Public Finance: Concepts and Budgeting

Concept of Fiscal Policy

Fiscal policy refers to the deliberate use of government revenue collection (mainly taxation) and expenditure to influence the level and direction of economic activity. It is one of the two major instruments of macroeconomic management, the other being monetary policy. Fiscal policy is formulated and implemented by the government (through the Ministry of Finance and the annual budget), whereas monetary policy is conducted by the central bank.

The theoretical foundation of fiscal policy was laid by John Maynard Keynes, who argued that active government intervention through spending and taxation could stabilize the economy, especially during depression when private demand collapses. Fiscal policy thus works through:

1. Government expenditure — spending on consumption, investment (capital formation), transfers, and subsidies.
2. Government revenue — taxes (direct and indirect), royalties, fees, and foreign grants/loans.
3. Public debt — borrowing to finance deficits when revenue falls short of expenditure.

Fiscal policy may be expansionary (increased spending and/or reduced taxes to stimulate demand) or contractionary (reduced spending and/or increased taxes to control inflation). Its objectives typically include:

• Achieving full employment
• Promoting economic growth
• Maintaining price stability
• Ensuring equitable distribution of income and wealth
• Maintaining balance of payments equilibrium
• Mobilizing resources for development

In developing countries like Nepal, fiscal policy plays an additional role — that of directing scarce resources into priority sectors and financing development plans.

---

Significance of Fiscal Policy in Promoting Economic Growth in Nepal

Economic growth requires capital formation, which in a low-income country like Nepal cannot be left entirely to the private sector. Fiscal policy contributes in the following ways:

1. Mobilization of domestic resources: Nepal's tax-to-GDP ratio is low (around 20–22%). Through progressive taxation, broadening the tax base, and improving tax administration (e.g., VAT, income tax, excise), the government can raise resources for development. Higher revenue reduces dependence on foreign loans and grants.

2. Financing public investment: Nepal's development plans have emphasized infrastructure — roads, hydropower, irrigation, airports, and bridges. Government capital expenditure through the annual budget directly creates growth-enhancing infrastructure, which raises productivity and attracts private investment.

3. Encouraging private investment: Tax incentives such as tax holidays, concessional rates for priority industries (tourism, hydropower, agro-processing), and accelerated depreciation reduce the cost of capital and stimulate private investment. Special Economic Zones (SEZs) and industrial corridors are supported through fiscal incentives.

4. Correcting regional imbalance: Nepal suffers from uneven development between the Terai, Hills, and Himalayan regions. Fiscal transfers, special grants, and targeted programs for remote districts help spread growth to lagging regions.

5. Controlling inflation and stabilizing the economy: By adjusting expenditure and taxes, the government can moderate demand-pull inflation (relevant for Nepal, which imports much of its consumption) and cushion external shocks such as the 2015 earthquake, COVID-19, and trade disruptions.

6. Crowding-in effect: Well-targeted public investment in infrastructure can "crowd in" private investment by lowering transaction costs and expanding markets, rather than crowding it out.

---

Significance of Fiscal Policy in Promoting Distributive Justice in Nepal

Distributive justice means fair sharing of the benefits and burdens of economic activity. Nepal's high inequality — reflected in the Gini coefficient (around 0.30–0.35) and wide gaps between urban and rural, and among caste and ethnic groups — makes this role critical.

1. Progressive taxation: Direct taxes on higher income groups (income tax slabs, capital gains tax, luxury taxes) collect proportionately more from the rich. This reduces disposable income inequality and funds welfare programs.

2. Transfer payments and social security: Old-age allowance, single-woman allowance, disability allowance, child grants, and the Prime Minister's Employment Program transfer income directly to vulnerable groups. These are classic instruments of redistribution.

3. Subsidized and targeted programs: Subsidized fertilizer, free basic health care, free basic education, and targeted scholarships for Dalit, Janajati, and marginalized students improve access to opportunity, which is the essence of distributive justice.

