gender responsive budgeting_formatted-final

8/2/2019 Gender Responsive Budgeting_formatted-Final

1/59

GENDER RESPONSIVENESSIN FEDERAL BUDGETS

2009-10 & 2010-11

by

Dr. Iram Khan

Islamabad 15

th

December 2011


2/59

2

Table ofContents

Table of Contents .................................................................................................................... 1

List ofTables............................................................................................................................ 4

List of Figures .......................................................................................................................... 4

Acronyms ................................................................................................................................5EXECUTIVE SUMMARY............................................................................................................. 6

1. INTRODUCTION.............................................................................................................. 10

1.1. Introduction .................................................................................................................. 10

1.2. Purpose of Research ..................................................................................................... 10

1.3. What is a Budget? ......................................................................................................... 11

1.4. What is Gender Mainstreaming and Gender Responsive Budgeting? ......................... 12

1.5. Gender Responsive Budgeting in Pakistan ................................................................... 14

2. TREND IN GENDER RELATED INDICATORS ................................................................... 15

2.1. Review of Pakistans Performance in GenderRelated MDGs ...................................... 15

2.2. Review of Pakistans Performance in GenderRelated Composite Indices .................. 16

2.3. Summing up .................................................................................................................. 183. BUDGET FORMULATION PROCESS A GENDER PERSPECTIVE ........................................ 19

3.1. The Budget Making Process A BriefOverview........................................................... 19

3.1.1. NonDevelopment Budget ....................................................................................................19

3.1.2. Development Budget ............................................................................................................20

3.2. Engendering Federal Budget: Overview of Initiatives .................................................. 21

3.2.1. Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper ........................................................................................21

3.2.2. Medium Term Budgetary Framework...................................................................................21

3.2.3. Perspective Planning and Medium Term Development Framework ....................................22

3.2.4. Gender Reform Action Plan ..................................................................................................22

3.2.5. Gender Responsive Budgeting Initiative ...............................................................................23

4. METHODOLOGY ............................................................................................................. 24

4.1. Review of Methodology ................................................................................................ 244.2. Analytical Framework for the Study ............................................................................. 25

4.3. Data Sources ................................................................................................................. 26

5. ANALYSIS OF FEDERAL BUDGET ..................................................................................... 27

5.1. Macroeconomic Scenario ............................................................................................. 27

5.2. General Analysis of Federal Budget .............................................................................. 27

5.3. Gender Sensitive Analysis of Federal Development Budget ........................................ 28

5.3.1. Gender Sensitive Analysis of Social Sector Development Budget ........................................29

a) Gender Sensitive Analysis of Federal Development Budget Ministry of Education ..........31

b) Gender Sensitive Analysis of Federal Development Budget Ministry of Health ................32

5.3.2. Gender Sensitive Analysis of Federal Development Budget Other Sectors .......................33

Box I: Benazir Income Support Programme .......................................................................... 35BoxII: National Programme for Family Planning & Primary Healthcare.................................. 36

Box III: Women Business Development Centres.................................................................... 37

5.4. Analysis ofNonDevelopment Budgetary Allocations .................................................. 38

5.5. Gender Sensitive Analysis of Federal NonDevelopment Budget ................................ 40

5.5.1. Gender Sensitive Analysis of Social Sector NonDevelopment Budget ................................40

a) Gender Sensitive Analysis of the Federal NonDevelopment Budget Ministry of

Education............................................................................................................................................41

b) Gender Sensitive Analysis of Federal NonDevelopment Budget Ministry of Health ........43


3/59

3

5.5.2. Gender Sensitive Analysis of NonDevelopment Federal Budget Other Sectors ...............43

6. CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................. 45

7. REFERENCES ................................................................................................................... 47

8. APPENDICES................................................................................................................... 49

8.1. Appendix I: Official List of MDGs ............................................................................... 49

8.2. Appendix II: Trend in Gender related MDGs A Pakistani Scenario ......................... 52

8.3. Appendix III: Ministry ofEducation............................................................................ 54

8.4. Appendix IV: Higher Education Commission ............................................................. 55

8.5. Appendix V: Ministry ofHealth.................................................................................. 56

8.6. Appendix VI: Other Sectors ....................................................................................... 57


4/59

4

List ofTables

TABLE 1: PAKISTAN'S TRACK RECORD IN ACHIEVING GENDER RELATED MDGS .............................................. 15

TABLE 2: GAPS IN SOCIAL INDICATORS BETWEEN MALE AND FEMALE ........................................................... 16

TABLE 3: PAKISTAN'S POSITION IN HDI, GDI AND GEM ........................................................................... 17

TABLE 4: PAKISTANS POSITION AND SCORE ON GLOBAL GENDER GAP INDEX ................................................ 18TABLE 5: COMPARATIVE BUDGETARY POSITION 200910AND 201011..................................................... 28

TABLE 6: THREE WAY CATEGORISATION OF FEDERAL DEVELOPMENT BUDGETS .............................................. 28

TABLE 7: THREE WAY CATEGORISATION OF DEVELOPMENT BUDGETARY ALLOCATIONS IN SOCIAL SECTOR........... 30

TABLE 8: THREE WAY CATEGORISATION OF DEVELOPMENT BUDGETARY ALLOCATIONS FOR MINISTRY OF

EDUCATION............................................................................................................................... 31

TABLE 9: THREE WAY CATEGORISATION OF BUDGETARY ALLOCATIONS IN HEC.............................................. 32

TABLE 10: THREE WAY CATEGORISATION OF BUDGETARY ALLOCATIONS IN HEALTH ....................................... 32

TABLE 11: BUDGETARY ALLOCATIONS FOR WOMEN AND GIRLS IN DIFFERENT MINISTRIES ............................... 33

TABLE 12: BUDGETARY ALLOCATIONS TARGETING BOTH GENDERS IN DIFFERENT MINISTRIES........................... 34

TABLE 13: BUDGET CLASSIFICATION OF CURRENT ALLOCATIONS ................................................................. 38

TABLE 14: THREE WAY CATEGORISATION OF FEDERAL NONDEVELOPMENT BUDGETS .................................... 40TABLE 15: THREE WAY CATEGORISATION OF NONDEVELOPMENT BUDGETARY ALLOCATIONS IN SOCIAL SECTOR. 40

TABLE 16: THREE WAY CATEGORISATION OF BUDGETARY ALLOCATIONS FOR MINISTRY OF EDUCATION.............. 41

TABLE 17: THREE WAY CATEGORISATION OF NONDEVELOPMENT BUDGETARY ALLOCATIONS IN HEC............... 42

TABLE 18: THREE WAY CATEGORISATION OF BUDGETARY ALLOCATIONS IN HEALTH ....................................... 43

TABLE 19: BUDGETARY ALLOCATIONS FOR WOMEN AND GIRLS IN DIFFERENT MINISTRIES ............................... 44

TABLE 20: BUDGETARY ALLOCATIONS TARGETING BOTH GENDERS IN DIFFERENT MINISTRIES........................... 44

List ofFigures

FIGURE 1: FLOW CHART OF BUDGET FORMULATION ................................................................................. 19FIGURE 2: ANNUAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM (ADP) FORMULATIONPROCESS AT GLANCE ............................. 20

FIGURE 4: BUDGETARY ALLOCATIONS FOR BISP....................................................................................... 35

FIGURE 5: BUDGETARY ALLOCATIONS FOR LHWS..................................................................................... 36

FIGURE 6: BUDGETARY ALLOCATIONS FOR WBDC ................................................................................... 37

FIGURE 3: GRAPHIC PRESENTATION OF FEDERAL BUDGET 20089 TO 201011............................................ 39


5/59

5

Acronyms

ADP Annual Development Program

BCC Budget Call Circular

BESD Budget Estimates for Service DeliveryBISP Benazir Income Support ProgrammeCDWP Central Development Working PartyECNEC Executive Committee of the National Economic CouncilEIU Economist Intelligence Unit

FABS Financial Accounting and Budgeting SystemFY Financial Year

GDI Genderrelated Development Index

GEM Gender Empowerment MeasureGII Gender Inequality Index

GRAP Gender Reform Action PlanGRB Gender Responsive Budgeting

HDI Human Development IndexGRBI

GNP

GDP

GOP

GPI

Gender Responsive Budgeting InitiativeGross National ProductGross Domestic ProductGovernment ofPakistan

