Key Aspects of the Busan Partnership

The key aspects of Busan Partnership include ownership, focus on result, partnership, and transparency. According to the Busan Partnership, Ownership connoted unity of purpose or togetherness in a accomplishing the development goals. The aim is to strengthen institutions and policies through the creation and the development of joint risk management frameworks. The term focus refers to a new country managed in fragile or unaccountable manner. Transparency refers to the prudent, efficient, and effective utilization of resources for the achievement of common goals such as human progress. Finally, accountability refers to proper utilization of allocated to an entity or government.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Order now

Transparency

Governance should focus on competence and public sector efficiency. In this regard, the government should mainly focus on the reform of civil service, the management of public expenditure, and privatization of certain non-performing entities. Transparency coupled with accountability has the propensity of reducing of strengthening the internal and external monitoring mechanisms and reducing corruption in the public sector. Another mandate of the transparency focus is to eradicate corruption in the public sector and to improve the efficiency of service delivery to the citizens. The Busan Partnership advocates for public sector transparency both in the international and domestic circles. Therefore, the shift should be from project aid towards budget support, which is consistent with the principles of accountability and transparency. Government reforms should achieve governance reforms for prudent utilization and investment of resources.

Increasing disparities is a major problem that affects various sectors, geographical location, and gender in India, meaning that it threatens the economic growth of the country and international cooperation, as envisioned by the Busan Partnership (Kennedy, Welch, and Monshipouri, 2017, 143). First, the diversity in terms of economic growth of various geographical locations in India is on the rise. The institutionalization of market-based was responsible for that diversity in the distribution of economic resources. Such enactments, especially in the 1990s, saw affluent states, except Haryana and Punjab, develop more that the other states in the country (Falkner, 2016, 1107). Naturally, the states with better infrastructure and the ones with market friendly and supporting institutions tend to have better prospects regarding economic growth.

The pattern of growth in India underlines the economic constraints posed by the unequal distribution of resources in that country. The rich states have bigger share in terms of resource allocation for the central government. The poor, who are the focus of international aid agencies, receive very little of what they actually deserve. The country needs to transform all its economic sectors, especially agriculture to stir economic growth (Singh, Gupta, and Ojha, 2014, 78). The last form of discrimination if gender disparity, which is against the provisions of the Busan Partnership. The males dominate every aspect of Indian economic and social spheres, meaning that the women remain in the periphery. Busan Partnership advocates for equal economic, political, and social opportunities for all regardless of race, creed, and gender. India is terribly off the mark when it comes to equality.

Part Two

Identify How Development Partners Can Identify System Weaknesses (Diagnostics)

The problems with Accounting Reforms in India

Corruption is one of the major factors that negatively affect service delivery to the citizenry, the international cooperation with donors, and the subsequent accountability in India. The vice is traceable to the to the British Raj period where the government of the day excluded the Indian citizens, particularly from political participation. The British divided the country into two districts each under a commissioner. The root cause of corruption in India was the passage of the 1923 Official Secrets Act that made the divulgence of information, especially the financial and budgetary information, to the citizens illegal. Such was mainly to protect government and military intelligence. After her Independence in 1947, the government of India passed various laws to shield the local markets and its economy (Perold et al., 2013, 182). For example, the government passed the 1951 Industries Act that required all new companies and industries to obtain license for operations from the central government. Subsequently, the policy stifled competition and limited local investment, and bribery and corruption increased exponentially. In the face of corruption, the poor always suffer since is diverts resources intended for public works, social welfare programs, and aid into private accounts (Ahmad, 2013, 78). The corruption in India thrives largely due to the institution of permits and licenses that put immense financial power and control in the hands of a few individuals.

India has budgetary problems that derail its relationship with the international donors and acts as an impediment to its development agenda. First, the major problem that the nation faces is its tumultuous relationship with other nations that prevents it from fully benefitting from Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) (Diamond, 2013). India has one of the most unfair profit repatriation policies in the world since it prevents or restricts foreign companies from sending their profits to their mother nations. Closely related to that is the fact that country's budget is discriminatory, meaning that it not all-inclusive. The poor in India are too poor to the point that they fail to afford the necessities. The gap between the rich and the poor is quite huge, partly due to corruption and unfair economic and social policies (Nogueira de Morais and Virtanen, 2014, 422). For instance, it is illegal for a person in the lower social class to intermarry with another in the upper or the higher economic class. Such laws and traditions are quite barbaric and promote inequality.

