Semkwiji, Dorah

English

Digital Library of the Tanzania Health Community

ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL RESEARCH FOUNDATION 
By Dorah Semkwiji. 
NO. 4/2012 
ESRF POLICY BRIEF 
Child sensitive Budgeting: A critical Review 
of the Tanzania 2011/12 National Budget 
Another  perspective  is  the  socio-
economic one which emphasizes on 
investment in children’s early child-
hood development as a way of im-
proving the quality and productivity 
of future labour in a society. This is 
crucial in facilitating society achiev-
ing human development outcomes 
such as the reduced mortality rates, 
increased  literacy  rates  through 
social  services  such  as  health  and 
education  e.t.c.  This  argument  is 
based on the social contract theory 
that  proclaims  rights  such  as  life, 
liberty and property belong to the 
individuals  and  not  the  society 
(offenheiser-Holcombe,  2006,  p. 
276).  These  rights  existed  before 
individuals entered civil society and 
by  entering  a  civil  society,  one  is 
agreeing to a social contract which 
the  state  has  the  right to  enforce 
natural rights. The state breaks the 
contract if the rights of the people 
are broken or not secured. There-
fore investing in children is impor-
tant for both social and economic 
development in any society.   
 
All these arguments inform what is 
referred as a child-sensitive budget. 
This  is  the  budget that recognizes 
the international child rights-based 
obligations (Ngowi, 2011)
1. In Tan-
zania, this budget would mean bas-
ing  on  analysis  that  interrogates 
whether  the  needs  of  Tanzanian 
children are being considered in the 
national budget. It looks at whether 
the growth in number of children in 
the  country  commensurate  with 
the growth in social services bene-
fiting them.  
 
The child sensitive budget is not a 
separate budget from the one de-
veloped by the Ministry of Finance 
(MoF) and approved by the Parlia-
ment; rather, it is the budget which 
is  achieved  within  the  govern-
ment’s  general  budget  (Ibid).  Its 
analysis involves looking at whether 
there is a reasonable allocation for 
the  social  sectors  targeting  chil-
dren’s  benefits  like  education, 
health  (including nutrition, HIV & 
AIDS), social protection (specifically 
child  protection),  and  water  and 
sanitation; as well as allocations in 
other  sectoral  budgets  that  indi-
rectly  impact  on  child  well-being, 
such as agriculture, transport infra-
structure,  labour,  electricity,  agri-
culture and irrigations; job creation 
in  the  private  and  public  sectors, 
and the like.  
 
The fact that Tanzania is signatory 
to all the important international  
www.esrf.or.tz 
Introduction 
Investment in children is an investment in human capital with large positive developmental impact both in the 
short and long-term. It makes much economic sense for the country having over fifty percent or over 20 million 
people below 18 years of age. Various scholars have put forward relevance of investing in children in the name 
of ‘Children’s rights’. These rights are defined as entitlements that belong to all children beings regardless of 
race, ethnicity or social economic class (Nussbaum, 1998: p. 273). The right-based perspective includes chil-
dren’s rights into development discourse. According to this perspective, children have inalienable rights to a 
core minimum level of well being including the right to proper health, quality education, social protection and 
the right to grow up in a family.  
1 In a paper presented at the Post Budget dialogue on “Re-Investing in Social Sector in Tanzania:  A Critical Review of the Budget 2011/12”. The Double Tree Hotel, Dar es 
Salaam 26
th July, 2011  ESRF POLICY BRIEF 
Page 2 
 commitments to uphold the rights 
of children, it is expected that even 
the budget allocation towards chil-
dren-related sectors will adhere to 
those  commitments.  Among  the 
commitments  include;  the  United 
Nations  Convention  on  the  Rights 
of  the  Child  (UNCRC)  of  which  its 
Article 4 as well as Article 5 of the 
African  Charter  on  the  Rights  and 
Welfare  of  the  Child  (ACRWC)  re-
quire  governments  to  invest  “the 
maximum  extent  of  available  re-
sources to realize the wellbeing of 
children.”  
 
