of the poor.
Pattiro uses a human rights framework (with particular attention to progressive achievements, as well as the obligations of conduct and result), because they have found it helpful in assessing government actions and in talking with the government.
The organization analyzes the national education budget as well as local budgets, with greater attention to the latter. As part of decentralization, the central government allocates both education funds and general funds to local governments. Local governments make a decision as to the share of the general funds that will go towards the first 9 years of education. (Provincial governments are responsible for funding upper secondary education, while the central government funds go to the university level.) Pattiro looks both at the sufficiency of allocations to education as well as the efficiency of expenditures.
The organization’s work on the education budget has included:
-
Research on local government budgets and the extent to which they are in compliance with ICESCR obligations;
-
Capacity-building for policymakers on how to develop education policies in line with the government’s ESC rights obligations, and encouraging the development of education regulations and budgets in line with these obligations;
-
Research on efficiency of education spending, specifically using the PETS (Public Expenditure Tracking System) methodology;
-
Capacity-building for communities in monitoring education budgets at the school level as well as technical assistance to schools on budget transparency;
-
Analysis of public expenditure vs. private expenditure in “free” education in the country; and
-
A current project of writing a module on the relationship of the budget to ESC rights principles and obligations.
The most significant challenge Pattiro has faced in its work is in building community capacity and power to demand and secure the changes that are needed. Sometimes the problems encountered are not in the education department, but in, for example, the department of transportation. In any case, the government sometimes has to give into demands, but at other times resists them. Another challenge is developing a sufficient understanding of human rights, to be able to ensure that the budget is complying with rights standards.
November 2009
Visit the Pattiro–Centre for Study and Regional Learning website (Indonesia).
International Organizations
|
ActionAid
ActionAid has been tracking education budgets for many years. Much of this work has focused on monitoring how resources are allocated and if they reach the intended rights-holders.
The efforts have ranged from engaging communities, especially illiterate parents and children in monitoring school budgets to working with national education coalitions on budget advocacy through the Commonwealth Education Fund (CEF). These efforts contributed to raising the awareness and capacity of civil society to hold governments accountable for their commitments to education and for increased transparency in resource allocation (and eventual impact on education).
Our work on budget tracking confirmed the wider influence of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) on national budget processes and allocations. Existing research had shown that the state’s ability to progressively fulfill social and economic rights to all citizens is partly dependent on the international system. IMF Structural Adjustment Programmes had systematically decreased spending on social sectors. This partly explains the under-resourced, poorly managed state of education systems today. The policies of international institutions must therefore be assessed and changed. At the least, these institutions must ensure that policies do not constrain the state’s obligation to respect, protect, and fulfill rights. Thus far, the IMF’s record from a human rights perspective is dismal, given the lack of progress in educational outcomes, especially for girls. With this in mind, in 2005 ActionAid documented how policy conditions included in IMF agreements with low-income countries were impacting how much governments could spend on education, especially on teachers. Contradicting Commitments made essential links between macroeconomic policies and education budgeting in Guatemala, Bangladesh, India, Cameroon, Ethiopia, Kenya, Nigeria and Sierra Leone. A more popular version of this report, Cancelling the Caps, was also released in order to build civil society knowledge and awareness of the issue. We argued that ‘traditional’ budget tracking efforts must go beyond engagement with Ministries of Education to scrutinise the policies of the Ministry of Finance and consider how IMF conditionalities impact resources allocated to education.
This aspect strengthened existing budget monitoring efforts by adding a political analysis of the power dynamics/control of international institutions (and their neoliberal approach to development) over national governments. The fundamental questions were: why has the IMF got this type of influence on national development needs and how can it continue to be allowed to have such a detrimental impact on the lives of millions of children who are denied their right to quality education?
Our research found that how much countries can spend on education and wages is partly determined by the national macroeconomic framework, which includes monetary (working with the supply and availability of money to meet inflation targets) and fiscal (fiscal deficit, public expenditure rates, including the wage bill, and taxation) policy targets. Overall, the pressure to either decrease or maintain inflation rates and fiscal deficits to low single-digits influences efforts to generate national revenue, the rate of employment and growth, all of which determined the size of the national budget. What governments could then actually spend and on what sector is also influenced by the IMF because of the belief that public spending can be inflationary and lead to unsustainable budget deficits, and thus macroeconomic instability. Unfortunately, decisions on social sector investment are often made well after the macroeconomic targets are set, leaving education and health care to scramble for resources. The impact of macro policies on educational outcomes, and the rights of citizens is seldom considered despite evidence showing that IMF policies have adversely affected poverty, public spending, employment, and growth.
In 2007, we sharpened our research and advocacy in response to the IMF’s claims of making progress on alleviating the impact of macroeconomic conditionalities on education. Research focusing specifically on the impact of IMF-imposed wage ceilings (through which all public sector workers including teachers and health workers are hired) was undertaken in Malawi, Mozambique and Sierra Leone. Findings from Confronting the Contradictions echoed the 2005 report, showing that the policy which places ceilings on wage bills continued to constrain spending on teachers, primarily because they make up the largest share of expenditure on public sector workers given the sheer number needed to staff schools. Faced with increasing enrolment in schools and fewer resources (or resources not going to scale) governments were pursuing the more ‘cost efficient’ solution of hiring under qualified or untrained teachers. Lacking a certificate of diploma, these teachers could be paid much less. However, missing from this policy was the consideration of the impact these under prepared teachers would have on children’s learning and thus their educational outcomes. We were also able to show that in other contexts blocks on teacher recruitment led to very high class sizes (of 100 to 1 – meaning no children could learn).