Gender Parity IndexHEC Higher Education CommissionIDP Internally Displaced PeopleINGRAP Implementation of National Gender Reform Action Plan ProjectKESC Karachi Electricity Supply CompanyLHW Lady Health Worker

MDGs Millennium Development GoalsMoWD Ministry of Women DevelopmentMTBF Medium Term Budgetary Framework

POB Performance Oriented Budgeting

MTDF

NAVTEC

PPHI

PPP

Medium Term Development Framework

National Vocational and Technical Training CommissionPeoples Primary Healthcare Initiative

Purchasing Power Parity

PRSP Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper

PSDP

RE

R&D

Public Sector Development Programme

Revised Estimates

Research & Development

SBP State Bank ofPakistanSMEDA Small and Medium Enterprise Development Authority

SNE Schedule of New ExpendituresSPRSM Strengthening Poverty Reduction Strategy Monitoring

UNDP United Nations Development ProgrammeWAPDA Water and Power Development AuthorityWBDC Women Business Development CenterWEF World Economic Forum


6/59

6

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Pakistan and Gender Responsive Budgeting

Pakistan is one of many countries in the world that have introduced Gender Responsive

Budgeting (GRB) at the federal and provincial levels. GRB examines how budgetary

allocations affect gender patterns in society. It a tool for integrating a gender perspective

into all steps of the budget process planning, drafting, implementing and evaluating so

as to ensure that budget policies take into consideration the gender issues in society, and

neither directly nor indirectly discriminate against either women or men. For this purpose,

different needs of gender groups are identified including factors such as race, ethnicity, and

religion; and resource allocations in the budget are reprioritised to cater for their specific

needs. In this way, GRB seeks to improve budget process in general by enhancing

participation and accountability.

Article 25 of the Constitution of Pakistan gives equal status to women in all spheres of life.

The promotion of gender equality and empowerment of women is one of the eight

Millennium Development Goals (MDGs). Pakistan, being a signatory to MDGs, has been

making an effort to achieve these goals. Both the current Perspective Plan and Five Year

Plans have given special space to women and a deliberate effort is being made to correct

the genderequality imbalance in all spheres oflife.

The country has been lagging behind in most of the genderrelated Millennium

Development Goals. The performance of Pakistan in genderrelated composite indices is not

much different either. In Genderrelated Development Index (GDI) and the Gender

Empowerment Measure (GEM) published by UNDP, Global Gender Gap Index by World

Economic Forum and Womens Economic Opportunity Index introduced by the Economist

Intelligence Unit, Pakistan ranks quite low in the league tables. These gender differences in

public services have arisen due to issues with (i) access (ii) utilization and (iii) prevalent

social norms and behaviours.

Government of Pakistan has taken different initiatives to redress the imbalance between

men and women. Gender Reform Action Plan (GRAP) and Gender Responsive Budgeting

Initiative (GRBI) have brought to limelight the importance of genderrelated issues in budgetformulation. GRAP envisaged major reforms in public resource management systems to

create institutional processes for achieving gender responsive development in the country.

It proposed amendments in the policy making processes to make them gender sensitive.

GRBI has focused on awareness raising, gender based budgetary analysis, capacity building

and advocacy etc.


7/59

7

Methodology

This paper has adopted a modified Total Budget Approach to analyse federal government

budget from a gender perspective. The modified approach is based on the following tripods:

Genderspecific budgetary allocationso budget specifically targeted at women and girls,

o budget specifically targeted at men and boys;

o budget for creating equal opportunities for males and females, and

Mainstream (nongender targeted) budgetary allocations.

Overview of Initiatives to Engender Budgeting in Pakistan

Budget of the government of Pakistan can be broadly categorized into development and

nondevelopment components. Having realised the importance of gender perspective in

budgeting, government of Pakistan published Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers (PRSPs) in2001 and 2008. These documents not only encompassed the development vision of the

government but also set its priorities to achieve that vision. For example, PRSP II reaffirmed

the governments commitment to the empowerment of women in the social, political and

economic domains of life. It was declared that it was not possible to earn demographic

dividends unless women are empowered through the provision of primary and reproductive

healthcare; elimination of gap in enrolments and retention rates; and redressing the even

larger gap in labour force participation.

PRSPs are the backbone of Medium Term Budgetary Framework (MTBF), which emphasize

outputbased budgeting. The Budget Call Circular (BCC), issued under MTBF, gave explicit

instructions for providing gendersegregated indicators and data for input and output

indicators wherever possible. The Perspective Plans (e.g. Vision 2030) and Medium Term

Development Framework (MTDF) envisage women development in terms of enhancing their

status, promoting and protecting their rights, and ensuring their full participation at all

levels on the basis of equity with men.

Analysis of Federal Budgets from Gender Perspective

Genderspecific expenditures have been identified in the federal budgets for the FYs 2008

09, 200910 and 201011. This was done for the Development and NonDevelopment

portions of the budget. There was further segregation for Social (education and health) and

Other Sectors. With the help of this genderspecific data, it was possible to determine the

extent of government priority in different areas.

The proportion of Development budget allocated for genderspecific activities has come

down from 20.8 percent of budget in 200809 to 17.5 and 13.4 percent in FYs 200809,


8/59

8

200910 and 201011 respectively. Allocations for women and girls have fluctuated between

6.1 and 9.3% of the Development budget. On the nondevelopment side, budget allocated

for genderspecific activities has increased from 2.6 percent of nondevelopment allocations

in 200809 to 2.7 and 2.9 percent for the FYs 200910 and 201011 respectively.

If we compare the share of development and nondevelopment budgetary allocations forthe three fiscal years, we find that gender specific allocations in the development budget

are consistently many times those in the nondevelopment ones. One main contributory

factor is the Benazir Income Support Programme (BISP) that was started in 200809 and is

targeted at women. This may also be due to the gender mainstreaming efforts initiated by

the Government ofPakistan.

If we analyse the percentage share in social sector (education and health) budget, we find

that around 90% of the budget under the head development and nondevelopment is

meant for gender specific allocations. Women and girls account for 22.54, 26.72 and 23.44

percent of development allocations in the social sector for the FYs 200809 to 201011

respectively, while nondevelopment allocations in this sector are 3.38, 3/15 and 3.58

percent for these years. Budgets targeting both the genders are around 90% of the social

sector development allocations in all the three FYs, while the share in nondevelopment

allocations is around 85%. Since the major chunk of social sector allocations fall into the

health and higher education sectors, where public services aim to provide equal

opportunities to both men and women, this proportion is high.

As for primary and secondary education, gender specific development allocations are 21.50,

32.03 and 23.40 percent of the Ministrys budget for the FYs 200809, 200910, and 201011respectively, while they are 65.30, 66.56 and 63.82 percent on nondevelopment side. For

women and girls, allocations are 7.0 and 10.85% in the first two years but then drop to 3.84

percent in the last FY. However, in case of higher education, gender specific allocations

account for nearly 100% of total allocations. This is because HEC funds the development and

nondevelopment activities of public sector universities, almost all of which, barring a very

few, provide coeducation.

In case of health sector, genderspecific budgetary development allocations are more than

90% of total allocations for the Ministry, while they fluctuate between 84 and 68 percent for

nondevelopment ones. There are no separate allocations for men and boys because no

separate and exclusive facilities exist for them and they benefit from those meant for both

the genders. The budget earmarked for women and girls is also around 50% of Ministry of

health allocations on the Development side. This indicates that government is very keen in

catering for the needs of women and girls in the future.


9/59

9

The Other sectors include nine ministries where the federal government has made gender

specific budgetary allocations. The biggest genderspecific allocation made in this case is

that of Benazir Income Support Programme under Other Expenditure of Cabinet Division

Outside PSDP. As for the budgetary allocations targeting both males and females, the

budgets, on the both the development and nondevelopment sides, show an almost twofold

increase between FYs 200809 and 200910. The main reason for this increase is the transfer

of Peoples Primary Healthcare Initiative (PPHI) to Cabinet Division from the Ministry of

Industries, Production & Special Initiatives. The budgetary allocations for PPHI are Rs.843.82

and Rs.911.32 million for FY 200910 and 201011 respectively on the nondevelopment

side. Another substantial allocation has been made in the development budget of the

Ministry of Population Welfare. Most of this allocation (82, 84 and 89% respectively for the

FYs 200809, 200910 and 201011) has been earmarked for Family Planning Programs in the

four provinces of Pakistan as well as Azad Jammu and Kashmir.