Was the National Budget 2011/12 
a child –sensitive budget?  
The  national 2011/12  budget sub-
mitted on June, 2011 was prepared 
following  the  national  budget 
guidelines which incorporate objec-
tives  and  targets  of  the  Tanzania 
Development  Vision  (TDV)  2025; 
the  Five  Year  Development  Plan 
(FYDP) 2011/12 -2015/16 as well as 
priorities  outlined  in  the  National 
Strategy  for  Growth  and  Poverty 
Reduction  (NSGPR/MKUKUTA  II). 
The  submitted  budget  elaborates 
about  five  national  priorities 
namely:  
  Electricity; 
  Water; 
  Transport  and  transportation 
infrastructure  (railways,  ports, 
roads,  airports,  national  optic 
fibre); 
  Agriculture and irrigations, and; 
  Job creation in the private and 
public sectors. 
 
Basing  on  the  above  mentioned 
priorities,  it  is  obvious  that  the 
budget  is  focussing  more  on  the 
mentioned areas than on those ar-
eas  which  touch  children  directly. 
Moreover  the  emphasis  has  been 
also been directed at ensuring that 
the  achievements  attained  under 
education  and  health  sectors  are 
protected.  However  despite  the 
budget being more specific in terms 
of  social  sectors  priorities,  these 
priorities are likely to have an indi-
rect impact on children’s wellbeing 
and  rights  (Ngowi,  2011).  For  in-
stance greater access to electricity, 
especially in rural areas, can enable 
more schools to be hooked to elec-
tricity supply. This may spur instal-
lation  of  laboratory  equipments 
and computers in schools, thus im-
proving the quality of education. In 
addition,  students  can  have  more 
studying  time  following  the  avail-
ability  of  lights  in  schools.  More-
over, water is also a critical compo-
nent of good health for adults and 
children  as  well,  particularly 
through its effects in reducing child 
deaths  associated  with  water-
borne  diseases  such  as  diarrhea, 
cholera, worms and the like.  
 
For  the  health  sector,  the  Budget 
guidelines  have  prioritize  the  fol-
lowing (i) enhancing the quality of 
curative, preventive and rehabilita-
tive  services  at  all  levels;  (ii)  con-
structing  and  rehabilitating  health 
facilities at all levels; (iii) improving 
housing  and  incentives  for  public 
health  workers;  and  (iv)  training 
and  recruiting  new  medical  doc-
tors,  nurses  and  paramedical 
graduates. Although these are good 
priorities  for  improving  health 
status  in  Tanzania,  they  are  not 
backed by adequate resources. The 
amount  stipulated  in  the  budget 
statement  (1,209.1  billion  Tanza-
nian shillings) which have been allo-
cated to health, is not enough for 
the  realization  of  these  priorities. 
Although  this  amount  is  a  bit 
higher, for about 0.3% compared to 
the Tshs 1,205.9 billion allocated to 
the sector in the previous financial 
year  2010/2011
2,  the  trend  of  re-
source  allocation  in  health  sector 
shows  a  declining  slope    (PER, 
2010). 
 
Coming to education which is a ba-
sic right to every child, the budget 
did not do justice to the sector. Al-
though  it  has  been  stipulated  as 
one of the MKUKUTA II goals with 
the  aim  of  ensuring  equitable  ac-
cess to quality primary and secon-
dary  education  for  both  boys  and 
girls, universal literacy among men 
and  women,  and  expansion  of 
higher  technical  and  vocational 
education,  the  meager  resources 
allocated  for  this  purpose,  places 
some doubts over its realization.  
 