4. Public provision of merit goods: Government spending on health, education, drinking water, and sanitation benefits lower-income households more than proportional to their tax contribution, narrowing the effective gap in living standards.

5. Affirmative fiscal measures: Reservation-based scholarships, concessional loans for marginalized communities, and grants to conflict-affected and disaster-hit areas address historical exclusion.

6. Reducing poverty: Nepal's poverty rate fell from about 42% in 1995/96 to about 20% in the latest estimates (NLSS 2022/23). Fiscal transfers and rural employment programs have contributed significantly to this decline.

---

Limitations and Conclusion

Despite these roles, Nepal's fiscal policy faces constraints: low revenue base, weak capital expenditure (often below 60–70% of allocated capital budget), leakage and corruption, political instability, and heavy reliance on indirect taxes (which are regressive). To strengthen fiscal policy, Nepal needs to:

• Improve tax compliance and widen the tax net
• Increase the share of capital expenditure
• Make transfers better targeted rather than universal
• Link fiscal transfers to local government performance

In conclusion, fiscal policy is not merely a tool for balancing the budget; in Nepal it is a central instrument for accelerating capital formation and economic growth, and for correcting the deep structural inequalities that slow inclusive development. A well-designed fiscal policy — progressive in revenue, productive in expenditure, and targeted in transfers — can simultaneously promote growth and distributive justice.

Features of Tax

A tax is a compulsory payment made by individuals and institutions to the government without any direct or proportionate return. Its main features are:

1. Compulsory payment — Tax is not voluntary; it is legally enforced. Non-payment attracts penalty or punishment.
2. Payment to the government — Tax is paid to the government (central, provincial or local) and not to any private body.
3. No direct quid pro quo — The taxpayer does not receive any direct or proportionate benefit in return for the tax paid. The benefit is indirect and collective.
4. Legal and statutory basis — Every tax is levied under a specific law (e.g., Income Tax Act, Value Added Tax Act). No tax can be imposed without legal authority.
5. Contribution to public expenditure — Tax is the major source of government revenue used to finance public goods and services such as defence, education, health and infrastructure.
6. Compulsory and regular — It is collected regularly (annually, monthly or at the time of transaction) and is compulsory for all persons covered by the law.
7. Redistribution and welfare objective — Tax is used to reduce inequality by taxing the rich more and spending on the poor.
8. Base and rate — Every tax has a base (income, property, goods, service) and a rate (proportional, progressive or regressive).
9. Elasticity — Tax revenue can be increased or decreased by changing the rate or base according to the needs of the economy.

Types of Tax

Taxes are classified in several ways:

A. On the basis of incidence and shifting

1. Direct tax — The burden cannot be shifted to another person. The person who pays the tax bears it himself. Examples: income tax, profit tax, land revenue, capital gains tax, property tax.
2. Indirect tax — The burden can be shifted to another person. The taxpayer collects it from the consumer. Examples: Value Added Tax (VAT), excise duty, customs duty, sales tax.

B. On the basis of rate structure

1. Proportional tax — The rate remains the same whatever the size of the base. Example: a flat 5% tax on all incomes.
2. Progressive tax — The rate increases as the base increases. Example: income tax slabs in Nepal where higher income is taxed at a higher rate.
3. Regressive tax — The rate falls as the base increases, so the poor bear a heavier burden in proportion to income. Example: a fixed tax on basic consumer goods.

C. On the basis of base

1. Income tax — Levied on income of persons and firms.
2. Property tax — Levied on land, buildings and other assets.
3. Consumption tax — Levied on goods and services when consumed (VAT, excise).
4. Wealth tax / capital gains tax — Levied on wealth or gains from transfer of assets.

D. On the basis of purpose

1. General tax — Revenue goes to the general fund and is used for any public purpose.
2. Specific tax / earmarked levy — Collected for a specific purpose (e.g., road maintenance levy).