What we conclude from this analysis is that government of Pakistan is making substantialbudgetary allocations to remove the gender imbalance. Two critical interventions are the

Benazir Income Support and Family Planning Programme. In addition, some institutional

changes are also underway that will have a significant effect in highlighting the status of

women in society. These primarily pertain to collecting budgetrelated data and information

directly impacting women and girls. This process has been instituted through appropriate

modifications in the Budget Call Circulars. All these indicate that the steps taken by the

government move us to the right direction. However, it also needs to be acknowledged that

it is still a long way to go.


10/59

10

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1. Introduction

This research has been commissioned by Strengthening PRS Monitoring project, jointlysponsored by the Ministry of Finance and United Nations Development Programme. The

Project aims to strengthen institutional capacities for resultsbased monitoring and

evaluation of poverty reduction strategies at the federal and provincial levels. Gender

Responsive Budgeting is an important component of this project.

A link between government budgets and gender issues is usually not explicitly made, and

gender issues are often addressed by social rather than economic policy. Consequently,

government budgets are often perceived as genderneutral. The debate about gender

budgeting started when it was realised that government budgets are not genderneutral,

and that the appearance of genderneutrality should more accurately be described as

gender blindness, because fiscal measures have different, and often unequal, impacts on

men and women in different contexts, societies and countries (Budlender and Sharp, 1998;

Chakraborty, 2003; Elson, 2002; GRBI, n.d.). This is because men and women, on the whole,

occupy different socioeconomic positions and spaces, play different roles and undertake

different responsibilities in the paid and unpaid economy. Women are less likely to be in

paid employment and, if employed, more likely to earn lower incomes compared to men,

hold less wealth, live in poverty with dependent children and undertake more share of the

unpaid work (Bittman et al., 1993; Budlender, 1996). Therefore, it is naive to assume that all

budgetary allocations will target men and women fairly and equally. Rather reverse is the

case.

Gender responsive budgeting has gained prominence in recent years, and was given

additional impetus by the Fourth World Conference on Women, held in Beijing in 1995,

which called for ensuring the integration of a gender perspective in budgetary policies and

programs (Sharp, 2003). However, it does not intend to analyze only those programs that

are specifically targeted to females or to produce a separate womens budget, but rather

to examine the gender effects of all government programmes and policies, their effects on

resource allocation and outcomes, and how to improve them (GRBI, n.d.).

1.2. Purpose ofResearch

The study aims to provide a snapshot of the governments budgetary priorities and highlight

the gender gaps in policies and budgets and to promote efficiency in resource allocation. For

women, some public services are more important than men, while there are some which

target men but are actually more beneficial for women. For instance, health in general,


11/59

11

maternity care and child welfare in particular, are more important for women rather than

men, while contraceptive, used by men, are more beneficial for women. Thus the primary

focus of this study is to analyze differentials in resource allocations in budgets for the

Financial Year (FY) 200809 to 201011 from gender perspective. The publication of this

analysis/review aims to ensure that stakeholders gain increased knowledge and deeper

understanding of the gendered nature of budgeting outcomes and result in promoting the

formulation and implementation of gender sensitive national policies, programmes and

budgets at the federal level.

The key focus of this study is to describe and analyse:

The general situation of women and men, girls and boys in Pakistan relating to basic

socioeconomic indicators;

A critical analysis of policies underpinning the Federal Budgets 200910 and 201011;

A critical analysis of the resources allocated (budget) in implementing specific

policies, and highlighting the extent to which the budgets impact the socioeconomic

situation of both men and women;

A trend analysis of the federal budget across different sectors with respect to

gender.

1.3. What is a Budget?

According to Article 80 of the Constitution of Pakistan, a budget is a statement of the

estimated receipts and expenditure of the Government for a financial year, referred to as

the Annual Budget Statement. Budgets are financial aggregates of revenues, expenditures

and balances as either being in surplus or deficit (Ichii, 2010). However, it is possible to infer

a scheme or plan from budget estimates which show the economic and social vision of the

government. In other words, budgets transform governments political priorities and socio

economic commitments into practical measures. They reflect how governments set their

priorities and shape and implement their policies. They are an instrument for the

implementation of policies and decisions (Hugendubel, 2004). In Sweden, for example,

political commitment to provide quality childcare at an affordable price, thus giving women

equal right, opportunity and choice to engage in paid employment, is reflected in its

budgetary allocations: almost 2% of GNP is spent on publicly provided childcare. This policy

has contributed a long way in Sweden enjoying one of the highest rates of female

employment in Europe. This goal could only be achieved by creating convergence between

resource allocation and government priorities.


12/59

12

1.4. What is Gender Mainstreaming and Gender Responsive

Budgeting?

Gender mainstreaming is a globally accepted strategy for promoting gender equality. It is a

strategy and not an end in itself. It ensures that gender perspectives and attention to the

goal of gender equality are central to all activities, policy development, research,advocacy/dialogue, legislation, resource allocation, and planning, implementation and

monitoring of programmes and projects.

According to Council of Europe (1998) Gender mainstreaming is the (re)organisation,

improvement, development and evaluation of policy processes, so that a gender equality

perspective is incorporated in all policies at all levels and all stages, by the actors normally

involved in policy making.

One aspect of gender mainstreaming is gender responsive budgeting, a process that aims to

mainstream gender into the various stages of the budget cycle. According to the process,first the impacts of public expenditure and revenue policy on women, girls, men and boys

are determined. Once the different needs of these gender groups have been identified

including factors such as race, ethnicity, religion, resource allocations in the budget are re

prioritised to cater for their specific needs. According to Budlender et al. (2005), it goes

beyond the malefemale divide and examines how both men and women interact with each

other and whether and how the budgetary allocations affect gender patterns in society. It

does not mean preparing separate budgets for women or advocating gender specific

projects or programs.

Hugendubel (2004) offers a similar stance when he calls gender budgeting a process through

which public budgets are examined in order to assess whether they do or do not contribute

to more equality between women and men, and then to introduce changes that promote

gender equality. According to Sharp and Broomhill (2002), gender budgeting seeks to

mainstream gender analysis of issues within government policies; promote greater

accountability and participation by committing governments to gender equality; and

influence budgets and policies. Similarly, according to Chakraborty (2003), gender

responsive budget aims to analyse the budgetary allocations through a gender lens, to

identify the gender differential impacts and to translate gender commitments into

budgetary commitments.

Gender responsive budgeting (GRB) is not a single activity, there are many other activities

that could be included in it (Sharp, 2007a, 2007b). It a tool for integrating a gender

perspective into all steps of the budget process planning, drafting, implementing and

evaluating so as to ensure that budget policies take into consideration the gender issues in


13/59

13

society, and neither directly nor indirectly discriminate against either women or men. Sharp

(2003) provides a framework to categorize GRB outcomes into three guiding goals:

a. to raise awareness and the understanding of gender issues and the impacts of

budgets and policies;

b. to make governments accountable for their budgetary and policy commitments to

gender equality; and

c. to change and refine government budgets and policies to promote gender equality.

All these goals are interrelated. However, it is important to understand that for achieving

them, a basic change in culture, value systems and priorities resulting from political

commitments are predicated. Other reasons for failure, pointed out by Sarraf (2003), are

genderbiased culture, lack of appropriate budget classification and lack of gender analysis

expertise and genderdisaggregated data in most countries.

GRB is important for a number of reasons. Firstly, it is a tool for increasing accountability

and ensuring that budgetary allocations protect, consider and respect equality and humanrights. It reflects the humane notion that governments should not only be concerned with

economic growth but growth with equity and democratic governance. GRB can, therefore,

be used to enforce and monitor human rights.

Secondly, every budgetmaking exercise focuses on efficiency, economy and effectiveness

aspects of public financing. However, gender resource budgeting extends its scope to add a

fourth dimension: equity. GRB is useful for ensuring the equity aspect to government

budgets by targeting those who have previously been overlooked. This increases the societal

output in terms of productivity, quality of the labour force, economic growth, and health.

Hill and King (1995) have demonstrated that countries with a lower ratio of girls to boys

enrolled in primary or secondary education have GNP around 25 percent lower than in

countries with a higher gender parity index in enrolment (above 0.75).