According to the budget guidelines, 
priorities  for  the  education  sector 
include:  
(i) improving the quality of educa-
tion at all levels especially availabil-
ity  of  textbooks,  laboratories  and 
school  desks,  with  emphasis  on 
people with disabilities;  
(ii)  improving  the  education  and 
training  policy  and  its  strategies 
including skills development;  
(iii)  strengthening  the  financing  of 
higher education and  
(iv)  improving  teachers’  services 
including housing and incentives.  
2 Budget Submission 2010/11; 2011/12  
3 Ngowi, 2011    system  (57.3%  in  2007/08  and  56.65%  in 
2008/09).    The  available  data  also  show 
that in 2006/07 only 34.8% of ODA flows 
were  provided  through  GBS  and  13.4% 
through basket funding. The observed in-
crease in funding outside the government 
system  implies  none  compliance  to  both 
the Paris declaration and JAST agreed be-
tween  DPs  and  GOT.  The  study  had  also 
noted that the DPs preference for project 
financing  was  attributed  to  their  percep-
tion that, projects provide more visibility, 
transparency and accountability. 
SECTOR AID ALLOCATION 
The  ODA  disbursements  to  sectors  be-
tween January 2006 to June 2009 indicate 
that  education  sector  received  the  least 
funding,  although  increasing  trends  was 
noted  except  for  Jan-June  2007  (2.5%,  
2006, 4.8%  2007, 1.8%, 2008, and 13.3% 
2009)  compared  to  other  sectors.    The 
sector which received highest funding was 
the Health sector (11.4%, 5.2%, 9.0% and 
6.8% respectively).  
Available data show that compared to non-
government organizations, government pro-
jects received more ODA support in the be-
ginning but aid has declined in the subse-
quent years (95% for 2006/07, 83% for 
2007/08, and 87% for 2008/09). The Govern-
ment budget allocations as shown in figure 
below present a decreasing trend for both 
the education and health sectors. Continued 
decline of funding to education and health 
sector will have a negative impact in achiev-
ing MDGs and the National Strategy for 
Growth Poverty Alleviation (MKUKUTA). 
education  budget.    It  is  reported 
that  there  are  about  639,700  stu-
dents  who  need  vocational  train-
ings  but  the  absorption  capacity 
stands  84,000  students only. As  it 
has  been  noted  that  the  2011/12 
Budget  removed  over  65%  of  the 
resources  which  used  to  be  allo-
cated for vocational training and re-
allocated  it  to  higher  education 
where a number of Tanzanians are 
capable  of  paying.  Thus  re-
allocation of the funds from voca-
tion to higher education is equiva-
lent to subsidizing the already rich 
Tanzanians. 
 
The Implication 
Basing  on  the  fact  that  the  fiscal 
year 2011/12 plan did not prioritize 
health sector, there is some impli-
cation  that  might  hinder  Tanzania 
from  realizing  international  and 
national  commitments  on  chil-
dren’s  rights.  As  it  has  been  ex-
plained, for the long time the coun-
try  has  been  trying  to  improve 
health of its people, and children in 
particular through  
(i)  reducing  mother  to  child  HIV 
transmission,  
(ii) reducing the high maternal mor-
tality  
(iii) reducing infant and under-five 
mortality rates  
(iv)  providing  immunization  ser-
vices to all eligible children, and  
(v) reducing malaria infection in the 
country. However it is unlikely that 
these  objectives  will  be  reached 
unless  adequate  resources  have 
been allocated to this sector.   
  
Second,  as  the  data  shows,  there 
have been progressive real declines  
However,  with  Tanzania  spending 
of 5.6% of its GDP on the education 
sector
3;  this  is  insufficient  for  all 
these  plans  will  bear  expected 
fruits. This is too low compared to 
the commitments made under Da-
kar agreement of at least 7-9% of 
GDP  in  education.  The  continuous 
freezing  of  the  education  funding 
as reflected in the small spending in 
primary  education  and  secondary 
education makes things harder fol-
lowing the increasing demand.  
 
There  are  number  of  issues  that 
need to be addressed, first the fact 
that allocations for basic education 
(pre-primary,  primary  and  secon-
dary education) are declining in fa-
vor of higher education should be 
of concern. A decline of about 78% 
of the total education spending in 
2005/06  to  70.5%  in  2011/12  has 
been  recorded.  This  means  the 
gains  achieved  in  basic  education 
may not been sustained, let alone 
making  room  for  improving  the 
quality  of  education.  Furthermore 
recent scale shows that enrolment 
in both primary and secondary edu-
cation have continued to rise hence 
pressing higher demands for more 
resources needed for improving the 
quality of the services within these 
levels. Therefore  it is  vital  for  the 
Government to review its priorities 
in education sub-sector spending. 
 
Furthermore,  although  one  of  the 
challenges  in  education  has  been 
identified as inadequate skills train-
ing for the students completing pri-
mary and secondary education, vo-
cational  training  seems  to  be  ne-
glected  in  the  submitted  2011/12 
Page 3 
Child sensitive Budgeting: A critical Review of the Tanzania 2011/12 National Budget 
in resource allocations to the sec-
tors  directly  benefit  children  like 
health and education sectors. This 
means  that  it  will  be  difficult  for 
Tanzania to adequately achieve its  
commitments. This is because Tan-
zania is not sufficiently prioritizing 
children in terms of ensuring maxi-
mum  allocation  of  budget  re-
sources  to  enhance  children  well-
being and protection of their rights. 
Despite  the  fact  that  both  the 
TDV2025  and  2011/12  Budget 
Guidelines  direct  towards  greater 
spending on children, the 2011/12 
budget  submission  and  Five-Year 
Development Plan do not seem to 
accord  priority  on  the  same.  This 
mismatch  in  policy  prescriptions 
and actual budget allocations is se-
rious and may preclude attainment 
of the social goals and targets com-
mitted internationally and domesti-
cally  such  as  those  enshrined  in 
MKUKUTA II and MDGs.  
 