Principle of Tax that Justifies Equity in Taxation

In my opinion, the ability-to-pay principle best justifies equity in taxation.

According to this principle, tax should be levied according to the capacity of the taxpayer to bear it. Those with greater ability should pay more, and those with lesser ability should pay less. Ability is generally measured by income, wealth or consumption. This principle is implemented through progressive taxation, where the rate rises with income, and through exemptions and deductions for low-income and vulnerable groups.

The ability-to-pay principle maintains equity in two ways:

• Horizontal equity — persons in equal economic circumstances pay equal tax.
• Vertical equity — persons in unequal circumstances pay unequal tax, with the richer paying proportionately more.

This principle is superior to the benefit principle, which links tax to the benefit received, because public goods like defence and street lighting benefit everyone equally and cannot be priced individually. The ability-to-pay principle also supports the welfare objective of the state, as it reduces income inequality and funds social security, health and education for the poor. Hence, it is the most acceptable principle for maintaining equity in taxation.

Concept of Government Budgeting

A government budget is the annual financial statement in which the government estimates its expected revenues and proposed expenditures for the coming fiscal year. It is both a plan of action expressed in money terms and a legal instrument through which the legislature authorises the executive to raise and spend public funds. In Nepal, the budget is presented before Parliament (the federal legislature) each year on 15 Jestha, as required by the Constitution of Nepal (Article 119), and is divided into the Revenue Budget (recurring expenditure), the Capital Budget (development expenditure), and Financing (deficit or surplus).

Government budgeting is thus the entire cycle by which public resources are planned, authorised, executed, controlled, and accounted for. Its main objectives are:

• Allocation of resources among competing public needs
• Distribution of income and wealth toward equity
• Stabilisation of the economy (managing inflation, unemployment, growth)
• Promotion of economic development, especially in developing countries
• Accountability and transparency in the use of public money

Process of Government Budgeting

The budgeting process moves through a continuous cycle of four broad stages:

1. Budget Formulation (Preparation)

• The Ministry of Finance (MoF) issues a Budget Circular to all ministries, provinces, and spending agencies, fixing ceilings and formats.
• Line ministries prepare and submit their estimates to the MoF through the National Planning Commission (NPC) for development expenditure.
• The MoF, through the Budget Division, scrutinises, reconciles, and consolidates the estimates.
• The Resource Committee estimates available resources; the Expenditure Committee fixes expenditure ceilings.
• The Council of Ministers approves the draft budget before it is tabled in Parliament.

2. Budget Approval (Legislation)

• The Finance Minister presents the budget speech in the joint session of Parliament.
• It is discussed in the Finance Committee and subject committees; members may propose cuts (but not increases) in expenditure.
• The Appropriation Bill authorises expenditure from the Consolidated Fund; the Finance Bill legalises taxation.
• After passage by both Houses and authentication by the President, the budget becomes law.

3. Budget Execution

• Funds are released by the MoF through the Financial Comptroller General Office (FCGO) in quarterly instalments.
• Spending agencies incur expenditure as per the authorised heads and the Public Procurement Act.
• The Treasury Single Account system and the Line Ministry Budget Information System (LMBIS) are used for release and monitoring.
• Mid-year review and budget reallocation/transfer may be made with MoF approval.

4. Budget Control, Accounting and Audit

• Legislative control through the Public Accounts Committee and Finance Committee.
• Executive control through the FCGO, internal audit, and the MoF.
• Audit by the Office of the Auditor General (OAG), whose report is submitted to the President and Parliament.
• The Financial Comptroller General Office maintains accounts; the OAG reports on regularity, economy, and efficiency.

Relationship between Budgeting and Planning

Planning and budgeting are two inseparable and mutually dependent aspects of public financial management. Planning decides what to do; budgeting decides how much to do it with and how to pay for it.

1. Planning provides the framework for budgeting. The national plan (periodic plan prepared by the NPC) sets priorities, targets, and sectoral strategies. The annual budget is essentially the annual operationalisation of the plan — it converts plan targets into concrete programmes and expenditure heads.

