Budget Analysis Report Crs 2011-12-5

Federal and Provincial
Budget Analysis
from a Child Rights
Perspective
Save the Children envisions a world in which every child attains the right to
survival, protection, development and participation.
Our mission is to inspire breakthroughs in the way the world treats children,
and to achieve immediate and lasting change in their lives.
Copyright: 2012 Save the Children

Authors: Abdullah Khoso, Kalsoom Kayani, Mohsin Aziz,
Muhammad Hamza Abbas, Wasif Imran and Zohra Toru
Editing: Natasha Gilani
Design: Humza Afzal
Printing: Strengths Innovations Islamabad
www.strengthsinnovations.com
For further information: Wajahat Ali Farooqi
Save the Children recognizes that the promotion and protection of the rights of children
are possible if the state allocates sufficient funds for children and takes all possible
measures as described in United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. In a bid to
advocate for good governance with respect to child rights and protection, a child-centred
budget analysis is one of the most important tools to influence improved governance.
Accordingly, Save the Children has been conducting or helping to conduct budget analyses
and budget tracking exercises from child rights perspective for the last few years in various
parts of the world.
In Pakistan, Save the Children has been conducting child-focused budget analysis every
year since 2009. Consequently, this report provides a comparative analysis of the current
and development budgets of 2009-10, 2010-11 and 2011-12 of federal and provincial
governments with specific emphasis on child focused budgetary allocations in the areas of
health, education and social protection/welfare.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Abbreviations
Executive Summary
1. Introduction
1.1 The State of Pakistan's Children 10
1.2 Budgeting in Pakistan
1.3 Why Budget Analysis from Child Rights Perspective in Pakistan?
2. Federal Budget Analysis and Situation in South Asia 15

2.1 Tax Revenue (revenue receipts)
2.2 Total External Receipts
2.3 Total Expenditure
2.4 Current Health, Education, Social Protection Expenditures in Comparison with
Current Defence Expenditure and Total Expenditure
2.5 Share of Health, Education, Social Protection, Defence and Total Expenditure in
GDP
2.6 Subsidies and Grants, Investment and Equity
2.7 Cost of War on Terror
2.8 Comparison of budget spending in South Asia, Zambia and Democratic Republic of
Congo (DRC)
3. NFC awards and Provincial Allocations 23

3.1 Provincial Analysis of Child Focused Budgets
3.2 Current Expenditure
3.3 Development Expenditure
3.4 Per Child Expenditure
4. Pakistan's Progress Towards Child-Focused Millennium Development Goals 33
5. Conclusive Analysis 34
6. Annexure 37
ABBREVIATIONS
AJK Azad Jammu Kashmir

CRC Convention on the Rights of the Child
DG District Government
GB Gilgit-Baltistan
GDP Gross Domestic Product
GNP Gross National Product
HDI Human Development Index
HBFCL House Building Finance Company Limited
MDG Millennium Development Goal
MRC Monthly Recurring Charge
NFC National Finance Commission
PIA Pakistan International Airline
PSDP Public Sector Development Program
SAARC South Asian Association for Reputational Co-operation
SPARC Society for the Protection of the Rights of the Child
TCP Trading Corporation of Pakistan
TMA Tehsil Municipal Administration
UA Unitary Authority
UN United Nations
UNDP United Nations Development Program
USC Utility Stores Corporation
WAPDA Water and Power Development Authority
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The study was initiated by the team of consultants i.e. Dr. Fazal Hussain, Muhammad Ali Qasim,
Mahmood Khalid and Muhammad Ismail. They collected the initial data and provided the basic
analysis of the findings. Later the work was taken forward by Save the Children staff namely
Abdullah khoso, Mohsin Aziz, Kulsoom Kiani, Muhammad Hamza Abbass, Wasif Imran and
Zohra Toru. The study could not have been completed without the utmost support and untiring
efforts of these consultants and other team members mentioned in the preceding statement.
We are thankful for the support and guidance of David Wright, Allison Zelkowitz and Ghulam
Qadri.
Last but not the least, we appreciate the role of Mr. Wajahat Ali Farooqi, for his wise counseling
and reassurance from the outset to the end.
MESSAGE FROM THE COUNTRY DIRECTOR
Children under the age of 18 comprise more than 48 % of