Thirdly, GRB increases the effectiveness of both policies and programmes by providing a way

to assess whether the stated objectives have been achieved. Gender budget analysis

highlights that the public expenditures are not equitably directed towards male and female

and the latter do not benefit as much as the boys. Gender equity is also a reason to

undertake GRB, as it can contribute to more equitable budgetary allocations.

Fourthly, GRB ensures good governance. SchiavoCampo and Sundaram (2003) identify

transparency, accountability, predictability and participation as the four pillars of goodgovernance in budgets. Collection, dissemination and reporting of sexdisaggregated data

lead to greater transparency in government budgeting rationale and processes (Hewitt and

Mukhopadhyay, 2001). GRB is likely to remain unsustainable and standalone exercise

unless it is made participatory. It should give a voice to groups both within and outside

government that have traditionally been outside the budgetary decisionmaking processes.


14/59

14

As Sawer (1999) demonstrates, this movement has succeeded in raising awareness about

the impacts that budgets have on groups and individuals by using sexdisaggregated data.

Sharp and Broomhill (2002), Bittman et al. (1993) and Budlender (1996) have highlighted

that this analysis has helped in bringing genderrelated issue in mainstream policy.

It is also important to note that despite all the rhetoric, there have been relatively few

attempts to translate gender commitments into fiscal commitments (Sharp and Vas Dev,

2004). This explains the magnitude of the task.

Stotsky (2006, p. 3) characterises gender budgeting as just good budgeting and argues

that gender budgeting is part of the mainstream budgetmaking process. She further says

that gender budgeting is budgeting that properly accounts for the positive externalities

that are derived from improving womens opportunities for health care, education and

employment.

1.5. Gender Responsive Budgeting in Pakistan

Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan grants equality of gender in all spheres of

life. Article 25 of the Constitution states:

All citizens are equal before law and are entitled to equal protection

of law, there shall be no discrimination on the basis of sex alone and

nothing in this article shall prevent state from making special

provision for the protection of women and children.

Pakistan is one of many countries in the world that have introduced gender mainstreaming

in its policymaking processes. One aspect of this is the Gender Responsive Budgeting

Initiative (GRBI) started in 2005 (GRBI, 2008). The foundation on which GRBI in Pakistanrests are several government documents, especially the Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers

(PRSPs). As a result, appropriate changes have been made in the budgetary allocations and

budget preparation processes.

Government of Pakistan has recently promulgated laws and regulations that protect the

rights of women and give them a sense of safety and security at the workplace. At the

behest of the Ministry of Women Development, Protection of Women against Harassment

at the Workplace Act, 2010 was promulgated by the Government. A Watch Committee of

National Commission on the Status of Women has been recently constituted to ensure its

implementation. Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2010 has been promulgated to provide

safe working environment for women. With this amendment in Pakistan Penal Code and

Criminal Procedure Code, punishment for the crime has been increased to 3 years

imprisonment and fine up to Rs.500,000.


15/59

15

2. TREND IN GENDER RELATED INDICATORS

2.1. Review of Pakistans Performance in GenderRelated MDGs

Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) are an international benchmark for socioeconomicdevelopment of a country. These originate from the Millennium Declaration signed in

September 2000. A list of goals and their accompanying targets has been given at 8.1

Appendix I: Official List of MDGs. Out of the eight MDGs, Goals 3, 4 and 5 relate to women

and children. These are respectively promoting gender equality and empowerment of

women, reducing infant mortality, and improving maternal mortality.

Appendix II: Trend in Gender related MDGs A Pakistani Scenario presents a trend

analysis of gender related indicators for Pakistan. The baseline is the year 1990 and 2015

was decided as the date for the achievement of these goals. There are also midterm targets

pertaining to PRSP and MTBF that the government of Pakistan had set for itself. Table 1

below presents an overview of Pakistans track record in achieving MDGs. According to GOP

(2010b), the country was ahead only in one target, slow, lagging behind or gone offtrack in

the remaining ones.

Table 1: Pakistan's Track Record in Achieving Gender Related MDGsIndicators 200809

Gender Parity index (GPI) for primary and secondary education Slow

Youth Literacy GPI Slow

Share of women in wage employment in the nonagricultural sector Slow

Under five mortality rate Lag

Infant mortality rate Off Track

Proportion of fully immunized children 1223 months Lag

Proportion of under 1 year children immunized against measles On Track

Proportion of children under five who suffered from diarrhea in the last 30 days

and received ORT

Ahead

Lady Health Workers coverage of target population On Track

Maternal mortality ratio Lag

Proportion of births attended by skilled birth attendants Lag

Contraceptive prevalence rate Lag

Total fertility rate Lag

Proportion of women 1549 years who had given birth during last 3 years and madeat least one antenatal care consultation

Lag

In Pakistan, there are gender differences in public services in respect of (i) access (ii)

utilization and (iii) social norms and behaviours. Although, the extent of differences remains

relatively less welldocumented at the micro or household level, the macro level indicators

suggest that girls and young women face relatively more threats to their wellbeing than


16/59

16

men (Shehzad, 2006). This is reflected in wide gaps in social indicators between males and

females as given in the Table below.

Table 2: Gaps in Social Indicators between Male and Female

Description Year Pakistan

Male Female

Literacy Rate1990 43.2 22.4

2008 60 44

Combined enrolment rate1990 35.9 18.8

2008 56.5 45.1

Fully immunized children199596 46 45

200708 75 71

Proportion of pregnant women prenatal care199697 30

200708 56

Contraceptive prevalent rate199596 13 13

200708 36 36

Access to drinking water199596 28 28

200708 36 36

Source: (SPDC, 2009)

This table also indicates improvement from base years, for both males and females. This can

be witnessed in all the indicators.

2.2. Review of Pakistans Performance in GenderRelated Composite

Indices

In addition to MDGs, there are also a number of genderrelated composite indices on which

Pakistan figures prominently. A composite index combines several dimensions of

inequalities (Anand and Sen, 1995; Dijkstra, 2002), including social and economic ones.

However, the dimension included and weights assigned to different indicators/variables

make them distinct from each other.

One significant development in highlighting the state of women in a country was made in

1995 with the launch of Genderrelated Development Index (GDI) and the Gender

Empowerment Measure (GEM). This was done through Human Development Report just

before the 4th World Conference on Women. GDI focused on inequalities by gender in the

Human Development Index (HDI) dimension. It is a composite index that measures average

achievement in the following three basic dimensions (UNDP, 2007 & 2008):

A long and healthy life, as measured by life expectancy at birth. Knowledge, as measured by the adult literacy rate and the combined primary,

secondary and tertiary gross enrolment ratio,

A decent standard of living, as measured by estimated earned income (PPP US$)

Details about calculating GDI have been given in Technical Note 1 of UNDP (2007 & 2008).

GDI has been replaced with Gender Inequality Index (GII) in UNDP (2010). This is once again

a composite index that measures loss in achievements in three dimensions of human


17/59

17

development due to inequality between genders. The three dimensions are reproductive

health, empowerment and labour market.

GEM, another composite index, measures gender inequality in the three dimensions of

empowerment: economic participation and decision making, political participation, and

decisionmaking and power over economic resources. Notwithstanding their usefulness,critics have noted several key drawbacks in these composite indicators (UNDP, 2010):

As is evident from Table 3, Pakistan, given its position as a middle income country, scores

poorly in almost all dimensions of gender. This table also shows a close connect between

human and gender development.

Table 3: Pakistan's Position in HDI, GDI and GEM

HDI1

GDI2

GEM3

Country/Year 2009 2005 2000 2009 2005 2000 2009 2005 2000

High

Income

Canada 0.886 0.880 0.867 0.289 0.946 0.932 0.830 0.807 0.739

France 0.869 0.856 0.834 0.260 0.935 0.914 0.779

Japan 0.881 0.875 0.855 0.273 0.937 0.916 0.567 0.534 0.490

Middle

Income

India 0.512 0.482 0.440 0.748 0.588 0.545

China 0.655 0.616 0.567 0.405 0.754 0.700 0.533

Pakistan 0.487 0.468 0.416 0.532 0.508 0.489 0.386 0.379

Low

Income

Kenya 0.464 0.474 0.508 0.738 0.472 0.503

Sudan 0.375 0.360 0.336 0.708 0.495 0.453

Bangladesh 0.463 0.432 0.390 0.734 0.514 0.441 0.264 0.218 0.305

Source: Human Development Reports (different editions)

Greig et al (2006) developed Global Gender Gap Index for World Economic Forum (WEF).