2. Budgeting provides the financial means for planning. A plan without a budget remains a mere document. The budget allocates the resources required to implement plan programmes, so budgeting is the instrument of plan implementation.

3. Budget is the annual slice of the plan. The periodic plan covers several years; the budget covers one fiscal year. Each annual budget should be a consistent slice of the plan, so that year-by-year spending adds up to the plan's objectives.

4. Planning guides resource allocation; budgeting enforces fiscal discipline. Planning indicates the desirable size and pattern of expenditure; budgeting ensures that expenditure stays within available resources and is legally authorised.

5. Mutual feedback. Budget performance (actual revenue and expenditure) reveals whether plan targets are realistic. Poor budget execution forces plan revision; ambitious plans force budget expansion. Thus each corrects the other.

6. Institutional linkage in Nepal. The NPC prepares the plan and appraises development projects; the MoF prepares the budget and releases funds. The Medium-Term Expenditure Framework (MTEF) and the Three-Year Rolling Plan are mechanisms that formally link planning with budgeting. The National Planning Commission and the Ministry of Finance must therefore work in close coordination.

Conclusion. Planning and budgeting are complementary — planning without budgeting is vision without resources, and budgeting without planning is spending without direction. In developing countries like Nepal, where resources are scarce and needs unlimited, the closest possible integration of planning and budgeting is essential for achieving development goals.

Public finance is not only concerned with governmental finance but also with the economy as a whole — justification

Public finance is the branch of economics that studies the income and expenditure of the government and the ways of adjusting the one to the other. Although its name suggests that it deals only with the financial affairs of the government, in reality it covers the whole economy. The following points justify the statement:

1. Government budget and the whole economy. The government budget is not merely an account of receipts and expenditure; it is an instrument through which the government influences national income, employment, output and the price level. A deficit budget can raise aggregate demand and reduce unemployment, while a surplus budget can control inflation. Thus public finance directly touches the entire economy.

2. Allocation, distribution and stabilisation functions. Musgrave has assigned three functions to public finance: allocation of resources, distribution of income and wealth, and stabilisation of the economy. All three are economy-wide in scope. For example, progressive taxation reduces inequality in the whole society, and public expenditure on infrastructure raises the productive capacity of the whole economy.

3. Effects on production, consumption and distribution. Taxes and public expenditure affect the decisions of every producer and consumer — what to produce, how much to save, invest and consume. Therefore public finance cannot be studied in isolation from the rest of the economy.

4. Control of economic fluctuations. Fiscal policy — taxation, public expenditure and public borrowing — is used to fight inflation, deflation and unemployment. This is possible only because public finance operates on the economy as a whole, not on the government alone.

5. Interdependence with other sectors. Government revenue and expenditure are closely linked with the household sector, the business sector and the foreign sector. A change in government spending changes the income of households and firms, which again changes tax revenue. This circular flow shows the economy-wide nature of public finance.

6. Provision of public goods and merit goods. Defence, law and order, roads, education and health benefit all citizens at once. Their provision through the budget is a matter concerning the whole economy, not just the government machinery.

7. Source of data and policy guidance. Public finance provides the data and tools (multipliers, incidence analysis, cost–benefit analysis) used to frame policies for the whole economy, such as employment policy, price policy and growth policy.

Conclusion. Hence, public finance is not confined to the financial administration of the government. It studies how government revenue and expenditure influence the level of income, employment, prices and growth of the entire economy. In this sense, it is both governmental finance and economy-wide finance.

Critically Examine the Principle of Maximum Social Advantage

1. The Principle Stated

The Principle of Maximum Social Advantage was propounded by Hugh Dalton and later refined by Musgrave. It is the fundamental principle of public finance, explaining how much the state should tax and spend.

Dalton stated: "The best system of public finance is that which secures the maximum social advantage from the operations which it conducts."