Pakistan's population. The sheer magnitude of their
strength in numbers should then be reason enough for the
government to constitute development programs that
endeavour to alleviate their status of living. However,
budgetary indicators demonstrate a glaring lack of
consideration when it comes to child rights and protection
issues in Pakistan.
A brief glimpse at the budget of year 2011-12 amply manifests that child-focused
schemes and programs continue to struggle to make a place for themselves in the
mainstream budgetary agenda. The share of education and health related
expenditure, in the federal budget, during this period was a meagre 0.325% and
0.052% respectively of the GNP. Similarly, merely 0.0047% of the GNP has gone
to child focused social welfare schemes and programs.
Moreover, the trend in the share of child-focused development expenditure on

health and education in the Federal and Provincial spending also needs to be
reversed to ensure that it increases rather than continuing with the current
declining trend. The current trend poses the imminent danger of lesser healthcare
facilities for a growing population of children under the age of 18 years.
The salient figures cited above merely serve as the tip of the ice berg when it comes
to assessing the government's budgetary priorities. A deeper analysis of child-
focused provincial allocations paints a much bleaker picture.
That said, better outcomes in any sector be it education, health or social welfare
demand not just allocations in the budget but also their effective utilization. This
also needs to be coupled with political will to improve the plight of the millions of
Pakistani children who continue to live in the most marginalized of circumstances.
Accordingly, there is an urgent need to increase the allocations in all the three
sectors with special emphasis on the children. It is absolutely necessary to allocate
at least 5 % of the GDP as child-focused current and development expenditure as
stated in the Concluding Observations & Recommendations of the United
Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC).”
While Save the Children is committed in the endeavour for the realization of
children's rights throughout the length and breadth of Pakistan, we are also
conscious of the fact that long lasting, tangible change would not be possible
without the support of the government. For that reason, we hope that the report in
hand will serve as an effective advocacy tool to draw the attention of the policy
makers towards fulfilling the commitments that Pakistan has made as a signatory to
the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child.
Warm regards
David Wright
Country Director Save the Children Pakistan Country Program
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Save the Children in Pakistan has been conducting child-focused budget analysis every year since
2009. The main purpose of these exercises is to see if Pakistan is complying with the United
Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child's recommendations. In the Committee's
Concluding Observations and Recommendations in 2009 against Pakistan's periodic report, the
Committee expressed serious concerns over extremely low budgetary allocations for children,
which undermines Pakistan's “prospects of meeting its objectives to gradually raise allocations to
education to 5 % of GDP by 2010 and to increase annually the allocations to the health sector by
1
16 % until satisfactory health services and prevention measures are accomplished” .
For this year, Save the Children's report provides a comparative analysis of the current and
development budgets of Pakistan's national and provincial governments for 2009-10, 2010-11
and 2011-12 with a specific emphasis on child focused budgetary allocations in the areas of health,
education and social welfare.
This analysis shows that of the 187 countries ranked in the UNDP's Human Development Index
(HDI) for 2011, Pakistan stands at 145th spot2. This categorizes it as having Low Human
Development and indicates that life expectancy, literacy, education, standards of living and quality
of life of people, especially children, in Pakistan are near their the lowest ebbs. Other developing
countries in Asia reflect comparatively better results with Iran at 89, Iraq at 132, India at 134, and
Bhutan at 141 as of 2011. Only Bangladesh at 146, Myanmar at 149 and Nepal at 157 and
Afghanistan at 172 are ranked lower.
Budgetary allocations will often reflect the situation within a country. In comparison with other
countries, Pakistan spends relatively less on health and education than others, whereas a significant
portion of government expenditures is in defence, subsidies and grants in which it comes on the
top. While this can be understood for Pakistan, it also reflects how much other 'priorities' may
potentially be holding back health and educational development in children. In order to improve
on the HDI rating, and opportunities for children, there is an urgent need for Pakistan to allocate
and spend a maximum portion of its budget on sectors such as education, health and quality of life
for its children. This budget analysis reveals that while Pakistan's performance remains dismal in
all of the above sectors, the situation is specifically bleak concerning child rights and welfare.
Pakistan's total federal budget for 2011-12 is Rs 2,835 billion (US $30 billion) or 12.8 % of its
GNP3. Since neither the federal nor provincial governments have separate budgetary allocations
for children4, spending in this context remains alarmingly low.
Furthermore, in the analysis, the provinces have allocated practically nothing for child social
welfare. In the provincial budget analysis of two years (2010-11 and 2011-12), especially from the
point of view of per child budget allocations, there have been noticed increasing and decreasing
trends in health, education and social welfare. Table 17 has narration about it which provides clear
picture about the situation in each area.
The report uses terms like 'child focused budget', 'child health', 'child education' and 'child social
welfare'. There are no such terms and headings used in the Annual Budgets but for this report
these have been calculated in the fields of health, education and welfare. In order to calculate child
focused expenditures in health, education and social welfare, a thorough review of the annual
budget documents of 2009-10, 2010-11 and 2011-12 was conducted, and budgets allocated for
those categories (schemes and programmes) were considered child focused budgets which directly
benefit children such as construction of new health and education buildings and facilities;
provision of missing facilities, books, chairs, desks, dispensaries, provision of stipends or
scholarships to needy children, special education, immunization programmes and so on. Not all
budgetary allocations but those that could directly or indirectly benefit children under 18 years of
age were considered.
The analysis shows that total tax and non-tax revenues have increased by 22.2 % in 2011-12 from
the previous year, but there has been no substantial increase in the total (budget) expenditures on
child health, child education and child social welfare.
Even before calculations of child-focused expenditure, Pakistan's spending on health, education