The WEF Index examines gaps between men and women in four fundamental categories:

economic participation and opportunity, educational attainment, health and survival and

political empowerment. In this way, it includes UNDPs Genderrelated Development Index

and Gender Empowerment Measure. On the pattern of Human Development Reports of

UNDP, it provides country rankings that allow effective comparisons across regions and

income groups, and over time. The latest report (Hausmann et al., 2010) captures the

magnitude and scope of genderbased disparities and tracks their progress over the period

20062010. Pakistans position is given below:

1Human Development Index

2Genderrelated Development Index

3Gender Empowerment Measure


18/59

18

Table 4: Pakistans Position and Score on Global Gender Gap Index

Source: (Hausmann et al., 2010)

As is evident, Pakistan is at the bottom of the list, ranked at 132 just above Chad and

Yemen.

Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU) (2010) has recently introduced a new Womens Economic

Opportunity Index, which has been constructed from 26 indicators. It measures specific

attributes related to women employees and entrepreneurs. The Index intends to highlight

drivers and constraints on the state of womens economic opportunity. In the overallwomens economic opportunity ranking, Pakistan comes at 108 in a list of 113 countries.

2.3. Summing up

Sarraf (2003) holds that gender mainstreaming initiatives can facilitate the preparation and

implementation of propoor budgets by targeting womensupporting activities. However,

making this policy intervention requires strong political commitment on the part of policy

makers. However, despite improved recurrent budgetary allocations, the trend still

continues to persist with existing situations: due to historical reasons, more boys than girls

schools exist, therefore proportionately more funds will accrue to boys schools,perpetuating gender inequalities (Mukhtar, 2006). This gender bias is also evident from the

study by Aslam & Kingdon (2008) and Rukanuddin & Haq (2006) who point to the lack of

autonomy, restricted mobility and minimum discretionary access to economic resources by

women.

The discussion above shows that Pakistan fares badly in different gender related indicators.

The country invariably comes almost at the bottom of the league. However, there is one

silver lining: over the years, Pakistan has shown improvement. Due to better access to

education and health facilities as well as changes in relevant laws and statutes, the country

has improved its ranking. There is still a lot more to be done.


19/59

3. BUDGET FORMULATION PROCESS A GENDER PERSPECTIVE

This is section is less about budget formulation process and more about genderfocused

reforms that have brought about a perceptible change in budget making during the last

couple of years. These reforms have aimed at creating a synchronisation between thebudgeting and planning processes on the one hand and making these processes in line with

governments proclaimed policy objectives on the other.

3.1. The Budget Making Process A BriefOverview

Articles 7887 of the Constitution of Pakistan lay down guidelines for budget making process

at the federal government level. The financial year in Pakistan runs from July to June. The

Constitution also distinguishes between development and nondevelopment (also called

current) components of the budget. Since the budget making processes

components is different, these have been discussed separately below.

for both the

3.1.1. NonDevelopment Budget

The budgetmaking activity for the nondevelopment component starts in the month of

October/ November every year and culminates with the approval of the budget by the

Parliament in June/ July. The flow chart of the budgetmaking process has been given in the

Figure 1 below.

Figure 1: Flow Chart of Budget Formulation

The nondevelopment or current budget consists of two types of expenditure. The first is

known as permanent budget which continues from year to year. The second one is reflected


20/59

20

in the Schedule of New Expenditures (SNE). SNEs mainly pertain to development schemes

which have been completed and, therefore, need to be shifted from the development to the

nondevelopment budget.

3.1.2. Development Budget

The process of preparing development budget is quite different from the nondevelopment

budget. Planning Commission administers the development budget, which involves three

parts: identification of schemes, approval and budgeting of schemes and their execution.

The development schemes are identified by line ministries keeping in view government

priorities and goals as set out in different policy documents such as Perspective Plans, MTDF

and PRSP etc. These schemes are then scrutinised by Planning Commission and then,

depending on the size of the project, approved by Central Development Working Party

(CDWP) or Executive Committee of the National Economic Council (ECNEC). Development

schemes are then executed after appropriate funds are allocated for them in the budget.

Figure 2: Annual Development Program (ADP) Formulation Process at Glance


21/59

21

3.2. Engendering Federal Budget: Overview ofInitiatives

3.2.1. Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper

Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper (PRSP) was formally announced by the Government of

Pakistan in December, 2001. The document was produced after a wide consultative and

participatory process that included both internal (Pakistani) and external (multilateral and

bilateral) stakeholders. PRSPs are the backbone of medium term development policy

framework and encapsulate governments strategy for undertaking socioeconomic reforms

over a three years horizon. PRSP II, formally announced in 2008, focuses on pursuing two

pronged propoor and progrowth strategies. It also attaches great importance to

Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) and achievement of its targets through adopting

equitable growth framework.

PRSP II reaffirms governments commitment to the empowerment of women in the social,

political and economic domains of life. The sixth pillar of the strategy called HumanDevelopment for the 21st Century adopts human resource development in five areas: i)

education; ii) health; iii) safe water and sanitation; vi) population planning; and v) gender

equality (GOP, 2008). Gender equality is a pervasive theme in all these four other areas. The

bottom line behind PRSP is that it is not possible to earn demographic dividends unless

women are empowered through the provision of primary and reproductive healthcare;

elimination of gap in enrolments and retention rates; and redressing the even larger gap in

labour force participation. PRSP II finds these as the key affirmative action measures for a

comprehensive poverty reduction strategy.

3.2.2. Medium Term Budgetary Framework

Medium Term Budgetary Framework (MTBF), initiated in 2003, ensures that annual budget

preparation is carried out within a framework which takes into account the resources

expected to be available to the government over the medium term. It has two

complementary components: a strategic, topdown component, focused on Finance

Division that provides guidance in the form of indicative budget preparation ceilings to each

line ministry. The second a bottomup component supports line ministries to allocate

resources strategically and in accordance with their ceilings set by Finance Division. Each

year, the MTBF process involves the rolling forward of the previous threeyear estimate by

one year and the addition of a new outer year.

Finance Division has also introduced outputbased budgeting as a method for preparing

budgets under MTBF. For this purpose, a single Budget Call Circular (BCC) was issued that

fulfilled the requirement ofoutbased budgeting as well as provided forecasts for the next

two years. The framework also includes the development and inclusion of checklists and

benchmarks for line ministries and executing agencies to ensure that gendersegregated


22/59

22

indicators and data are provided for input and output indicators wherever possible.

Publication ofFederal Medium Term Budget Estimates for Service Delivery also known as

the Green Book is also part of the MTBF.

3.2.3. Perspective Planning and Medium Term Development Framework

Government of Pakistan has adopted a Perspective Planning approach to economic planning

and development. The Perspective Plan developed in the year 2001 envisaged and

prioritised government policies and plans for the coming ten years. This dovetailed with new

the Perspective Plan called Vision 2030 in 2006 that symbolized the broad development

strategy to be pursued by the country for the next twentyfive years. These twentyfive

years were divided into five Medium Term Development Frameworks (MTDF) formulated in

the context of bigger picture given in the new Perspective Plan.

MTDF claims to have subsumed PRSP. MTDF visualizes women development in terms of

enhancing their status, promoting and protecting their rights, and ensuring their fullparticipation at all levels on the basis of equity with men (GOP, n.d.). In the present

economic planning and development scenario, MTDF has replaced PRSP as a preferred

policy instrument for the government ofPakistan.

3.2.4. Gender Reform Action Plan

Gender Reform Action Plan (GRAP) was launched in 2002 in association with Asian

Development Bank. The project aims to engender the PRSP framework by undertaking a

review of the all PRSPs at the national and provincial levels and making suggestions for

incorporation in them. GRAP envisage major reforms in public resource managementsystems to create institutional processes for achieving gender responsive development in

the country. It proposes amendments in the policy making processes to make them gender

sensitive. The policy makers should consider the impact of a certain policy on women. GRAP

has also activated women development ministries and departments to undertake review of

existing policy with a gender lens. It has propagated a genderfocused review of budget

covering the following areas:

Gender aware policy analysis

Gender disaggregated beneficiary analysis

Gender disaggregated time use analysis Gender disaggregated public expenditure incidence analysis

Gender disaggregated revenue incidence analysis

Gender aware medium term economic framework

GRAP has been instrumental in sensitizing the government to the need to modify Budget

Call Circulars to the extent that providing genderspecific information is now essential for

line ministries and departments. Instructions for filling different forms emphasize the need


23/59

23

to provide genderdisaggregated data or indicator wherever possible. However, despite its

proposal to create separate demands and codes in budget for women specific facilities, this

has not been accepted by the government. Similarly, its request to create separate section

for women in PSDP or indicate women specific capital expenditure to make them more

visible has also not seen the light ofday.