The principle rests on two opposing forces:

• Public Revenue (Taxation) → causes social sacrifice (loss of utility from private spending).
• Public Expenditure → causes social benefit (gain in utility from public spending).

2. The Marginal Condition

According to the principle, the state should increase taxation and expenditure as long as:

$MSB > MSS$

where MSB = Marginal Social Benefit from public expenditure, and MSS = Marginal Social Sacrifice from taxation.

The point of maximum social advantage is reached when:

$MSB = MSS$

At this point, Net Social Advantage (NSA) = MSB − MSS is maximised. Beyond this point, MSS > MSB, so net social advantage falls. Thus the optimum budget is where the marginal benefit of the last rupee spent equals the marginal sacrifice of the last rupee taxed.

3. Diagrammatic Illustration

The MSB curve slopes downward (diminishing marginal benefit) and the MSS curve slopes upward (increasing marginal sacrifice); their intersection gives the optimum point.

4. Critical Examination

(a) Merits

1. Sound normative guide — provides a rational criterion for determining the size of the budget and the optimum level of taxation and public spending.
2. Welfare-oriented — judges fiscal operations by their contribution to social welfare, not merely by revenue needs.
3. Basis for balanced budgeting — supports the idea that taxes and expenditure should be balanced at the margin, not merely in total.
4. Widely applicable — applicable to allocation, distribution and stabilisation functions of the government.

(b) Limitations / Criticisms

1. Immeasurability of social benefit and sacrifice — MSB and MSS cannot be measured in cardinal terms; interpersonal comparisons of utility are not possible. Hence the equality MSB = MSS is theoretically elegant but practically indeterminate.
2. Ignores distributional effects — the principle deals with aggregate welfare and is silent on who gains and who loses. A rupee taken from the poor and given to the rich may satisfy the marginal condition yet reduce social welfare.
3. Assumes independence of tax and expenditure — in reality, taxation and expenditure are interdependent; the benefit of a public good may itself depend on how it is financed.
4. Static analysis — it is a static equilibrium concept and ignores dynamic effects of taxation on saving, investment, work effort and growth.
5. Ignores non-fiscal objectives — governments pursue political, social, administrative and stabilisation goals that may override pure welfare maximisation.
6. Problem of multiple equilibria — with many public goods and many taxes, there is no single unique optimum; the condition must hold for each activity separately.
7. Existence of externalities and merit goods — market imperfections mean social benefit diverges from private benefit, complicating measurement.
8. Political and administrative constraints — governments cannot finely adjust taxes and expenditure at the margin as the principle assumes.

5. Conclusion

The Principle of Maximum Social Advantage is a valuable normative benchmark in public finance. It gives a clear direction — expand public activity until marginal social benefit equals marginal social sacrifice. However, because of the practical impossibility of measuring social benefit and sacrifice, its neglect of distributional equity, and its static assumptions, it cannot be applied mechanically. It should therefore be treated as a guiding ideal rather than an operational rule, to be supplemented by considerations of equity, growth and administrative feasibility.

Sources of Public Debt

1. Domestic sources

   • Market loans: long-term loans raised from the public, banks and financial institutions by issuing bonds and securities.
   • Treasury bills: short-term instruments sold to banks and financial institutions to meet temporary revenue shortfalls.
   • Small savings and provident funds: deposits collected through provident funds, citizen savings certificates, national saving bonds, etc.
   • Loans from the central bank: direct borrowing from Nepal Rastra Bank, often through overdraft or the issue of securities.
   • Public account deposits: balances of government funds, local bodies and other public agencies held with the government.

2. External sources

   • Bilateral loans: loans from friendly countries and donor governments on concessional or semi-concessional terms.
   • Multilateral loans: loans from the World Bank, Asian Development Bank, IMF and similar institutions.
   • International capital market loans: foreign currency bonds and syndicated loans raised in global markets.
   • Supplier's credit and project loans: credit extended by foreign suppliers and tied loans for specific projects.