The IMF subsequently (in October 2007) reversed its policies on wage ceilings. Indeed, the 2009 report by the Global Campaign on Education (GCE), Education on the Brink, confirms that there are only 3 countries with a cap on wage bills in IMF agreements. However, the overall policies of low inflation and fiscal deficit continue to influence the size of the wage bill. Even without a formal conditionality on wage bills, in order to maintain macroeconomic stability governments themselves are placing low ceilings on wage bills. The result is the same as before: fewer resources for education, a growing pupil teacher ratio (PTR) of over 100:1 in some countries and hiring of under qualified teachers. All of these have serious implications for the quality of education children receive in school.
In 2009 ActionAid is partnering with Education International and the Global Campaign for Education to build the capacity of Teachers Unions and education coalitions on education finance issues. The Toolkit on Education Financing offers information and practical tools on education financing ranging from monitoring budgets at the school and community level to tracking the impact of IMF conditionalities on the education budget, and specifically teachers. The aim is to shift our focus to enabling national campaigners in each country to hold their Ministry of Finance to account for the policies they agree with the IMF – and to help campaigners make the case for more investment in education as a sound medium and long term economic policy.
We are also exploring how alternative macroeconomic policies such as those advocated by ‘feminist economists’ can offer the opportunity to increase spending on education. It is not just about striking the right balance between macroeconomic stability and social sectors. Rather, it requires redefining what we mean by stability and effectiveness. Under this perspective, the soundness of economic policies would not be based on market criteria, per se, but in terms of whether they ultimately succeed in bringing societies accessing their rights to quality education and health care, and achieving social justice. From a human rights perspective, by insisting on overly restrictive macroeconomic policies and capping public expenditure (either directly or indirectly), the IMF is constraining the ability of the state to provide more of the resources required to fulfill fundamental rights. These conditionalities, then, may also be seen as a breach of human rights obligations as governments are committed to progressively realize education (and other rights) to the maximum of their abilities.
It is therefore essential to take a human rights and feminist perspective to education financing, and apply appropriate tools to monitor budgets and advocate for increased resources for education, and especially for groups whose rights continued to be denied, such as girls, ethnic minorities and the disabled. Among other topics, the Right to Education Project (a joint initiative of ActionAid, GCE and Amnesty International) is currently carrying out research on education budget/financing and the development of right to education indicators. These efforts are based on a human rights framework whereby Participation, Accountability, Non-discrimination, Empowerment and Law are the core principles. They view the essential requirements of education through the 4-A framework for state obligations (Accessibility, Availability, Adaptability and Acceptability).
Looking at education as a right means assessing the obligations of states and verifying what the constitution, law and policies say about the level of financing and for what purpose and end goal. In this light, budget analysis can help to monitor if the state is allocating funds in a way that appropriately matches its obligations: for example, is it allocating funds for making education accessible not only economically (free from fees or costs) but also administratively and in a non-discriminatory manner (for citizens and immigrants alike; for girls and boys alike)? It also presents the opportunity to monitor and document possible violations (a government’s ‘inappropriate’ expenditure can actually be one of the causes of violations of the right to education). A rights-based approach to education and budget analysis also means that how the state invests its money is as important as what it spends it on. It allows assessing, measuring and monitoring education budgets/financing efforts by using rights-based indicators specifically designed for tracking the fulfillment of the right to education. For example, reviewing budgets in the light of an emphasis on the quality of education and not simply on access to education; fully and broadly questioning the expenditure allocated to teachers’ salaries, etc. This also includes looking at how well the state consults with beneficiaries, civil society, teachers, communities and noting if there are mechanisms in place to monitor the budget (by independent bodies).
ActionAid and partner resources on budget tracking and the IMF:
Marphatia, A. ‘The adverse effects of International Monetary Fund Programs on the Health and Education Workforce’ International Journal of Health Services, Volume 40, Number 1. Forthcoming, January 2010
ActionAid, Education International & Global Campaign for Education (2009), Toolkit on Education Financing (on line shortly)
Global Campaign for Education (2009), Education on the brink: will the IMF’s new lease on life ease or block progress towards education goals?
Right-to-Education Project See work on Human Rights and Education Indicators. Peter Hyll-Larsen (
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
; Angela Melchiorre (
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
)
ActionAid Uganda (2009), Improving the quality of learning outcomes in primary schools in Uganda: models in budget monitoring and parental participation
Commonwealth Education Fund (2008), A budget guide for civil society organisations working on education .
Moussie, R., ‘How the rights based approach to macroeconomics can increase funding on education ‘EducationAction, issue 21, Jan. 2007
ActionAid and Global Campaign for Education (2007), Confronting the Contradictions: the IMF, wage bill caps and the case for teachers. Also see IMF’s response to this report and AAI’s response .
ActionAid (2006), Cancelling the Caps: why the EFA movement must confront wage bill caps now.
ActionAid (2005), Contradicting Commitments: how the achievement of education for all is being undermined by the International Monetary Fund
Our work on the IMF and education was informed by ActionAid International USA et al. Blocking Progress: How the Fight against HIV/AIDS is Being Undermined by the World Bank and International Monetary Fund and advocacy and economic literacy training efforts http://www.actionaidusa.org/what/imf_project/
For more information, contact Akanksha A. Marphatia at ActionAid (
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
).
Visit the Action Aid website.
|
|
Specific rights 