Diagnostics

The donors usually use the process or technical measurer that entail the study of the implementation of specific measures such as the accounting and budgetary controls. They also look (critically) at the implementation of legislation relating to improved financial management. Secondly, the donors will gauge the institutional capacity that includes the availability or the implantation of technical capability and expertise to perform various duties (Wolff, 2015, 927). Towards this end, the donors tend to introduce incentives relating to increased, improved financial management. For instance, the donors will allocate higher levels of flexibility or resources when an organization attains the required standards of financial management. Thirdly, the donors apply the fund flow targeting measures by channeling the funds directly to the implementing agencies or earmarking the funding for the accomplishments of identifiable projects through pre-determined expenditures (EngbergPedersen, 2014, 114). Such has the propensity of eliminating bureaucracy and corruption since it bypasses various people and agencies. Finally, the donors apply information flows and the subsequent access measures. The donors put themselves in a position that enables them to access financial, deployment, and achievement information, which they use to gauge the success of the partnership. The donors may also add more control and coordination units. Finally, they apply other forms of external visibility or scrutiny that may entail the tracking of the fund flow.

Areas of PFM reform (one from each term) that could be included in requests for Development Partner support

The first is the Assessment Management and Quality Assurance. For example, the Australian DFAT and the World Bank initiated the PEFA process in collaboration with the Indian Government. The World Bank and the Australian government provided the funding for the assessment. Additionally, the World Bank provided the technical team to carry out the duty. The Indian government through the DBM leadership and the PFM committee was responsible for a high-level coordination of assessing, reviewing, and approving the concept note. Additionally, it appraised the financial report generated and the action plan for the same (Kutzin, Cashin, and Jakab, 2010, 337). Secondly, the donors may also help in assessment, scheduling, and coverage. To achieve the latter feat, the partners will work closely with the budgetary central government and focus on the PFM practices as evidence of good or bad financial investments. Finally, the donors may help in the data cut-off to determine the accuracy and the transparency of the values floated by the responsible agencies.

Part Three

How Busan Partnership Proposals will change Financial Governance

The application of the provisions of the Busan Partnership will be beneficial in the monitoring and accountability since it established a proper monitoring framework that are essential in tracking financial expenditures by different agencies, entities, and the government. The focus was to financial institutions to the point that there is eradication or much-needed reduction in financial and economic wastages through corruption, lack of accountability, and poor budgetary practices. The partnership is responsible for more vigilant financial and data monitoring that will certainly accelerate the attainment of MDGS (Millennium Development Goals) (De Renzio, 2006, 632). Most funds normally go to waste due to corruption and improper financial governance system, the application of the provisions found therein will certainly improve development through frugal or measured investments (Andrews, 2010, 34). The people who will benefit the most are the poor and the marginalized since the Busan Partnership advocates for all-inclusive development that take into consideration the less fortunate and the vulnerable such as women, the poor, and children.

IPSAS advocates for the strengthening domestic accountability and transparency is a major component of the Busan Component in which India forms part. Such is consistent with country's growing interest towards the improvement of the standards of governance, which is the cornerstone of development and better service delivery to the citizenry. The Busan Partnership acknowledged the important role played by accountability in promoting efficient and effective development cooperation. It is worth noting that eradicating poverty and the promotion of development (which currently form the main agendas of the Indian government) require a deep understanding of a country's social, political, and the governance aspects to promote the relationship between the state and the citizenry. There is need for corporation among the players involved that includes but not limited to the international community, local organizations, the citizens, and the organizations in charge of accountability (Jillella, Matan, and Newman, 2015, 8091). The international community supports the democracy and the democratization processes in India. Despite the impressive steps made, accountability, transparency, and budgeting challenges still exist in India, meaning that there are gaps and weaknesses that require addressing.

Bibliography

Ahmad, A., 2013. Bangladesh in 2012: Economic growth, political under-development. Asian Survey, 53(1), pp.73-83.

Andrews, M., 2010. Good government means different things in different countries. Governance, 23(1), pp.7-35.

De Renzio, P., 2016. Aid, budgets, and accountability: A survey article. Development Policy...