3.2.5. Gender Responsive Budgeting Initiative

Gender Responsive Budgeting Initiative (GRBI) was initiated in 2005 to spearhead the task of

making Pakistans federal and provincial budgets gender responsive. It initially focused on

three sectors, namely Education, Health and Population Welfare. GRBI has merged into a

bigger umbrella project with broader scope of activities called Strengthening Poverty

Reduction Strategy Monitoring (SPRSM) project. The project focuses on awareness raising,

gender based budgetary analysis, capacity building and advocacy etc.


24/59

24

4. METHODOLOGY

4.1. Review ofMethodology

Different researchers have used different methodologies to analyse budgets. One suchapproach is known as the Total Budget Approach by Sharp and Broomhill (1990) that

encompasses the following:

a. expenditure especially targeted for men, women, boys and girls;

b. expenditures for promoting gender equality in the governmental workplace:

expenditures targeted to equalize employment opportunities in the public sector;

and

c. general or mainstream (nongender targeted) expenditures.

This stylized approach to classifying public expenditures offers a simple and workable break

down, which can presumably be derived from government budget documents providing this

detail. But it does have a number of limitations. For one, it confounds to some extent two

separate areas of government activity, spending in the budget and public employment

practices, which is not necessarily part of a budget process. Second, most spending falls

within the last category, and thus looking only at the first two, would encompass only a

small part of the government activity and not provide a full picture of the gender

differentiated effects of government programs and policies (Stotsky, 2006).

According to Sharp (2003), Performance Oriented Budgeting (POB), in general terms,

involves two key elements:

incorporation of information that measures what governments do and their

expected policy impacts into various stages of the budget cycle,

use of this information in budget making to better align spending decisions with

government priorities and expected performance.

According to Stotsky (2006), the most recent manifestation of performance oriented

budgeting is Output andOutcomes Budgeting, which involves measuring the products andservices delivered by agencies (outputs) and the impacts of government policies (outcomes)

and incorporating this performance information into budgetary decision making processes.

According to Dewan (2004), output and outcomes budgeting has emerged as part of a

spectrum of public sector reforms undertaken by both developing and developed countries

which are underpinned by a discourse of good governance. Gender Sensitive Budget

analysis identifies implications and impacts for women and girls as compared to men and


25/59

25

boys. The generally accepted purpose is to see whether allocation of public expenditures is

made in such a way that it reprioritizes public resources towards genderequitable patterns

of revenue collection and resource use.

Hugendubel (2004) and Dewan (2004) offer a different typology for undertaking the analysis

ofbudget:

1. Genderaware Policy Appraisal: A gender analysis of budgetary policies and their

impact on women and men. The purpose is to identify implicit and explicit gender

issues in the budget and related resource allocations, to assess whether the outlined

policy and its budgetary implications will reduce existing inequalities between men

and women.

2. Genderdisaggregated Beneficiary Assessment: Analysis of the way women and men

evaluate if and how budgets meet their specific needs.

3. Genderdisaggregated Public Expenditure Incidence Analysis: Comparing public

spending with the number of women and men affected by spending.

4. Genderdisaggregated Revenue /Tax Incidence Analysis: Analysing public revenues

according to their impact on men and women on an individual rather than a

household basis. It acknowledges the fact that in most cases the share of income and

paid taxes in the household is unequally distributed between men and women.

5. Utilizing time use studies to include the impact of unpaid work of men and women

into budget analysis.

6. Genderaware Mediumterm Macroeconomic Policy Framework: Aiming at a gendersensitive multiyear budget on a more longtermbasis.

7. Genderaware Budget Statement: Judging budgets according to its impacts on

gender equality.

4.2. Analytical Framework for the Study

The analytical framework for the study is slightly different from the Total Budget

Approach of Sharp and Broomhill (1990). Rather it uses a modified Total Budget Approach.

This study divides public expenditures into the following categories:

1. Genderspecific budgetary allocations

a) budget specifically targeted at women and girls;

b) budget specifically targeted at men and boys;

c) budget providing equal opportunities for male and female, and

2. Mainstream (nongender targeted) budgetary allocations.


26/59

26

These categories matches with those of Sharp and Broomhill (1990), though they have been

given as subcategories. The first category includes three types of allocations, whose

aggregate constitute genderspecific budgetary allocations. The subcategory c includes

budgetary allocations that are not targeted either at male or female but are meant for both

the genders. The examples for this category include budgets for universities where co

education is being provided or hospitals. The last category presents rest of the budgetary

allocations or mainstream budget.

Data has been analysed with help of above framework separately for development and non

development budgets. In this regard, this study extends the work of Sabir (2006) and many

other research studies.

4.3. Data Sources

The primary data source is Pink Books published by the Ministry of Finance for the FY 2008

09 to 201011. Despite the absence of sexdisaggregated data as highlighted by (GRBI, n.d.),an effort has been made to glean and collect gendersegregated data from the Pink Books

for both Development and NonDevelopment allocations. The data is available for Social

Sectors (health, education) and Other Sectors; and has been given in tabular form as

appendices to the report. In the text, this data has been analysed in detail and different

conclusions have been drawn on the basis ofanalyses.


27/59

27

5. ANALYSIS OF FEDERAL BUDGET

5.1. Macroeconomic Scenario

Budgets for the FYs 200910 and 201011 were presented at a time when Pakistan wasfacing various external and internal challenges. In the international context, the global

economy was in turmoil, with uncertain prospects for demand for Pakistans exports.

Internally, the implementation of stabilization program and adverse sociopolitical

conditions resulted in GDP growth rate of only 1.2 percent during 200809 (GOP, 2010a).

Given the internal and external environment, government faced a huge challenge posed by

the war on terror (economic cost of $35 billion since 200102) and relief, rehabilitation,

reconstruction and security of 2.5 million internally displaced people (IDP), allocating Rs.2.5

billion for them. The situation was further aggravated by rising food and fuel prices and

consequential debilitating poverty.

On the receipt side, Pakistan has one of the lowest Tax to GDP ratios (9%) in the world. The

investment climate was not favourable, resulting in decline in Investment GDP ratio of6.9

percent in 200809 compared to 15.8 percent in the previous year. The Debt GDP ratio

remained high, hovering around 60 percent for the last three years. The energy crisis

affected the economy adversely. The energy subsidy was, inter alia, responsible for the rise

in fiscal deficit. The crisis also reduced overall economic growth by 2 percent. The impact

was critical on the manufacturing sector, reducing its output by 3.7 percent.

The matters were even worse at the time budget for FY 201011 was presented in theParliament. The country faced multiple adverse shocks of commodity and oil prices and the

fallout of the global financial crisis. During the year, oil prices also shot up from $70/barrel

to $125/barrel creating a new threat to the macroeconomic framework. The period was

marked by continuing and intensified security challenges. In addition, there was

unprecedented calamity of the great floods. These floods wiped out about 2 percentage

points from the growth as well as inflicted a massive damage of $10 billion on the countrys

economic structure. Some 20 million people were displaced as more than 50,000 Sq. Km

area was submerged in water. The destruction of major crops, particularly rice and cotton,

led to a negative growth of 4% in the agriculture sector (GOP, 2011). The overall quantum of

economic activities, captured by services sector was also affected, with a growth of 4.1

percent, originally targeted at 5.4%.

5.2. General Analysis of Federal Budget

Table 5 below provides an overview of the federal budget for the FYs 200910 (revised

estimates (RE) and 201011, while the FY 200809 (RE) has been used as base year.


