Suchergebnisse

The performance of the capital budget has been a subject of debate between the legislative and executive arms of the Nigerian government since 1999. Available statistics suggest that the annual budget has not been able to improve the lives of Nigerians over the past several years because of the weak link between capital budget implementation and poverty reduction, as indicated by the prevailing low index of capture in public expenditures. Using descriptive analysis, this paper examines the capital budget implementation in Nigeria by focusing on the 2012 Federal Government Budget. The findings indicate that only 51% of the total appropriated funds for capital expenditures were utilized as of December 31st, 2012. The observed level of performance is insufficient to foster rapid economic development and reduce poverty. Some of the challenges that are responsible for the low performance include poor conceptualization of the budget, the inadequacy of implementation plans, the non-release or late release of budgeted funds, the lack of budget performance monitoring, the lack of technical capacity among MDAs, and delays in budget passage and enactment. The paper recommends that Nigerian government formulate a realistic and credible budget, release appropriated funds early to Ministries, Departments, and Agencies (MDAs), and strengthen MDAs' technical capacity to utilize capital expenditures in order to improve the index of capture in public expenditures.

Fiscal year 2006 issue is "for release at 12:00 noon, Wednesday, February 16, 2005"--Cover of fiscal year 2006 document. ; Report year ends June 30. ; Mode of access: Internet.

This study empirically assessed the constraints to capital budget implementation in Nigeria. The methodology employed was both descriptive and analytical. Primary survey instrument was developed and distributed to 200 respondents in 20 federal ministries, departments and agencies within two contiguous states in the South-south geopolitical zone in the country. The ensuing data were analysed using multiple regression as well as correlation analyses. Results indicated, inter alia, that delay in budget presentation by the presidency as well as delays in approval by the national assembly, leakages associated with corruption and poor monitoring and evaluation of the budget were significant factors militating against effective capital budget implementation in Nigeria. The study recommended, among others, the strengthening of the budgetary processes and institutions as well as circumscribing a time frame within the legal framework for the executive and the legislature to present and approve the budget respectively.Keywords: Capital Budget Implementation, Nigeria, Fiscal Policy, Multiple Regression Analysis

While there is a substantial body of literature concerning capital programming and budgeting in the private sector, there is only a modest literature on this subject in the public sector. Government researchers and public administration scholars have, for about seventy‐five years, recognized the value of budgeting for operating expenses and have tried to develop theoretical frameworks for the public budgeting process. However, very little of this attention has been devoted to capital budgeting. As Alan Steiss has stated," The theory of capital budgeting has not been set forth; rather the emphasis... has been on devising and improving the techniques of capital budgeting." Michael White has called capital budgeting an "elusive subject" that "lacks clear definitions, organized traditions of inquiry, conceptual boundaries, standard questions, and reliable data sets."

In 1986 the staff of the U.S. Office of Management and Budget reviewed issues concerning the possible development of a federal capital budget. As part of this study, a survey of all 50 states was conducted concerning state capital budgets. This paper summarizes the results of the survey. According to the survey responses, 42 states have capital budgets. Of these 42, 37 generally borrow to finance some public capital and 5 generally do not. Of the 8 states that said they do not have a capital budget, 4 generally borrow to finance some public capital and 4 generally do not. The survey also found that the form of a governor's capital budget, the way legislatures enact capital spending, the coverage of the capital budget, and the method of financing capital vary widely among states, making it virtually impossible to define a state capital budget in a precise way. Large amounts of state capital spending, especially for transportation, are generally not included in state capital budgets.