and social welfare are low.
At the same time, significant funds are being spent on grants and subsidies to state enterprises that
are producing poor returns, and the war on terror. These are both a drain on public funds and
efforts must be made to reduce waste in these areas. This shows that a lot more is needed to check
growing income inequality, rising child mortality, and inflationary impact on the poor and
vulnerable segments of the society.
After 18th Amendment (in 2010) and 7th National Finance Commission (NFC) award (in 2009),
which gave the provinces greater autonomy and resources, however budgetary allocations for child
education, child health and child social welfare have shown no significant increase in 2011-12.
In 2011-12, only 1 % of the foreign assistance which is received in the forms of loans and grants
has been allocated on for child focused schemes and programmes.
One of the conclusions of this analysis is that due to poor budgetary allocations in health and
education, Pakistan's progress towards Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) has shown a
dismal picture and they are lagging in almost all the goals.
Combined picture of both federal and provincial budgets indicates that Pakistan is not complying
with the promise and commitment it has made with the Committee on the Rights of the Child. It is
evident from the findings of this analysis, that Pakistan needs to spend on child focused
programmes and schemes as it has pledged with the UN Committee.
1
INTRODUCTION
1.1 The State of Pakistan's Children
UNICEF estimates that there are more than 73 million children in Pakistan5. The majority of these children
belong to the most marginalized segments of the society with poor access to health and education facilities
6
as well as at risk of exploitation in the form of child labour and trafficking .
According to the National Child Labour Survey, in 1996, 3.3 million children were reportedly involved in
7
child labour in Pakistan . After 1996, there is no survey to gauge the scale and magnitude of child labour,
however, the media in Pakistan have regularly reported that conflict situations, a rise in unemployment,
displacement, increased poverty and natural disasters have all conributed to an increase in child labour8. In
June 2011, the ILO and UNICEF Pakistan country offices issued a joint press release saying that “children
under the age of 14 are involved in hazardous, physically demanding and exploitative sectors that include
brick kilns, rag picking, crop agriculture, fishing, domestic service, mining and quarrying, and street and
9
service industries.”
Total primary, middle and secondary/high schools and