28/59

28

Table 5: Comparative Budgetary Position 200910 and 201011In Rs. Millions

Classification 200809(RE) 200910

(RE)4

201011

Total Resources (a + b) 1,939,713 2,496,448 2,597,893

a. Internal Resources 157,228 1,918,463 2,211,273

i. Revenue Receipts (Net) 1,223,738 1,396,667 1,377,349

ii. Capital Receipts (Net) 187,236 260,271 325,384

iii. Financing of PSDP by Provinces 12,366 183,957 341,615

iv. Changes in Provincial Cash Balance 37,647 77,568 166,925

b. External Resources 367,433 577,985 386,620

Expenditure 2,087,027 2,585,557 2,764,437

i. Current Expenditure 1,649,224 2,017,255 1,997,892

ii. Development Expenditure (PSDP) 418,967 510,000 663,000

iii. Other Development Expenditure 58,836 118,302 123,545

iv. Estimated Operational Shortfall (40,000) (60,000) (20,000)

Privatization Proceeds 129

Bank Borrowing 146,024 89,109 166,544

Source: Budget in Brief, Ministry of Finance

In terms of percent of total budgetary allocations, the Development5 allocations are 23, 24

and 29 percent in the FYs 200809, 200910 and 201011 respectively, while non

development allocations are 79, 78 and 72 percent for the same period. This shows a

downward trend for current expenditures. However, the reason for this decrease is more

due to increase in budgeted Development allocations than due to decrease in current

allocations.

5.3. Gender Sensitive Analysis of Federal Development Budget

Table below presents the three way categorization of federal budget for the FYs 200809,

200910 and 201011 under the head Development.

Table 6: Three Way Categorisation of Federal Development Budgets

In Rs. billions

Description 200809 (RE) 200910 (RE) 201011

Total Federal Budget (Development) 477.80 628.30 786.55

1. Gender Specific Budgetary Allocations 99.18 109.93 105.19

a) Women and Girls 29.11 58.17 59.73

b) Men and Boys 16.27 18.28 15.64

c) Budget targeting both genders 53.80 33.48 29.82

2. General/Mainstream Budget 378.62 518.37 681.36

Share in Total Budget %

4Only revised estimates for the financial year 20092010 have been used throughout the text.

5This includes both PSDP and Other Development Expenditure.


29/59

29

Description 200809 (RE) 200910 (RE) 201011

1.Gender Specific Budgetary Allocations 20.8 17.5 13.4

a) Women and Girls 6.1 9.3 7.6

b) Men and Boys 3.4 2.9 1.99



Source: Pink Books (Development)FY 200809, 200910 & 201011, Ministry ofFinance

We find that gender specific allocations, including those made for women & girls, men &

boys and targeting both the genders, have shown a downward trend, falling 20.8% in

FY200809 to 17.5 and 13.4% of total allocations in 200910 and 2011 respectively. This

consistent decline is due to fall in budgetary allocations made for men & boys as well as

those targeting both the genders. It is pertinent to note that while budgetary allocations in

value terms have, inter alia, shown an increasing trend, this is not reflected in percentage

share in development budget. This is because the allocations for development budgets haveincreased substantially, while the share of genderspecific allocations in these increases has

not kept pace with it. Due to this factor, general or mainstream budget shows an increasing

trend.

If we compare the share of development and nondevelopment budgetary allocations

(discussed in subsequent section) for the three fiscal years, we find that gender specific

allocations in the development budget are consistently many times those in the non

development ones. One main contributory factor is the Benazir Income Support Programme

(BISP) that was started by the democratic government in 200809 and is womenspecific.

This may also be due to the gender mainstreaming efforts initiated by the Government of

Pakistan. However, the share of allocations targeting both the genders still dominates. It is

also pertinent to note that general or mainstream budget continues to cover between 79

87 percent of total budgetary allocations.

5.3.1. Gender Sensitive Analysis of Social Sector Development Budget

Table below provides gender sensitive analysis of development allocations in the social

sector. Once again data has been tabulated separately for women & girls, men & boys and

budget targeting both males and females. In addition to calculating percentage shares in

total budget, these have also been calculated from the budgetary allocations earmarked for

the social sector.


30/59

30

Table 7: Three Way Categorisation of Development Budgetary Allocations in Social SectorIn Rs. millions

Description FYs 200809 (RE) 200910 (RE) 201011

Dev Dev Dev

Total Budget 477,803.00 628,302.00 786,545.00

Total Budget for Social Sector 35,008.99 42,584.70 37,777.90

1. Gender Specific Allocations 31,722.21 38,836.41 33,885.20a) Women & Girls 7,890.61 11,377.79 8,855.51

b) Men and Boys 90.00 215.80 224.24

c) Budget targeting both genders 23,741.60 27,242.82 24,805.45

2. General/ Mainstream Budget 3,286.78 3,748.29 3,892.70

Percentage Share in Total Budget1) Gender Specific Allocations 6.64 6.18 4.31

a)Women & Girls 1.65 1.81 1.13

b) Men and Boys 0.02 0.03 0.03


2) General/ Mainstream Budget 93.36 93.82 95.69

Percentage Share in Social SectorBudget

1) Gender Specific Allocations 90.61 91.20 89.70

a) Women & Girls 22.54 26.72 23.44

b) Men and Boys 0.26 0.51 0.59


2) General/ Mainstream Budget 9.39 8.80 10.30


The table above shows that gender specific allocations for development budget remains

above 6% in the FY 200809 and 200910, though it comes down to 4.31 in 201011. As for

allocations for women and girls, they increase in FY 200809 and 200910, but then decrease

in FY 201011. For men and boys, budgetary allocations remain around 0.2% of the total

budget during the three years under discussion.

If we analyse the percentage share in social sector budget, we find that around 90% of the

budget under the head development is meant for gender specific allocations. Women and

girls account for 22.54, 26.72 and 23.44 percent of development allocations for the social

sector in the FYs 200809 to 201011 respectively. Once again, the development allocations

is around seven times that of nondevelopment one. This indicates that the government is

cognizance of the imbalance between genders and is trying to reduce it. Compared with

that, the allocations targeted exclusively at men and boys are quite small. This is because

the social sectors allocations that target both the genders in real life benefit men and boys

far more than women and girls.

Budgets targeting both the genders are around 65% of the social sector allocations in all

the three FYs. Since the major chunk of social sector allocations fall into the health

and education sectors, where public services aim to provide equal opportunities to both

men and women, this proportion is high.


31/59

31

a) Gender Sensitive Analysis of Federal Development Budget Ministry ofEducation

Education is the mainstay of any economic activity. No country can and has developed

without educating its population. What is known as population dividend can be enchased

with the presence of welleducated and skilled manpower in the country.

In this section, we analyse the budgetary allocations approved by the Parliament for the

Ministry of Education under head Development. These also include allocations for the

Higher Education Commission, whose separate grants are routed through the Ministry of

Education. However, data for Higher Education Commission has been given separately due

to the size of allocations as well as the importance given to higher education in the recent

years.

Table 8 presents an overview of the Development budgetary allocations for the Ministry of

Education (except HEC).

Table 8: Three Way Categorisation of Development Budgetary Allocations for Ministry of

EducationIn Rs. millions

Description FYs 200809(R) 200910(R) 201011Budget for Education 4,186.87 5,500.01 5,070.86

1. Gender Specific Allocations 900.09 1,761.72 1186.39

a) Women & Girls 293.98 596.71 194.89

b) Men and Boys 90.00 215.8 224.24


2. General/Mainstream Budget 3,286.78 3,738.29 3,884.47

Percentage Share in Education Budget


a) Women & Girls 7.02 10.85 3.84

b) Men and Boys 2.15 3.92 4.42


2) General/Mainstream Budget 78.50 67.97 76.60


We find that gender specific allocations are 21.50, 32.03 and 23.40% of the Ministrys

budget for the FYs 200809, 200910, and 201011 respectively. For women and girls,

allocations are 7 and 10.85% in the first two years but then drop to 3.84% in the last FY.

Allocations targeting both the genders do not show any large variation over the three yearsperiod. Projectwise details of womenspecific Development activities can be seen at

Appendix III: Ministry ofEducation.

Table 9 provides detailed information about budgetary allocations for Higher Education

Commission. Projectwise details of womenspecific Development and NonDevelopment

activities can be seen at Appendix IV: Higher Education Commission.