Need for Public Debt

1. Bridging the resource gap: developing countries like Nepal face a gap between domestic savings and the investment required for growth; public debt fills this gap.
2. Financing budget deficit: when current revenue falls short of expenditure, borrowing is the least inflationary way to cover the deficit.
3. Financing development plans: heavy infrastructure such as roads, irrigation, hydropower and airports needs long-term funds that cannot be met from tax revenue alone.
4. Meeting emergencies: war, natural disasters, epidemics and economic depression demand sudden large expenditure, which only borrowing can meet.
5. Managing balance of payments: external loans supply foreign exchange needed to import capital goods and stabilise reserves.
6. Controlling inflation and deflation: public borrowing absorbs excess purchasing power during inflation, and debt-financed spending raises demand during deflation.
7. Meeting non-developmental and administrative expenses: defence, debt servicing and general administration often exceed revenue receipts.
8. Promoting employment and income: debt-financed public investment creates jobs and raises national income through the multiplier effect.
9. Reducing dependence on foreign aid: concessional domestic borrowing reduces reliance on uncertain and tied foreign assistance.

Conclusion: Public debt is thus both a source of development finance and a tool of fiscal policy. It should, however, be used prudently, since excessive debt burdens the economy with heavy servicing obligations.

Meaning

The burden of public debt refers to the real cost or sacrifice imposed on the economy by the repayment of debt and interest on it. It is the transfer of resources from the present and future taxpayers to the lenders (bondholders) and the resulting reduction in the economic welfare of the community. In simple terms, when a government borrows, it creates an obligation to pay interest periodically and to repay the principal later. The burden is measured by the amount of taxes that must be raised, or the public expenditure that must be curtailed, to meet these obligations.

The burden may be of two types:

1. Internal burden (domestic debt): Debt owed to citizens and institutions within the country. Here, repayment involves only a transfer of purchasing power from taxpayers to bondholders within the same economy. The nation as a whole does not lose resources, but there is a redistribution of income and wealth, which may create inequity.
2. External burden: Debt owed to foreign governments, international agencies or foreign lenders. Repayment requires transfer of real resources (goods and services) abroad, so the nation genuinely loses resources. This is a real burden on the economy.

Is Debt Always a Burden?

No, public debt is not always a burden. Whether it becomes a burden depends on how the borrowed funds are used and on the circumstances of the economy.

Cases where debt is NOT a burden:

• Productive use of funds: If the borrowed money is invested in productive projects such as roads, irrigation, hydropower, education or health, these projects generate income and revenue that can repay the debt and interest. The economy grows, and the burden is offset by the benefits. For example, if Nepal borrows from the World Bank to build a hydropower project, the electricity generated earns revenue and repays the loan while also supporting industries.
• Debt for capital formation: Borrowing to finance development expenditure increases the productive capacity of the economy. Future generations inherit both the debt and the assets created, so they are not worse off.
• Debt during deflation or recession: Government borrowing increases aggregate demand, reduces unemployment and revives the economy. Here debt is a tool of recovery, not a burden.
• Debt when the rate of return exceeds the interest rate: If the return on the investment financed by debt is higher than the interest paid, the debt is beneficial.

Cases where debt IS a burden:

• Unproductive use: If borrowed funds are spent on consumption, war, or unproductive activities, no income-generating asset is created. Future generations must pay taxes without receiving any benefit — a clear burden.
• External debt with weak export capacity: If foreign loans must be repaid in foreign currency but the country's exports are insufficient, it faces a balance of payments crisis. Nepal's rising trade deficit and dependence on remittances to service external debt illustrate this risk.
• Excessive debt: When debt grows faster than national income, the debt-service ratio rises, forcing the government to cut development spending or impose heavy taxes. This crowds out private investment and slows growth.
• Debt-financed consumption: If the government borrows to pay salaries or subsidies, it merely postpones the burden to future taxpayers.