total enrolment in Pakistan (2009-10)
Total Institutions Total Enrolment
25303212
17366169
5400435
2536608
158023 41326 24320 223669
Primary School (1st - 5th) Middle Schools (6th-8th) Secondary/High Schools Total
(9th-10th)
Source: International Finance Corporation-World Bank Group & State Bank of Pakistan: Industry Overview: Education
In 2004, the International Labour Organization (ILO) estimated that more than 264,000 children were
10
working as child domestic workers in hazardous and deplorable conditions in Pakistan . From January 2010
to December 2011, the media reported 18 cases of severe torture and abuse of child domestic workers. Of
11
these 18 cases, 13 children died as a result of torture inflicted on them by their masters .
The right to education is a fundamental constitutional right of children from 5 to 16 years of age12. However,
about 7.3 million children (34 % of the total number of children of school-going age) in Pakistan are out of
13
school . For those in school, “the difference in educational attainment between the poorest boys and girls is
about three years in rural areas and about one year in urban areas”14.Although literacy rates and primary
school enrollment rates have improved over the last five years, a scarcity of resources and inadequate
15
provision of facilities and training are the primary obstacles in imparting and expanding education” .
10
According to the ILO, millions of children currently working in hazardous conditions must be reached or
enrolled into schools, otherwise Pakistan's goals to reach its targets for Millennium Development Goal 2
(attaining universal primary education) and gender parity in primary and secondary education (a key
indicator for the MDG 3) cannot possibly be attained16. Only in 2010 was the right to education enshrined in
the Constitution of Pakistan.
Pakistan Bureau of Statistics reports that in 2008-2009, 24,228 children age 10-14 years were married and
1,029,784 children age 15-19 years were married17. These figures reflect an alarmingly high incidence of
child marriage and a serious hindrance to the promotion of education.
Opportunities for children to survive and thrive are a barrier from the moment they are born. In 2010,
18
Pakistan was ranked 33 for under 5-child mortality rate . As of 2010, an estimated 87 of 1,000 children die
19
before they reach the age of five. There is a more than 40 % of stunting rate among children in Pakistan, an
alarming indicator of acute malnutrition and destroyer of health of children. 31 % of children under 5 are
moderately or severely underweight for their age.
20
1.2 Budgeting in Pakistan
The annual budget report is a government's legal document that reflects
revenues and expenditures of government. Generally, a budget is passed by a
legislature or house and approved by the chief executive.
Budgets have economic, political and technical aspects. Unlike a pure

