06.01.2015 Views

Child Poverty in Mozambique. A Situation and Trend ... - Unicef

Child Poverty in Mozambique. A Situation and Trend ... - Unicef

Child Poverty in Mozambique. A Situation and Trend ... - Unicef

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

The public budget is the Government’s primary tool for allocat<strong>in</strong>g resources for<br />

childhood poverty reduction. With<strong>in</strong> sectors, the equitable allocation of resources<br />

across prov<strong>in</strong>ces <strong>and</strong> programmes is also fundamental for reduc<strong>in</strong>g prevail<strong>in</strong>g<br />

disparities. Accord<strong>in</strong>g to official figures conta<strong>in</strong>ed <strong>in</strong> the Government accounts (CGE),<br />

total expenditure averaged around 27 per cent of GDP over the period 2000 to 2005<br />

<strong>and</strong> was f<strong>in</strong>anced by domestic revenues <strong>and</strong> aid <strong>in</strong>flows <strong>in</strong> approximately equal<br />

proportions. The Government is thus heavily reliant on aid flows.<br />

A key expenditure target established by the Government <strong>in</strong> its first <strong>Poverty</strong> Reduction<br />

Strategy (PARPA I, 2001-2005) was that 65 per cent or more of total expenditure<br />

(whether f<strong>in</strong>anced by own revenues or aid) should be spent on six “priority sectors”,<br />

namely education, health, <strong>in</strong>frastructure (<strong>in</strong>clud<strong>in</strong>g water), agriculture <strong>and</strong> rural<br />

development, governance <strong>and</strong> “other” key areas (social action, work <strong>and</strong> employment<br />

<strong>and</strong> energy <strong>and</strong> m<strong>in</strong>eral resources).<br />

Figure 2.5: Expenditure <strong>in</strong> PARPA I priority areas (by Functional Classification)<br />

80<br />

% Total Government Expenditure<br />

70<br />

.<br />

60<br />

50<br />

40<br />

30<br />

20<br />

1.2<br />

1.2<br />

8.4<br />

8.9<br />

5.9<br />

5.2<br />

19.9 17.1<br />

14.0 13.4<br />

1.6<br />

1.3 1.4<br />

7.8<br />

1.1<br />

7.7 8.1<br />

1.0<br />

9.4<br />

6.3 3.4<br />

9.3<br />

5.3<br />

5.0<br />

4.2<br />

19.7 19.7<br />

19.2 17.0<br />

15.3<br />

10.5<br />

12.9<br />

13.3 10.9 10.5<br />

0.9<br />

8.8<br />

4.8<br />

19.5<br />

13.1<br />

10<br />

15.2 16.1<br />

19.8<br />

23.3<br />

18.0<br />

20.3 20.0 20.4<br />

0<br />

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005<br />

Education<br />

Infrastructure<br />

Governance, Security & Judicial System<br />

Health (Health System & HIV/AIDS)<br />

Agriculture & Rural Development<br />

Other Priority Sectors (<strong>in</strong>clud<strong>in</strong>g<br />

Social Action)<br />

Note: Expenditures are grouped by their functional classification. Thus, these figures differ from the sectoral expenditures<br />

presented <strong>in</strong> subsequent chapters (which follow the <strong>in</strong>stitutional classification).<br />

Sources: Adapted from CGE by MPD/MF<br />

Until 2004, budget execution <strong>in</strong> these priority sectors was typically a little below<br />

PARPA I targets (see Figure 2.5). However, these figures should be regarded only as<br />

broadly <strong>in</strong>dicative of overall expenditures, as a large proportion of external fund<strong>in</strong>g<br />

is “off-budget” <strong>and</strong> therefore not captured <strong>in</strong> the Government accounts. This is<br />

particularly pronounced <strong>in</strong> the priority sectors of health <strong>and</strong> education, where donor<br />

support has been concentrated. As Hodges <strong>and</strong> Tibana (2005, p. 31) concede <strong>in</strong><br />

a critical review of Government performance: “If the off-budget expenditure was<br />

<strong>in</strong>cluded <strong>in</strong> the data, it is likely that they would show the official PARPA targets be<strong>in</strong>g<br />

met or exceeded”. The <strong>in</strong>creased amount of aid on-budget <strong>in</strong> the year 2005 <strong>in</strong>deed<br />

illustrated that the target was surpassed, with 67 per cent of Government expenditure<br />

<strong>in</strong> 2005 made on priority sectors.<br />

CHILDHOOD POVERTY IN MOZAMBIQUE: A SITUATION AND TRENDS ANALYSIS<br />

41

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!