Example

Suppose the government of Nepal borrows Rs 10 billion at 8% interest to build a hydropower plant. If the plant earns Rs 2 billion annually, it easily pays Rs 800 million interest and repays the principal, leaving a surplus. The debt is not a burden — it is an investment. On the other hand, if the same Rs 10 billion is borrowed to pay salaries of civil servants, the government must raise Rs 800 million in taxes every year with no new asset, and future generations bear the burden without any corresponding benefit.

Conclusion

Public debt becomes a burden only when it is used unproductively, when it is excessive relative to national income, or when it is external and repayment strains the balance of payments. When used for productive investment and capital formation, debt is not a burden but an instrument of growth. Hence, the burden of public debt is conditional, not inevitable.

Theories of Budgeting

Budgeting theory seeks to explain how governments decide the size, composition, and allocation of public expenditure and revenue. The major theories are:

1. Traditional (Classical) Theory of Budgeting This theory holds that the budget should be balanced annually, expenditure should be kept to a minimum, and the government should not interfere in the economy. It is based on the laissez-faire philosophy and the "balanced budget" principle. Its main features are economy, accountability, and annual balance. It failed during the Great Depression of the 1930s when deficit spending became necessary.

2. Incremental Theory (Incrementalism) Developed by Lindblom, Wildavsky, and others, this theory argues that budgets are not made from scratch each year. Instead, the previous year's budget is taken as the "base," and only marginal or incremental changes are made. It is also called "budgeting by muddling through." It is realistic, simple, and politically practical, but it ignores the review of the existing base and discourages innovation.

3. Zero-Base Budgeting (ZBB) Introduced by Peter Pyhrr and popularized in the 1970s, ZBB rejects the incremental base. Every activity is treated as new, and each expenditure must be justified from zero. Activities are divided into "decision packages" and ranked by cost-benefit analysis. It promotes efficiency and resource reallocation, but it is time-consuming, costly, and difficult to implement fully.

4. Performance Budgeting This theory links budget allocation to performance or results. It emphasizes what the government does with the money rather than what it buys. It uses performance indicators, work measurement, and cost-benefit analysis. It was recommended by the Hoover Commission (1949) in the USA. It improves accountability and managerial efficiency but requires reliable performance data.

5. Programme Budgeting (PPBS) Planning-Programming-Budgeting System, introduced in the USA in 1965, combines planning, programming, and budgeting. It classifies expenditure by programmes and objectives rather than by departments. It uses multi-year planning and cost-effectiveness analysis to choose among alternative programmes. It is rational and goal-oriented but technically complex and politically difficult.

6. Public Choice Theory of Budgeting Associated with Buchanan, Tullock, and Niskanen, this theory applies economic reasoning to political behaviour. It assumes that politicians and bureaucrats are self-interested and seek to maximize votes and budgets. Hence budgets tend to grow beyond the socially optimal level. It supports constitutional limits on spending and balanced-budget rules.

7. Modern / Mixed Theory Modern budgeting is a blend of the above. It accepts deficit financing for development, uses programme classification, applies performance measurement, and retains incremental practice for routine expenditure. Nepal's budget system reflects this mixed approach.

Conclusion No single theory is complete. Traditional theory ensures discipline, incrementalism ensures stability, ZBB and performance budgeting ensure efficiency, and PPBS ensures rationality. In practice, governments adopt a combination suited to their political and economic conditions.

Medium Term Expenditure Framework (MTEF) as a Budgeting Reform — Justification

The Medium Term Expenditure Framework (MTEF) is a three-to-five year rolling expenditure plan that links a country's fiscal policy, sectoral strategies and annual budgets within a consistent macro-fiscal framework. It is justified as a budgeting reform on the following grounds:

1. Link between Policy, Planning and Budgeting Traditional annual budgeting separates planning from resource allocation. MTEF converts policy objectives and sector strategies into costed, multi-year expenditure ceilings, so that the budget becomes a genuine instrument of policy implementation rather than a mere accounting exercise.