economic budget, they are not entirely designed to allocate scarce resources
for the best economic use. They also have a political basis wherein different
interests push and pull in an attempt to obtain benefits and avoid burdens.
According to the 2010 Open Budget Index, a measure of budget transparency
and accountability around the world, Pakistan scored 38/100 and provides
minimal information and access to the public21. At the same time, Pakistan
faces political and economic pressure domestically and internationally that
can limit or constrain its ability to allocate funding effectively.
9 11
1.3 Why Budget Analysis from Child Rights Perspective in Pakistan?
The Committee on the Rights of the Child in its Concluding Observations and Recommendations (2009)
against Pakistan's periodic report to the UNCRC welcomed Pakistan's pledge to increase allocation of
resources for children especially in the field of health and education. The Committee however, expressed
serious concerns over extremely low budgetary allocations for children, which undermines Pakistan's
“prospects of meeting its objectives to gradually raise allocations to education to 5 % of GDP by 2010 and
to increase annually the allocations to the health sector by 16 % until satisfactory health services and
prevention measures are accomplished”. The Committee also regretted the huge disparity in resource
allocation, which served to hinder full and equal access to services and institutions to all children22.
In light of Article 4 of the UNCRC, the Committee recommended Pakistan to effectively increase budgetary
allocations for all children with special considerations to refugee and internally displaced children, and
children with disabilities. Moreover, the Committee asked Pakistan to initiate budget tracking from child-
rights perspective with a view to monitor budget allocation for children. In addition to the above, the
Committee urged Pakistan to strengthen the skills of district and/or local governments in preparation,
23
planning and management of budgets that address the needs of children and families . In the Periodic
report to the Committee, Pakistan had committed to increase allocations for education up to 4 % of GDP by
2008-0924 but that commitment has not been fulfilled yet.
In Pakistan, health, education and protection are constitutional rights of citizens which is on the obligation
on Pakistan to fulfill those rights by all possible means. In April 2010, education became fundamental right
under Article 25-A of the Constitution of Pakistan which says that “The State shall provide free and
compulsory education to all children of the age of five to sixteen years in such manner as may be determined
12
by law”25. But by the end of June 2012, all four provinces and federal government had not introduced
legislation for the implementation of Article 25-A. Interestingly, all provinces have compulsory primary
education laws under which parents, employers and others can be punished and fined if they do not send
their children for education but there has been no reported punishments under the law. Secondly, there has
not been provided budgets to bring millions of out of school children to schools.
Article 37 of the Constitution make the State responsible to “(a) promote, with special care, the educational
and economic interests of backward classes or areas; (b) remove illiteracy and provide free and compulsory
26
secondary education within minimum possible period” .
Article 38 urges “(d) provide basic necessities of life, such as food, clothing. housing, education and medical
relief, for all such citizens, irrespective of sex, caste, creed or race, as are permanently or temporarily unable
to earn their livelihood on account of infirmity, sickness or unemployment”27.It categorically shows that
health, education and protection are constitutional rights and guarantees.
Budgeting for children does not mean creating a different budget for children. Rather it is a means of
disaggregating a budget to examine allocations made for programme for children. “This enables us to assess
how far the political commitment of the government towards its young citizens is translated into policy and
programme commitments backed by financial outlays”28. A balanced budget should mean consideration to
not only financial management but allocation according to real needs. Our current global fixation on
economic growth over all other matters can tends to cloud one's judgment; allocations for economic growth
Should not be made at the expense of the social sector. Investment in children has high economic returns
and reduces long term costs29.
13
Save the Children recognizes that the promotion and protection of the rights of children are
possible if the state allocates sufficient funds for children and takes all possible measures as
described in Article 4 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child. Therefore, Save the Children
has been engaged in various parts of the world for supporting good governance that supports the
implementation of the UNCRC. In a bid to advocate for good governance with respect to child
rights and protection, a child-centred budget analysis is one of the most important tools to
influence improved governance. Accordingly, Save the Children has been conducting or helping
to conduct budget analyses and budget tracking exercises from child rights perspective for the
30
last few years in various parts of world .
In Pakistan, Save the Children has been conducting child-focused budget analysis every year
since 2009. Consequently, this report provides a comparative analysis of the current and
development budgets of 2009-10, 2010-11 and 2011-12 of national and provincial governments
with specific emphasis on child focused budgetary allocations in the areas of health, education
and social protection/welfare.
Through this report, Save the Children attempts to highlight overall budgetary allocations made
specifically for programmes that benefit children and provide recommendations to the state and
civil society to influence positive change.
1.4 Methodology
Identified and collected all official budget documents such as Annual Budget Statements, Budget Briefs,
Public Sector Development Program (PSDP) reports, and grants and appropriation documents.
In order to calculate child focused budget, all relevant documents were deeply explored to seek any scheme
and programme that is directly benefiting children (up to 18 years) such as immunization, construction of
schools and initiatives of special education. In the first place, all schemes, projects and programs were
highlighted and then were put into excel sheet as per their categories which are child health, child education
and child social welfare; then finally were summed up.
The given child health, education and social welfare budget expenditures have been compared with the
major budgetary allocations (areas) in the national and provincial budgets.
As for as per child health, education and social welfare budget is concerned, the given/calculated child
health, education and social welfare budget (either national or provincial) have been divided by the total
population of the given year.
1.5 Limitations
Data of the earmarked resources is based on the budget estimates for the current year and revised estimates
of the previous years because the revised estimates were not given at the time of analysis.
Secondary data has been used because primary data collection was not possible in this short span of time.
Government sources have been used but in many cases, they don't resemble international and national
studies.
This study does not entails reasons of low or higher budgetary allocations in any area of the economy merely
for the reasons that researchers did not approach the officials, parliamentarians and field teams who could
have provided a better knowledge about reasons.
14
2
FEDERAL BUDGET ANALYSIS
AND SITUATION IN
SOUTH ASIA
2.1 Tax Revenue (revenue receipts)
Following column chart shows that the total tax revenue for 2011-12 is estimated at Rs. 2,074 billion, which is
31
an increase of 23.5% over 2010-2011 . Total tax and non-tax revenue between 2010-2011 and 2011-2012
increased by 22.2%, but we will see that there is no substantial increase in total (budget) expenditures in child
health, child education and child social welfare.
Table 2: Tax and non-tax Revenue Receipts
Revenue Receipts of three years (Rs. in million)

