India, Uttar Pradesh : State Financial Accountability Assessment
Uttar Pradesh (UP) is India's most populous State, and one of the poorest. Serious fiscal problems have emerged since the 1990s: the revenue deficit has increased significantly over the years, as well as the fiscal deficit, and, arrangements f...
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Country Financial Accountability Assessment |
| Language: | English en_US |
| Published: |
Washington, DC
2013
|
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/2004/08/5153288/india-uttar-pradesh-state-financial-accountability-assessment http://hdl.handle.net/10986/14570 |
| Summary: | Uttar Pradesh (UP) is India's most
populous State, and one of the poorest. Serious fiscal
problems have emerged since the 1990s: the revenue deficit
has increased significantly over the years, as well as the
fiscal deficit, and, arrangements for accountability in the
public sector have been undermined. Procedures exist for
budgeting and monitoring the use of public resources, but
there is little incentive to follow them. The Comptroller
and Auditor General of India questions numerous departmental
actions each year, but there is no compulsion on the
executive branch to provide prompt answers, and to make
necessary changes. Some useful progress has been made in
implementing the financial management reform program over
the last three years, as follows: 1) Computerization of the
Treasuries in a network system has been completed at state
government level, enabling the Government to monitor cash
flows and prevent excess expenditures; 2) a Directorate of
Internal Audit has been established in the Department of
Finance to provide central leadership, and guidance in the
development of departmental audit; and, 3) measures are
being taken to establish better control over payrolls. The
report reviews the strengths and weaknesses in financial
management and accountability, to present a risk analysis
that highlights widespread irregularities, and lack of
prompt and predictable corrective action, meaning that the
overall level of fiduciary risk remains high. It suggests
there is significant scope for the Government of UP to
improve the efficiency, and effectiveness of public spending
through further consolidation of the budget, better matching
of accountability with responsibility, routine enforcement
of accountability, and greater transparency. This would be
fully consistent with the fiscal reform program, and would
have a direct impact on the GoUP's ability to provide
more, and better quality public services to the poor.
Recommendations suggest to a) depute one or more senior
officials in the Finance Department to oversee public
financial accountability reforms; b) review and update
Financial Handbooks, Treasury Rules and Budget Manuals; c)
develop and implement a Medium Term Expenditure framework in
major spending departments of GoUP; and, d) strengthen
accountability in Rural Local Bodies, in internal controls
in Development Authorities, in internal audit within GoUP,
in state government training institutions, and, build
capacities within the Finance Department. |
|---|