Priorities In 2014 Fiscal Budget

One of the benchmarks that govern  the realities
of economic growth and development in a country is the effective planning and implementation of its annual  budget. In different parts of the world, this is described as an official statement that streamlines government revenue and expenditure within a given period of time, usually one year. Two major factors have however questioned the reliability of such practice in this country, within the last few years: one, the excess of recurrent expenditure over capital expenditure; two, the late submission of the budget proposal for public scrutiny and time-friendly debates.
According to the Federal Republic of Nigeria 2010 Amendment Appropriation Act of July 2010 and April  2012; and the Federal Republic of Nigeria 2011 Appropriation Bill; as cited in an on-line article, the total budget for 2010 fiscal year was 4.4 trillion. Of this, recurrent expenditure ate up 2.1 trillion, l.5 trillion was devoted to capital expenditure, while less than one trillion balance was left in debt servicing and statutory transfers.
As the annual budget accelerated to 4.7trillion in the 2012 fiscal year, recurrent expenditure (this is the annual expenditure incurred on salaries of civil and public servants, including sitting allowances, foreign trips, foreign health services and welfare of the ruling few) moved to 3.3trillion, and only a total crumbs of 1.3trillion was left for capital expenditure such as housings, refineries, roads, bridges, rail tracts, etc.
In 2013, recurrent expenditure hit a collection of countering public views and waved shamelessly to 2.4trillion, but capital expenditure retained its humble position at 1.5 trillion, while  1 trillion was left in statutory transfers and debt servicing, placing the total budget at 4.9trillion. The implications of running such economic policy in this 21st century are deadly. First, there will be a steady revolving prospect of excess consumption over investment; second, the current global economic instabilities may consistently injure the country’s desire for self-reliance and food security.
The second factor that has questioned our yearly economic plan is the late submission of the budget proposal. Reasons behind such delay may be perceived either as a political strategy, aimed at avoiding public assessment and time-friendly debates; or as an inefficient administration in which major plans are given a fire-brigade approach. True, since the annual budget must not be skewed along lines of political, religious, ethnic or socio-economic interest, it becomes very imperative to provide a minimum of six month period of critical assessment, public debates and extensive consultation with key stake holders in various fields, before the final approval, legal acceptance and mass publication at the beginning of the fiscal year. In preparing the 2014 annual budget, the government should provide a platform for public debates; sourcing views and opinions from members of the public; and making decisions along lines of public interests through cross-fertilisation of ideas, views, opinions, facts and figures. So, submitting a budget proposal without a minimum period of six month critical assessment negates the public interest! Regarding the fact that Nigeria’s fiscal year runs from 1st January to 31st December, not releasing her fiscal budget at the beginning of her fiscal year may be against her economic interest.
Now, the annual budget for the 2014 fiscal year should balance between recurrent and capital expenditure.
This may be achieved in two ways: one, the government should set up modalities, aimed at rationalising Agencies of the Federal Government with overlapping functions; two, by promoting job creation and inclusive growth through investment in priority sectors such as human capital development, infrastructure, sophisticated equipment for security and counter-terrorism operations, manufacturing, solid mineral development, Information and Communication Technology, Aviation, Agriculture, etc.
The target is to cut down the high cost of governance in 2014 fiscal year, and limit government borrowing requirements in compliance with the Fiscal Responsibility Act, 2007; thereby promoting national economic growth and development; and shielding domestic economic policies against the tide of current global economic waves. Key sectors such as Education and Agriculture should not be sacrificed for administrative activities such as foreign trips and  privet jets. The 2014 annual budget should provide a shared sense of economic growth and development among all classes of people in the country, and should not be skewed along lines of ethnicity, religion, politics, culture or socio-economic landmarks. It should move away from the circumference of previous fiscal plans; making a difference in transforming government endless economic promises into tangible and feasible realities; and setting the pace for more factual economic policies in upcoming years.

John Janes, a freelancer, lives in Port Harcourt

John James