TY - JOUR
T1 - We are not the president’s ‘yes’ men and women
T2 - How legislative budget scrutiny improved in Uganda
AU - Loozekoot, André
N1 - Funding Information:
After the launch of the idea, another factor became important: Donor support. Between 1998 and 2002, the State University of New York (SUNY) provided technical assistance to parliament through the Uganda Parliament Technical Assistance Project (UPTAP). This was funded by USAID. The UPTAP provided funding for study tours for MPs. Visits to the United States and South Africa helped in the design process. The Uganda Budget Office is a copy of the USA Congressional Budget Office. MPs referred to these visits when debating the ‘Budget Process Bill’ (Parliament of Uganda, , p. 8683).
Funding Information:
The support from donor agencies was used ad hoc to provide technical assistance for the drafting process. This was sponsored by the World Bank and DfID Economic and Financial Management projects EFMP and EFMP2. Seven months later, on December 19th, the last day of the autumn sessions of parliament, the new version of the ‘Budget Process Bill’ was read for the second time. It was a co-production of parliament and the Ministry of Finance. The same day, the third and final reading occurred and parliament approved the ‘Budget Process Bill’. The bill was transferred into the ‘Budget Act 2001’ when it was agreed to by President Museveni on 22 February 2001.
Funding Information:
The author received support from the Netherlands Ministry of Foreign Affairs employees PhD programme, however, the Ministry did not had any input on the scope or content of the article.
Publisher Copyright:
© 2021 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group.
PY - 2021/4/3
Y1 - 2021/4/3
N2 - This paper seeks to identify the factors that explain how members of parliament improved budget scrutiny using unique empirical data collected in Uganda. Two instances are studied that mark the improvements. First, the 2001 Budget Act that established the Parliamentary Budget Committee with large competencies for African standards. Second, the change in the 2012 Health Budget, a rare instance when parliament made significant budget amendments. The analysis reveals that political entrepreneurs used a window of opportunity to build a coalition for change. The window of opportunity opened at an event organised by civil society. The process that followed improved legislative budget scrutiny in a country with strong executive systems and strong patronage. Two factors have proven influential that are understudied in the current literature, civil society and female members of parliament.
AB - This paper seeks to identify the factors that explain how members of parliament improved budget scrutiny using unique empirical data collected in Uganda. Two instances are studied that mark the improvements. First, the 2001 Budget Act that established the Parliamentary Budget Committee with large competencies for African standards. Second, the change in the 2012 Health Budget, a rare instance when parliament made significant budget amendments. The analysis reveals that political entrepreneurs used a window of opportunity to build a coalition for change. The window of opportunity opened at an event organised by civil society. The process that followed improved legislative budget scrutiny in a country with strong executive systems and strong patronage. Two factors have proven influential that are understudied in the current literature, civil society and female members of parliament.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85103573448&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1080/13572334.2021.1909955
DO - 10.1080/13572334.2021.1909955
M3 - Article
AN - SCOPUS:85103573448
VL - 27
SP - 246
EP - 265
JO - The Journal of Legislative Studies
JF - The Journal of Legislative Studies
SN - 1357-2334
IS - 2
ER -