Abstract

Ways to Strengthen the Function of Feedback in the Gender Responsive Budget Closing System
Type Basic Period 2021
Manager Soo-Bum Park Date 2022-03-11
Fiie [Basic] Ways to Strengthen the Function of Feedback in the Gender Responsive Budget Closing System - Soo-Bum Park.pdf ( 49.39 KB )

555

 

- 1 -

Abstract

Ways to Strengthen the Function of Feedback in the Gender Responsive Budget Closing System

 

Soo-Bum Park

Taek-Meon Lee

Min-Jung Sung

Do-Yeon Kwon

Su-Ji Kim

Byeong-kwon Kim

 

The operation of the gender responsive budget system varies slightly from country to country, but its common purpose is to improve the allocation of financial resources to achieve gender equality in wider areas and the gender equality issues and the gap in benefits by gender arising from the process of fiscal project implementation. Currently, the gender responsive budgeting and the closing system of Korea are operated in a way that analyzes and improves gender equality issues and gender benefit gaps coming out of the operation of specific projects rather than adjusts budget allocation. What is pointed out as a major problem in the operation of Korea's gender responsive closing system is related to the performance management of projects which are the object of the budgeting system. The system in place now is having difficulty achieving practical effects, for example, because of the low performance relative to targets and the lack of feedback on the gender responsive budgeting system. Therefore, strengthening performance management through the gender responsive closing and preparing ways to improve institutional measures for the result of the closing to be given as feedback to the gender responsive budgeting will be a critical improvement to reinforce the effectiveness of the system. The purpose of this study is to identify the limitations of the gender responsive closing system and to prepare a plan where the results of the gender responsive budgeting are appropriately reflected into the gender responsive budgeting.

Then, what are the factors that influence the achievement and adjustment of performance targets? This study looked into those factors influencing the establishment and achievement of performance targets, on the basis of the gender responsive closing report and the gender responsive budgeting for the years of 2018 to 2020. There were three questions in the analysis: what is the most important factor that changes performance indicators?; what is the factor that adjusts the target of performance indicators?; what is the factor that influences the achievement of performance targets?

 

First, it was analyzed that the most important factor influencing the change of performance indicators was whether or not a performance target was achieved. In other words, it was found that the change in the performance indicator of the gender responsive budgeting for year (n+1) had the most important effect on the achievement of the performance goal of the gender responsive

 

closing for year (n-1). If the performance target was not met in the (n-1) gender responsive closing, the possibility of changing the performance index in the (n+1) gender responsive budgeting was relatively high. This shows that the achievement target for 2018 is reflected in the preparation of the 2020 gender responsive budgeting, but the problem is that the reflection is not done positively. It was confirmed that if the performance target was not achieved, the feedback was made in a way that changed its performance indicator itself.

 

Second, the most important factor influencing the adjustment of the target of the performance indicator in the gender responsive budgeting was whether or not the previous performance target was fulfilled. If a performance target was not met in the 2018 gender responsive closing, the probability of lowering the performance target was very high in the 2020 gender responsive budgeting. Therefore, it can be said that the results of the gender responsive closing are reflected in the adjustment of the target of the performance indicator. Yet, they were also done in a negative way. Third, as a result of analyzing the factors impacting the achievement of the performance target, if a performance target was achieved in 2018, the probability of achieving another target in 2020 was significantly higher. As aforementioned, if a performance target is not met, the index of target is often changed or the target itself is lowered; however, this way of feedback does not influence whether or not the target of actual performance will be achieved. If a performance target is previously achieved, chances are that another performance target is achieved later. These results imply that lowering the target of the performance indicator is not a desirable direction for performance target management, and that it is a more desirable direction of feedback to identify and correct the structural

 

