Basking in the glory of putting in place a fat annual development programme (ADP) appears to be too self-gratifying for the government these days. One tends to view it this way because implementing the development programmes under the ADP reasonably efficiently does not figure with any importance at the end of the day. The result is often a botched-up implementation scenario reflecting the overall poor execution of numerous projects.
That the matter is fast gaining ground in the country’s public spending culture has been criticised time and again. The government, apparently, is not in a denial mood regarding the major loopholes and hindrances, but there is barely anything in sight towards revamping the implementation mechanism.
Perhaps taking note of the outrage from different quarters, the planning minister said the other day that development project authorities would have to spend at least 25 per cent of allocation for the projects in every quarter. This is ostensibly in reply to allegations that project implementing bodies remain engaged in a mad rush for spending at the last quarter of every financial year.
“It will be made mandatory for project authorities to spend 25 per cent of allocation in every quarter to ensure quality of public money,” he said at a briefing at the ministry after a meeting with the secretaries of the government. He also said his ministry would not allow revision of a development project more than two times.
Now, it remains to be answered whether the directive to spend project money in a proportionate manner throughout the financial year is the right remedy for curbing the spending-spree at the closing quarter? Or, does the decision not to revise projects more than twice address the issue of successful project completion? More importantly, how does this ensure the quality of spending the money?
Because of the many deficiencies in implementing development projects, the concerned quarters feel that unless things are considerably improved at the implementation levels, mere fattening of the ADP is laden with more evils than virtues. The government should in the first place devise a transparent and efficient mechanism including effective monitoring before placing the burden on the executing agencies, not all of which are even aware of how to go about the task.
Usually, agencies in charge of development projects are in a position to implement around 50-55 per cent of the ADP in the first 10 months of a financial year, and rush in the remaining two months causing wastage of public money and hampering the quality of work. This has been found in the performance of the current year’s ADP implementation. During the July-April period in the current fiscal (2014-15), 55 ministries and divisions reportedly implemented only 55 per cent of the total allocation of Tk 750.0 billion under the revised ADP. In fact, the rush to somehow reach the completion stage of projects and the attendant lack of transparency and poor quality of delivery have been characterising the completed projects at the terminal stage.
Poor and inefficient implementation of the ADP has been a problem the country has been struggling with on a regular basis. Blaming those in charge of execution does not serve any useful purpose. In fact, it is the very selection of projects and methodology adopted that are often questioned. Experts have pointed out the need for a sound mechanism to be worked out by a set of knowledgeable professionals in order to identify projects consistent with national priorities.
Lack of adequate economic analysis, funding strategies, abundance of unapproved projects, absence of sufficient coordination between development and non-development budgets, shortage of expert manpower and weak capacity of the Planning Commission and Planning Cells in the ministries are often regarded as some of the major obstacles to establish an efficient public spending management system in the country.
Lack of capacity to handle projects efficiently can result in white elephants that produce negative returns. Slow and back-loaded disbursements and poor quality of expenditures reflect a far from adequate management system for public spending under the ADP. Undesirable costs on account of delays due to under-utilisation of development projects translate in massive cost and time over-run.
It is well known that a good number of projects listed in the ADP, not formally approved, add to the pressure of inclusion at the terminal stage of each financial year. This indeed reflects the absence of a proper mechanism to do the necessary homework before finalising the selection process. While it is desirable to keep an inventory of projects ready for inclusion into the budget process, these should be properly appraised beforehand and should be planned and brought forward through a medium-term planning tool rather than through the budget document itself.
Another issue, donor requirement is also found a critical factor in the identification and implementation of projects. Donors put not only pressure in support of projects they want to fund, but also their focus on procedural requirements rather than substantive quality of projects, procurement and logistics-related issues. These are problem areas that the relevant government agencies are not adequately equipped to handle.
All these are very much in the knowledge of the government. The reason why these are left where they are, can perhaps be sought in the self-gratification of conceiving ever-bulging ADPs.
wasiahmed.bd@hotmail.com
The perils of fat ADP
Wasi Ahmed | Published: May 27, 2015 00:00:00 | Updated: November 30, 2026 06:01:00
Share if you like