Recommendations: 
  The government (all MDAs and 
LGAs) are urged to make their 
budgets more ‘child-friendly’ by 
reviewing  their  budgets to  en-
sure  that  priority  is  given  in 
budgetary allocation and imple-
mentation to the realization of 
children’s right and wellbeing. 
  The government is urged to pri-
orities early childhood develop-
ment  including  investing  at 
least 6% of the available educa-
tion and health budgets in early 
childhood development. 
  Prioritize  investment  in  secon-
dary  education  as  an  integral 
part of the educational policy  ESRF POLICY BRIEF 
and national education budget, and 
tackle  issues  around  girls    educa-
tion as in most countries in Africa 
girls have a lower completion rate 
than boys.  
  More allocation to educational 
services  like  pre-school  educa-
tion services and facilities, pri-
mary  education  capitation 
grant,  efforts  related  to  edu-
cate every child (girl or boy) at 
primary  and  secondary  educa-
tion,  eradicating  disparities  in 
terms  of  gender,  urban-rural, 
rich  versus  poor  and  vulner-
able/disadvantaged ones.  
  Allocate more to teacher train-
ing,  including  equity  in  alloca-
tion of teachers between rural 
and urban settings. 
  Increase  Health  Budget  in  the 
FY2012/13  budget  to  progres-
sively reach 15% of total budget 
in  compliance  with  commit-
ments  made  under  the  Abuja 
Heads of State agreement. Allo-
cate more resources to children
-related  health  services  drugs, 
malaria prevention and control, 
improving nutrition for children 
(elimination  of  child  malnutri-
tion),  allocation  to  immuniza-
tion  services  like  on  EPI  and 
eradication  of  infectious  dis-
eases e.t.c. 
  There should be portion of the 
budget  to  be  allocated  within 
the budget for children. 
   Public awareness campaign on 
children sensitivity budget. 
 
References 
Ngowi,  D.  (2011).  “Re-Investing  in 
Social Sector in Tanzania:  A Critical 
Review of the Budget 2011/12”. A 
paper  presented  at  ESRF  Post 
Budget Policy Dialogue at The Dou-
ble Tree Hotel, Dar es Salaam 26
th 
July, 2011.   
Nussbaum,  Martha  (1998). 
"Capabilities  and  Human  Rights". 
Fordham Law Review 66 (2). http://
heinonline.org/HOL/Page?
handle=hein.journals/
flr66&div=18&g_sent=1&collection
=journals. 
Offenheiser,  Raymond;  Holcombe, 
Susan (2003). "Challenges and Op-
portunities  in  Implementing  a 
Rights-Based Approach to Develop-
ment: An Oxfam America Perspec-
tive". Nonprofit and Voluntary Sec-
tor Quarterly 32 (2): 268.  
Ministry of Finance (2011) National 
Budget Submission 2011/12.  
 The Economic and Social Research Foundation (ESRF) 
51 Uporoto Street, Ursino Estate. P.O Box 31226, Dar es Salaam, Tanzania 
Tel: +255 22 2760260/2760758/2760751-52 
Fax: + 255 22 2760062, 
E-mail: esrf@esrf.or.tz 
Website: http://www.esrf.or.tz 

Capabilities and Human Rights&quot;. Fordham Law Review 66 (2). http:// heinonline.org/HOL/Page? handle=hein.journals/ flr66&div=18&g_sent=1&collection =journals.

Challenges and Opportunities in Implementing a Rights-Based Approach to Development: An Oxfam America Perspective&quot;.

National Budget Submission 2011/12. The Economic and Social Research Foundation (ESRF) 51 Uporoto Street, Ursino Estate.

Re-Investing in Social Sector in Tanzania: A Critical Review of the Budget 2011/12”. A paper presented at ESRF Post Budget Policy Dialogue at The Double Tree Hotel, Dar es

Child Sensitive Budgeting: A critical Review of the Tanzania 2011/12 National Budget

http://ihi.eprints.org/1090/1/Child%2Dsensitive%2DBudgeting.pdf

Child Sensitive Budgeting: A critical Review of the Tanzania 2011/12 National Budget

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Digital Library of the Tanzania Health Community