Cambodia Focus Group on Parliament's Role in the Budget Process: Analysis

The scores for each question have been averaged - for each set of questions and for performance as a whole. Those numbers are shown on the right hand margin of the questionnaire sheets. In a ranking of 0-5, 0 means the performance indicator is not present at all, 5 means it is very strongly present and 2.5 means that it is somewhat present. One is immediately struck by the fact that there is a wide range of responses to many of the questions. This could mean either lack of consensus regarding the appropriate standard of performance (for example, what qualifies as being strongly transparent?) or diversity in parliamentary practice (for example, different degrees of openness by parliamentary committees.

Performance

The average overall score for performance (covering level and range of activity, impact of activity and the governance benefits of accountability, transparency and participation) = 1.7. In other words, overall respondents rank the parliament as being well below "somewhat effective" in terms of its performance - lets call it slightly effective. With respect to the five attributes of performance, there is a significant difference between the higher rating given to level and range of activity and the rating given to governance outcomes of accountability, transparency and participation. I would interpret this to mean our respondents rate parliament as being somewhat active and having some slight degree of influence but as performing very poorly when it comes to support for good governance.

I - Level and range of activity

For the six indicators under this heading, the average score is 2.2, significantly below the median rating of 2.5 that would qualify as somewhat effective. On the other hand, this set of indicators yields an average score well above the average for performance as a whole - 1.7. In other words, while respondents rate the level and range of activity as less than satisfactory, they still see it as one of the stronger (or less weak) aspects of performance.

Within the level and range of activity, debate and the opportunity for input are ranked above average and review of monetary policy and PRSP are ranked below or at the average for performance as a whole. This might suggest that respondents believe there is some opportunity to influence the budget process, but that is less true when it comes to specialized areas of policy.

II - Openness and Transparency

This is the first of the three areas of governance performance where parliament is rated as performing very poorly with the average rating of 1.7 With respect to specific indicators of openness, exchanges between MPs and Ministers and participation in the priority setting stage of the budget are rated slightly above average and the auditing function is rated below average.

III - Participation

Overall, parliaments performance in encouraging participation in the budget process received the lowest average rating at 1.4 percent. The lowest rating for a single indicator was the .4 awarded to parliament for consulting civil society and business in its review of the budget. According to this rating, essentially such consultation never takes place. On the other hand, average ratings of 1.7 are given to parliament's support for public input and the participation of the poor, though we should remind ourselves that the score of 1.7 for each of those indicators is still very low.

IV - Accountability

Here again we see the low overall rating of parliament's role in ensuring governmental accountability - 1.6. Particularly low scores are given the audit function in parliament (1.7\.8\.8) and slightly higher scores given to the questioning of ministers (2.5) and program and policy evaluations (2.5)

V - Policy and Program Impact

The 7 indicators of policy and program impact earn an overall average ranking of 2.1, just slightly above overall performance but a bit below the ranking for level and range of activity. In other words, parliament is rated as being somewhat busier than influential. Within this set of rankings, somewhat higher ratings are given to parliament's influence in setting budget priorities and in approving loan agreements than to its ability to change budget allocations or policies.

Factors in the External Environment

In this part of the questionnaire, we are trying to gauge the influence on parliamentary performance of factors in the external environment.

I - Government

There are two distinct aspects of government influence on parliamentary performance that we are trying to evaluate: first, government's own performance and capacity; and second, government's relations with parliament. Overall, the ratings given to government are among the highest in the questionnaire, with every indicator scoring higher than the average. On the face of it, this suggests that respondents do not see government as the main explanation for poor parliamentary performance in the budget process. Having said that, the ratings given to government's control of the budget process and use of economic models are significantly higher than the quality of government reporting or attitudes towards and relations with parliament.

II - Policy Expertise

Here one is struck by the contrast between the relatively high rating given to the ability of experts to scrutinize and criticize the government's budget plans and the much lower rating given to the number and qualifications of experts. In other words, Cambodia lacks expert resources but the ones it has enjoy a fair degree of freedom to scrutinize and criticize.

III - Civil Society

Here again as with the first part of the questionnaire, one is struck by the low rating given by respondents to a series of questions regarding the opportunity for civil society to participate in and influence the budget process. In particular, civil society and business organizations are not seen as being able to participate independently in the process although gender issues fare somewhat better.

IV - Media

Likewise low ratings are given to the media regarding their capacity to cover and report on the budget process.

Factors in the Internal Environment

Interestingly, both parliamentary culture and parliamentary organization and procedure are given higher ratings than parliamentary performance itself, respectively 2.6 and 2.2 compared with 1.7.

I - Parliamentary Culture

The highest ratings in the survey are given to the belief by MPs that it is their job to hold government to account for its budget (4.2) and to the practice of using the budget to serve constituents (4.0) Government MPs are given a very poor rating in supporting the right of the opposition to scrutinize the budget (1.2) while opposition MPs are given a better rating in supporting the right of the government to have its budget passed (3.2). A fairly high rating is also given to the willingness of MPs to work together across party lines. A very low rating is given to the access of party caucuses to expertise on budget matters (1.0)

II - Parliamentary Organization and Procedure

Low ratings are given for the availability of research services and work planning by committees while somewhat higher ratings are given to secretariat services generally in support of the budget process.

Conclusion

One should resist the temptation to over-interpret these responses but they strike me as interesting just the same. I would summarize the most interesting points as follows:

1. Insider attributes of performance - level of activity and influence - fare somewhat better than the ability or commitment of parliament to reach out to the people.
2. Government is not fingered as the main culprid in parliament's performance, neither for performing particularly poorly itself nor in poor relations with parliament. Civil society and the media are seen as far weaker influences on parliamentary performance.
3. Access to expertise is seen as one of the special parliamentary weaknesses whether one is speaking of party caucuses or committees.
4. If one were so bold as to draw conclusions about programming from this, it might be as follows: two priorities stand out in strengthening parliament's role in the budget process - improved relations with civil society and better access to expertise.

Finally, it is worth noting that the questionnaire and the focus group fared pretty well in the opinion of our respondents.

For further information contact miller@parl.gc.ca.