A decade of allocations for and spending on Anti-Corruption in - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

▶
a decade of allocations for and
SMART_READER_LITE
LIVE PREVIEW

A decade of allocations for and spending on Anti-Corruption in - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Aug 20, 2023 123 likes •332 views

Promises, promises: A decade of allocations for and spending on Anti-Corruption in Papua New Guinea Grant Walton Research Fellow Husnia Hushang , Program Officer Development Policy Centre, Crawford School of Public Policy, Australian National

slide-1
SLIDE 1

Grant Walton Research Fellow Husnia Hushang, Program Officer Development Policy Centre, Crawford School of Public Policy, Australian National University. grant.walton@anu.edu.au

Promises, promises: A decade of allocations for and spending on Anti-Corruption in Papua New Guinea

slide-2
SLIDE 2

Introduction

  • Much media coverage about anti-corruption

efforts in PNG

  • However, still much we don’t know about the

country’s anti-corruption agencies.

– The Ombudsman Commission has not publicly released its annual report since 2005!

  • The fortunes of anti-corruption agencies are, in

part, embedded in allocations and for spending

  • n these agencies

– Reveals the degree to which governments fulfil their budgetary promises, and put their money where their mouths are

slide-3
SLIDE 3

Research Questions

  • 1. How have allocations for and spending on

anti-corruption organisations changed over time?

  • 2. How does spending on anti-corruption
  • rganisations compare to other law and

justice organisations, and for overall government spending?

slide-4
SLIDE 4

Mind the gap: spending vs allocations

slide-5
SLIDE 5

Ombudsman Commission: budgeted and actual spending in sync until 2015

17.5 17.8

5 10 15 20 25 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Millions of kina

Ombudsman Commission: Budgeted vs Actual Spending

Budgeted Actual

slide-6
SLIDE 6

Fraud squad: large gap between budget and spending

0.3 1.3

0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Millions of kina

Fraud Squad: Budget vs Actual Spending

Budgeted Actual

slide-7
SLIDE 7

FIU: spending half of allocations

100,000 200,000 300,000 400,000 500,000 600,000 700,000 800,000 2014 2015 2016 2017

Kina

FIU: Budgeted vs Actual Spending

Allocation Actual

slide-8
SLIDE 8

Auditor General: gaps since 2015; large decline in allocations in 2017

17.1 16.4

5 10 15 20 25 30 35 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Millions of kina

Auditor General's Office: Budgeted vs Actual Spending

Budgeted Actual

slide-9
SLIDE 9

Taskforce Sweep/ICAC: a tale of unfulfilled promises

24

5 10 15 20 25 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Millions of kina

Taskforce Sweep/ICAC: Budgeted vs Actual Spending

Budgeted Actual

slide-10
SLIDE 10

Most funding to Auditor General and Ombudsman Commission

18 24

5 10 15 20 25 30 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Millions of kina

Spending on Five Anti-Corruption Agencies

Ombudsman Commission Fraud and Corruption Actual Auditor General ITFS/ICAC FIU

slide-11
SLIDE 11

Total spending less than allocations since 2012

35 62 39 43 43

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Millions of kina

Total Five Anti-Corruption Organisations: Budgeted vs Actual Spending

Budgeted Actual

slide-12
SLIDE 12

Comparisons

slide-13
SLIDE 13

Spending:budgeted: lower for anti-corruption agencies compare to other areas of government

85% 69%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 120% 140% 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

% of Spending-to-Budget: Total Gov't Budget vs Anti-Corruption Organisations

Total budget Anti-corruption

slide-14
SLIDE 14

RPNGC: spending increases set to unravel

277.3 294.2 444.7 42.9

100 200 300 400 500 600 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Millions of Kina

RPNGC Budgeted vs Actual; Anti-Corruption Spending

RPNGC Budgeted RPNGC Actual Anti-corruption actual(solid)/budgeted (dashed)

slide-15
SLIDE 15

DJAG: increased spending since 2011

49.1 159.4 152.5 129.3

20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Millions of kina

DJAG: Budgeted vs Actual; Anti-Corruption Spending

Budgeted Actual Anti-corruption actual(solid)/budgeted (dashed)

slide-16
SLIDE 16

Conclusions

slide-17
SLIDE 17

How have allocations and spending changed over time?

  • Fortunes of anti-corruption agencies have varied :

– funding for Taskforce Sweep dramatically rose and fell within a short period of time, – Fraud Squad saw increases. – The Ombudsman Commission and the Auditor-General’s Office have seen some gains.

  • Overall both allocations and spending on key anti-

corruption organizations have declined since 2013

  • All agencies have suffered from promised budgetary

allocations not materialising,

– Acute within Taskforce Sweep and the Fraud Squad. – Overall, the difference between allocations and spending has been growing since 2012

slide-18
SLIDE 18

How do anti-corruption organisations compare to other government spending?

  • Funding for key anti-corruption organisations

has reduced in importance relative to other areas;

– reductions in spending are not simply a function

  • f smaller budgets.
  • Combined anti-corruption spending is now

miniscule compared to two key law and justice

  • rganisations: the DJAG and the RPNGC;

– (but not always the case with DJAG).

slide-19
SLIDE 19

What to do?

  • Monitoring of budgetary allocations and

spending

  • Further advocacy to ensure funding does not

continue to fall, especially if/when an ICAC is established

– Important not to overlook existing anti-corruption agencies in the rush to introduce a new one

  • Still more research required about why

underspends and overspends occur.

slide-20
SLIDE 20

Discussion Paper

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstra ct_id=3009987