2. Macro-Fiscal Discipline By setting aggregate expenditure limits consistent with projected revenue, grants and sustainable borrowing, MTEF enforces fiscal discipline. It prevents the annual budget from being prepared in isolation and reduces the risk of deficit escalation and debt unsustainability.

3. Expenditure Prioritisation and Allocative Efficiency MTEF provides hard budget ceilings to ministries and sectors well in advance. Within these ceilings, resources are allocated to priority programmes on the basis of sector strategies and cost-effectiveness, improving allocative efficiency and reducing ad hoc, politically driven spending.

4. Budgetary Predictability and Certainty Multi-year ceilings give line ministries reliable forward estimates of available funds. This predictability allows proper planning of recurrent and capital spending, discourages the practice of carrying over unfinished projects, and supports multi-year procurement and contracts.

5. Improved Operational Efficiency and Accountability MTEF strengthens the link between budget allocation and physical outputs/outcomes. Ministries become accountable for results within agreed ceilings, and monitoring of expenditure against planned outputs improves transparency and value for money.

6. Fiscal Transparency and Credibility By publishing medium-term fiscal and expenditure projections, MTEF makes the budget process more transparent. It also improves credibility with development partners and lenders, as resource commitments are placed within a realistic fiscal framework.

7. Foundation for Other Reforms MTEF supports and is supported by other Public Financial Management reforms — programme budgeting, medium-term fiscal framework, performance-based budgeting and the Treasury Single Account — and thus acts as a coordinating reform instrument.

Conclusion MTEF is justified as a budgeting reform because it shifts budgeting from a short-term, incremental, input-oriented exercise to a medium-term, policy-driven, output-oriented and fiscally disciplined system. It improves predictability, prioritisation, transparency and accountability, and thereby raises the overall efficiency and effectiveness of public expenditure management.

The table does not give a repayment row for foreign debt by name. The second "Principle repayment of domestic Debt" row is taken as principal repayment of foreign debt. Two entries are typos: capital expenditure 2011/12 "51,39" is read as 5,139, and the 2010/11 repayment "1,22" is read as 1,122 (consistent with the neighbouring years). Figures are in Rs million, as in the table.

(a) Ratio of Total Expenditure to GDP

$\text{Ratio}=\frac{\text{Total Expenditure}}{\text{GDP}}\times 100$

(b) Annual growth rate of Total Expenditure

$g_t=\frac{E_t-E_{t-1}}{E_{t-1}}\times 100$

The average annual (compound) growth over the three years is about 14.1%.

(c) Share of Total Principal Repayment in Total Expenditure

Total principal repayment = domestic + foreign repayment.

If the 2010/11 entry is read literally as 122, the total is 722 and the share is 2.44%.

(d) Ratio of Tax Revenue to GDP

(e) Conclusion on the public financial situation of Nepal

• Expenditure has grown faster than the economy in absolute terms (Rs 29.5 billion to Rs 43.9 billion), but it stays at about 21-23% of GDP. Recurrent expenditure takes about 69-74% of the total, so capital spending is small (about 14-15%) and development investment is weak.
• Revenue mobilisation is improving. Tax revenue rose from 12.96% to 16.09% of GDP, and total revenue from 14.5% to 18.4% of GDP. Tax revenue grows faster than GDP, which shows better tax administration and a widening tax base.
• Fiscal deficit is falling from 3.6% of GDP (2010/11) to about 2.0% (2013/14). Foreign grants are declining (Rs 4,592 million to Rs 3,396 million), so the government is relying more on its own revenue.
• Debt-servicing burden is rising. Principal repayment rose from about 5.8% to 9.5% of total expenditure, reducing the resources available for development.
• Overall, the situation is gradually improving and sustainable: the deficit is small and revenue is growing. But expenditure is mostly recurrent, capital spending is low, and debt repayment is rising. Nepal should raise capital expenditure, widen the tax base, control recurrent spending and use borrowing for productive projects.