32/59

32

Table 9: Three Way Categorisation of Budgetary Allocations in HECIn Rs. millions

Description FYs 200809(RE) 200910(RE) 201011Total Budget for HEC 16,400.80 18,500.00 15,762.52

1. Gender Specific Allocations 16,400.80 18,500.00 15,762.52

a) Women & Girls 287.19 502.91 412.82

b) Men and Boys 0.00 0.00 0.00

c) Budget targeting both genders 16113.61 17,997.09 15,349.70


Percentage Share in HEC Budget


a) Women & Girls 1.75 2.72 2.62

b) Men and Boys 0.00 0.00 0.00


2) General/Mainstream Budget 0.00 0.00 0.00


We find that gender specific allocations account for nearly 100% of total allocations. This is

because HEC funds the development and nondevelopment activities of public sector

universities, almost all of which, barring a very few, provide coeducation. Therefore, most

of the allocations appear under the category: budget targeting both genders. Since there are

no men only public sector universities in the country, allocation under this category appears

as nil.

b) Gender Sensitive Analysis of Federal Development Budget Ministry ofHealth

Table 10 below presents budgetary allocations made for the federal Ministry of Health.

Project wise details of womenspecific NonDevelopment activities can be seen at Appendix V: Ministry ofHealth.

Table 10: Three Way Categorisation of Budgetary Allocations in HealthIn Rs. millions

Description FYs 200809 (R) 200910 (R) 201011Total Budget for Health 14,421.32 18,584.69 16,944.52

1. Gender Specific Allocations 14,421.32 18,574.69 16,936.29

a) Women and Girls 7,309.44 10,278.17 8,247.80

b) Men and Boys 0.00 0.00 0.00

c) Budget targeting both genders 7111.88 8,296.52 8,688.49

2. General/Mainstream Budget 0.00 10.00 8.23Percentage Share in Health Budget


a) Women and Girls 50.68 55.30 48.68

b) Men and Boys 0.00 0.00 0.00



Source: Pink Books (Development and NonDevelopment)FY 200809, 200910 & 201011, Ministry of Finance


33/59

33

The data shows that genderspecific budgetary allocations are almost 100% of total

allocations for the Ministry. There are no separate allocations for men and boys because no

separate and exclusive facilities exist for them and they benefit from those meant for both

the genders. The budget earmarked for women and girls is also around 50% of Ministry of

health allocations. This indicates that government is very keen in catering for the needs of

women and girls and is making exclusive arrangements for them. The share ofgeneral/mainstream budget is negligible.

5.3.2. Gender Sensitive Analysis of Federal Development Budget Other Sectors

Table 11 below presents data for budgetary allocations for women and girls in different

ministries called Other Sector. As whole, data have been gleaned and calculated for 9

ministries and Misc. Expenditure. The last item refers to different capital outlays under

different sectors such as industrial development. Where no womenspecific allocations

could be identified in the Development head, this has been given as zero. Project wise

details under these sectors have been given in Appendix VI: Other Sectors.

Table 11: Budgetary Allocations for Women and Girls in Different MinistriesIn Rs. Millions


1. Ministry of Women Dev. 116.24 200.00 152.90

2. Cabinet Division 21,000.00 46,054.00 50,000.00

3. Establishment Division

4. Ministry ofFinance 20.00

5. Ministry ofInterior 74.39 399.13 585.49

6. Ministry of Social Welfare & Sp. Education 11.10 13.58

7. Ministry of I. T & Communications 9.41 2.06

8. Ministry of Population Welfare 33.00 12.35

9. Misc. Expenditure 11.55 24.88 132.69

Total 21,222.69 45,746.64 50,883.43

Source: Pink Books (Development)Financial Years 200910 & 201011, Ministry ofFinance

The data indicate that budgetary allocations for the other sectors as a whole under the head

Development have increased in all the three FYs. This increase is almost twofold between

the FYs 200809 and 200910. This is because of Benazir Income Support Programme (BISP),

for which allocation has been earmarked to Cabinet Division under Other Expenditure of

Cabinet Division Outside PSDP. Another intriguing but unexpected finding is rather low

budgetary allocations for Ministry of Social Welfare and Special Education and Ministry of

Population Welfare. This is because the focus of these ministries is on activities that target

both genders.


34/59

34

Table 12: Budgetary Allocations Targeting Both Genders in Different MinistriesIn Rs. Millions


1. Ministry of Women Development

2. Cabinet Division 24.72 783.50 616.40

3. Establishment Div.

4. Ministry ofFinance

5. Ministry ofInterior 282.40 332.59 205.21

6. Ministry of Social Welfare & Sp. Education 196.16 166.07 91.41

7. Ministry of I. T & Communications

8. Ministry of Population Welfare 3,863.41 4,594.48 3,779.58

9. Misc. Expenditure

Total 4,366.69 5,876.64 4,692.60

Source: Pink Books (Development and NonDevelopment)

Financial Years 200910 to 201011, Ministry ofFinance

Table 12 above presents an overview of budgetary allocations targeting both males and

females in different ministries and divisions. One pertinent thing to note is that substantial

amounts have been allocated for the Prime Minister's Special Initiative for Hunarmand

Pakistan Programme managed by NAVTEC. Another substantial allocation has been made in

the budget of Ministry of Population Welfare. Most of this allocation (82, 84 and 89%

respectively for FYs 200809, 200910 and 201011) has been earmarked for Family Planning

Programs in the four provinces of Pakistan and Azad Jammu and Kashmir.


35/59

2

0

b

Box I: Benazir Income Support Programme

Benazir Income Support Programme (BISP) was started by the Government of Pakistan in

the FY 200809 with an initial allocation of Rs.34 billion. This was the third largest allocation

in the federal budget and constituted 0.3% of the GDP for the FY 200809. It was later

revised to 21.00 billion.

Figure 3: Budgetary Allocations for BISP

The Programme aims to partially

Rs. 21.00offset the impact of inflation on the

billion purchasing power of the poorer

Rs. 50.00

billion

(201011)

(200809) sections of society. In the years

200507, inflation stood at almost

10% with food inflation in the range

Rs. 46.05 of 1315%. In the year 200708billion

(200910)sharp rise in oil prices and primary

products in the international as well

as domestic market resulted in

double digit inflation rate, which has

almost halved the purchasing power of the people. Hence there is urgent need for direct

and speedy relief to the poor sections of the society and BISP is the response to the above

compulsions.

The Programme covers the whole of Pakistan and is aimed at covering almost 15% of the

entire population, which constitutes 40% of the population below the poverty line. A

monthly payment of Rs.1000/ per family would increase the income of a family earning

Rs.5000 by 20%. The application of each household is verified through NADRA database.

Payment of Rs.2000 is made to the family through cheque and is delivered by post after

every two months. According to the BISP Newsletter dated February, 2010, 2.4 million

deserving households have so far been paid Rs.32 billion.

BISP has also initiated Waseelaehaq programme, which ensures interest free loan of

Rs.300,000 for starting a new business. 762 small groups of deserving households have been

formed in this scheme, with each group comprising of 3000 members. One person isselected from each group through a computerized ballot and is given loan on easy

instalments to start a business.


36/59

o0

BoxII: National Programme for Family Planning & Primary Healthcare

National Programme for Family Planning and Primary Health Care, also known as the Lady

Health Workers Programme (LHWP) was initiated in 1994 by Government of Pakistan. The

programme aims to reduce poverty through providing essential primary health care services

to communities and to improve national health indicators. Its focus is to increase the

utilization of effective preventive and curative services at the community level particularly

for women and children in underserved areas. It contributes to the overall health sector

goals of improvement in maternal, newborn & child health; provision of family planning

services; and integration of other vertical health promotion programmes. In this way, it

contributes directly to MDG goals number 1, 4, 5 & 6 and indirectly to goal number 3 & 7.

Figure 4: Budgetary Allocations for LHWs

This country wide initiative

constitutes the main thrust of theextension of outreach health

Rs. 5.76

billion

(201011)

Rs. 5.06billion

(200809)

Rs. 6.98

billion

services through the deployment of

over 100,000 Lady Health Workers

(LHWs) and covers more than 65%

of the target population. Each LHW

serves a population of 1,000 people

(200910) that form approximately 150

families. The health services

provided by the LHWs are through

monthly home visits and static health houses established within their residence.

This Programme has been evaluated externally, with the most recent evaluation done in

200809 by the Oxford Policy Management, UK. The evaluation report stated that LHWs

play a substantial role in preventive and promotive care and in delivering some of the basic

curative care in their communities, as well as providing a link to emergency and referral

care.

Lady Health Workers have emerged as symbols of women empowerment against the odds

of tradition and rigid religious norms and act as rolemodels for younger women in theircommunities. According to the external evaluation report 2009 the Programme is having a

positive effect on the wellbeing and empowerment of women it employs. LHWs are

relativel more empowered compared with other

gender responsive budgeting_formatted-final

Documents