Survey
* Your assessment is very important for improving the work of artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
* Your assessment is very important for improving the work of artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
Nepal Agriculture Public Expenditure Review: Successes and Challenges in Aligning Impact and Spending Krishna Prasad Pant, Nepal Government Mona Sur, The World Bank NEPAL r m u B h u a M Dad eld hura u u oi Kalikot D p China Achh am Kan ch anpur Dailekh Mu st ang Jajarkot Kailali Rukum Manan g Surkhet Kathmandu Myangd i Salyan Bardiya Rolpa Bag lung Kaski Lamjung Parbat Gorkha Ban ke Pyuth an Gulmi Rasuw a Dan g Syangja Tanahun Arghakhanch i Nuwakot Palpa Dhading Sind hupalchowk Kat hmandu Kapilb ast u Rupendehi Nawalparasi Dolkha Bhaktapur Chitw an Tapleju ng Solu khumbu Sankhu wasabha Lalitpur Kavre Makawan pur Ram echh ap Okhaldhu nga Parsa Sind huli Khotang Bara Rautahat Sarlah i Udayapu r Maho ttari Dhanusha Terhat hum Bhojpur Dhankuta Ilam Siraha Sun sari Sapt ari India Mo rang Jh ap a Agriculture in Nepal • • • • Employ 2/3 of labor force Involves 3.36 million households Average land holding 0.79 ha Contributes 32% of GDP % Contribution to the AGDP 1. Crops 66.16 2. Livestock 25.68 3. Forestry 8.07 4. Fisheries (inland) 0.09 GDP growth and agriculture Agriculture Industry GDP (at producer's price) 8 6 % 4 2 0 -2 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 -4 -6 Fiscal year ending 2007 2008 Budget Process National Planning Commission Ministry of Finance Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives Dept. Agri Program Directors Dept. Livestock Program Directors Dept. Food Tech Program Directors District Agencies Dept. Coop Program Directors Regional level Offices (Agri., Livestock, Food Tech, Coop) Allocation of the budget higher than ceiling depends on • Strength of the proposed program • Political favor of the Ministers • Favor given by the Ministry of Agriculture while negotiation • Strength and lobby of the Departments • Strength, lobby and personal influence of the Program Director • Intention and ability of the program director to consume the fund Recurrent expenditure in agriculture (nominal) 3,000 Agriculture Irrigation Forest 2,500 Rs million 2,000 1,500 1,000 500 0 2000/01 2001/02 2002/03 2003/04 2004/05 2005/06 2006/07 Capital expenditure in agriculture (nominal) Rs million 4,000 3,500 Agriculture Irrigation Forest 3,000 2,500 2,000 1,500 1,000 500 0 2000/01 2001/02 2002/03 2003/04 2004/05 2005/06 2006/07 19 90 /9 19 1 91 /9 19 2 92 /9 19 3 93 /9 19 4 94 /9 19 5 95 /9 19 6 96 /9 19 7 97 /9 19 8 98 /9 19 9 99 /0 20 0 00 /0 20 1 01 /0 20 2 02 /0 20 3 03 /0 20 4 04 /0 20 5 05 /0 20 6 06 /0 7 Rs billion Government expenditures (nominal) 140.00 120.00 100.00 Total Agriculture 80.00 60.00 40.00 20.00 0.00 19 90 19 /91 91 19 /92 92 19 /93 93 19 /94 94 19 /95 95 19 /96 96 19 /97 97 / 19 98 98 19 /99 99 20 /00 00 20 /01 01 20 /02 02 20 /03 03 20 /04 04 20 /05 05 20 /06 06 /0 7 Percent Expenditure in agriculture as percent of total expenditure Government expenditure 20.0 18.0 ODA 16.0 14.0 12.0 10.0 8.0 6.0 4.0 2.0 0.0 Synthesis • Nobody denies the role of agriculture in Nepalese economy • Public expenditure in agriculture is insufficient • Allocation of expenditure to different sub-sectors not based on analysis, but on hunch and power play • Recurrent public expenditure in agriculture is increasing faster than the capital expenditure • Expenditure in agriculture is not increasing as it increased in other sectors • ODA is not in favor of agriculture • DFID-ARD Analysis of Public Expenditures in Agriculture derives some hard facts. 2% Land Reform and Survey Industry Others-Social Constitutional Bodies Communications Forest General Administration Agriculture Drinking Water 4% Irrigation Health Local Development 12% Road Transportation Electricity Police Defense Miscellaneous Internal Loan Payment External Loan Payment Education Nepal - Public Expenditures by Sector, 1999-2003 16% 14% Public expenditures on Ag/Ag GDP= 4% 10% 8% 6% 3.8% 2.9% 1.9% 0.7% 0% Impact of Agricultural Public Expenditures on Household Welfare & Agricultural Production Outcome Variable Data Maize value District level Rice value Irrigation Agriculture Roads IV NE 14.85% 4.39% District level IV NE 13.84% 6.34% Wheat value District level IV NE NE 5.17% Vegetables value District level Cross-sectional household data IV NE NE NE Jacoby 16.62% - 36.86% NA 26.41% - 60.78% Panel data IV 3.92% 0.92% 6.43% Panel data Cross-sectional household data IV NE NE NE SE 9.61% 1.36 - 2.98% 30.25% Plot values Consumption per capita Agricultural Income per capita Consumption per capita Methodology NE: No Effect; NA: Not Applicable; IV: Instrumental variable; SE: Simultaneous equations