cause of failing to meet the target. In addition to the quantitatively analyzed gender settlement system, the problems found in various existing studies can be summarized as follows: 1) Conflicting problems may arise between the performance indicators stated in the gender responsive budgeting and the performance indicators provided in the performance plan. In this case, project managers are highly likely to operate their projects by prioritizing the performance indicators of the performance plan rather than the gender responsive budgeting. 2) When looking at the achievement rate of the performance target of ministries and agencies, the achievement rate of the performance goal of a project subject to the gender responsive budget is generally lower than that of the management task on the whole. As mentioned above, the reason for this low rate seems to be due to the inconsistency with the performance indicators of performance plans and the low awareness on the performance management of projects subject to gender responsive budgeting - relatively low importance and lack of incentives. 3) Performance evaluation of a project is an important process that garners performance information and improves the project. However, from the point of view of those in charge, many similar types of evaluations on the same project will be very burdening jobs. Because of these burdens, the gender responsive budget closing, whose importance is evaluated relatively low, appears to be relatively poorly operated in terms of document preparations and feedback. 4) As the National Assembly has low interest in the gender responsive budgeting and the closing, high ranking officials of ministries are showing less interests in them, and, as a result, working-level officials put less interests in creating performance information and giving feedback. 5) Although the gender responsive closing is carried out according to the National Finance Act, there has been no legal regulation yet that mandates feedback on the performance information generated there. There is only a guideline that the method and problem of project operation that is assessed in the gender responsive closing is reflected in the items of the gender responsive budgeting. 6) The perception of the gender responsive budget system of public officials who prepare the gender responsive budgeting and closing has somewhat improved; overall, their perception is still low. 7) No incentives at all are provided when the target of those projects which are under the gender responsive budgeting and the closing are well achieved, or there are positive changes in the course of operation. Currently, the gender responsive budgeting and the closing do not offer incentives to both officials and projects when they successfully meet their targets, for example, benefits to individuals’ performance evaluation or budget increase in projects. Absence of incentives can be the reason why feedback on the gender responsive closing is not enough. Similar results were found in a survey conducted to public officials and experts on the aforementioned problem of the gender responsive budgeting and the closing. The survey also found that the gender responsive closing did not give feedback to the gender responsive budgeting in a proper manner. It identified that the evaluation of the gender responsive closing was neither reflected in the following year’s gender responsive budgeting nor mirrored, through the feedback of the gender responsive closing, in the ways to improve project operation. In particular, negative responses were very common in the expert group.

 

Other problems of the survey are as follows. Both public officials and experts agreed that the gender responsive budgeting and the closing are redundant with other fiscal policies as well as do not offer incentives. In addition, many public officials agreed that, regarding the accountability of the budgeting and the closing, not only the preparation of it but the achievement of performance target, be it successful or not, did not give impact to the performance of individuals and departments. There were also opposing ideas among the two groups. Public officials believed that it is the gender responsive budgeting and the budget closing themselves, not the inconsistency between the gender responsive budget system and the other fiscal policies, that hinders them from bringing about changes to the operation of budgets and projects. In contrast, experts thought it the other way around. Based on the above-said analyses, this study proposed the following ideas to strengthen the feedback of the gender responsive closing.

 

First, it is to change the direction of feedback. In order to properly manage the performance of projects subject to the gender responsive budgeting and the closing, it is necessary to identify structural causes that make it difficult to achieve target goals of the projects and address problems. In other words, it is very crucial for public officials to think and understand their projects. In particular, there would be many difficulties in projects where benefits are determined by qualification standards, such as in welfare programs. This is because it is not easy to increase the beneficiary rate of women in a situation where public officials find it hard to change such standards. Under this situation, it is important to analyze projects in a way that examines social structure whether or not it functions poorly for a certain gender and then set performance indicators accordingly. Second, appropriate performance indicators should be arranged. When the original goals of a project conflict with the performance indicators of the gender responsive budgeting, chances are that those goals will take priority. Thus, at a time of drafting the gender responsive budgeting, it is important to establish performance indicators so that original goals and performance indicators do not conflict with each other. In general, performance indicators are aligned with such indicators that are related to output or output. But, if they conflict with a project's original goals, it is necessary to consider making the indicators work with the indicators of input or process so that they would not go against those goals. Third, incentives should be provided to best practices. The consultative body of gender responsive budgeting and closing and the committee of experts have to select exemplary cases every year and award prizes of the Minister of Economy and Finance to public officials who carried out those best practices. This way of recognition is already in place in other fiscal project evaluation systems.

 

Fourth, the post-evaluation of projects by the experts’ committee should choose those practices that achieved excellent performances or that require additional budgets for better project operation. And then they are to leave a comment in the evaluation report that says this project needs a budget increase. Based on the evaluation of the committee, those in charge of projects should write about the necessity of budget increase when preparing the gender responsive budgeting, thereby increasing the possibility of additional budget allotment. Of course, the committee’s opinions do not have a binding force to budget allocation; however, they still would serve as evidence for arguing more budget assignment as they are based on the orders of the Ministry of Economy and Finance. Finally, this study proposes a plan that the recommendation of the experts’ committee for improving projects subject to the gender responsive budgeting does not end up with simple opinions but become items that are to be taken into account in the National Assembly’s review process.

 

Research areas: Gender Budgeting, Gender Accounts, Public Finance

Keywords: Gender Accounts, Gender Budgeting, Feedback