Total Tax Revenue Total Non-Tax Revenue Total Tax + Non-Tax Revenue
2,732,150
2,235,889
2,051,944 2,074,182
1,679,363
1,483,046
568,898 556,526 657,968
2009-2010 (revised) 2010-11 (revised) 2011-12 (estimated)

Source: Annual Budget Statement 2011-12, Government of Pakistan
There is very central role of tax-revenue collection in the growth and development of any
country. If the total tax revenue of the country is low, in the long and short run, it will create
considerable problems in economic growth and development32. If the revenue is less than the
expenditure, there is a budget deficit, which can badly affect allocations of resources in health,
education and other areas related to child rights. Finally, as we will see in the next chapter, a
loss of tax revenue affects the allocation of federal funding to provinces.
2.2 Total External Receipts

Following column charts show the total external receipts from abroad including loans and grants. Receipts in
2010-2011 fell considerably from 2009-2010 but have slightly increased in 2011-2012. From the total
estimated external resources in 2011-12, 2985.33 million (0.869 %) were allocated for schemes and
33
programmes that directly benefitted to children .
9 15
Total Foreign Assistance (Rs. in Million)
Loans Grants Total External Receipts
577,985
450,217
343,527
289,824 287,235
254,720
127,768
35,104 56,292
2009-2010 (revised) 2010-2011 (revised) 2011-2012 (estimated)
Source: Estimates of Foreign Assistance: Federal Budget 2012-13, Govt. of Pakistan
Allocation of foreign assistance on child focused programmes and

schemes in 2011-12 (Rs. in million)
343527
2985.33
Child Focused foreign assistance Total Foreign Assistance
Source: Estimates of Foreign Assistance: Federal Budget 2012-13, Govt. of Pakistan
2.3 Total Expenditure

Table 1 shows the total expenditure by the government. It is divided into two parts, i.e. current expenditure
34
and development expenditure . Both types of expenditures have increase in three years: in 2009-10, the total
expenditure was Rs2,517,020 million which increased to Rs 2,835,373 million which implies that 12.64 %
increased.
Table 1: Total Expenditure, 2009-2012 (Rs. in million)

2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012
(revised) (revised) (estimated)
Current Exp. Revenue Account 2,017,255 2,295,921 2,314,858
Current Exp. Capital Account 115,420 60,966 68,557
Development Exp. Revenue Account 316,446 202,661 273,950
Development Exp. Capital Account 127,899 118,583 178,008
Total Revenue Account 2,333,701 2,498,582 2,588,808
Total Capital Account 243,319 179,549 246,565
Est. shortfall to PSDP (60,000) (57,796)
Total Expenditure 2,517,020 2,620,335 2,835,373
Source: Annual Budget Statements: 2009 to 2012, Government of Pakistan
14
16
2.4 Current Health, Education, Social Protection Expenditures in Comparison With Current
Defence Expenditure and Total Expenditure
As shown in the following bar chart, current expenditures on health, education and social protection is very
low in comparison to defence and the total expenditure. The given current expenditure in health, education
and social protection is not for child specific schemes and programmes, it includes every education and
health, level such as, universities, general hospitals and so on.
Social Protection, Education, Health in comparison

with defence and the total expenditure (Rs. in million)
2011-12 (estimated) 2010-11 (revised) 2009-10 (revised)
Total Expenditure (budget)
1164
Social Protection 3,707
5,210
39513
Education Affairs and Services 55,182
55,756
2646
Health 23,607
25,870
495215
Defence Affairs and Services 444,958
379,168
Source: Annual Budget Statement 2009 to 2012
2.5 Share of Health, Education, Social Protection, Defense and Total Expenditure in GDP
The following column chart shows that from the current expenditures, for all three years the federal
government has allocated extremely nominal resources for health, education and social protection from the
total GDP and have gradually declined each year such as in 2009-10 for health allocations were 0.17 % of the
GDP and in 2011-12, it decreased to 0.01 % of the GDP. It also shows that total expenditure as %age of
GDP has also decreased. There has also been decrease in the defence budget but yet takes huge share from
the total budget and GDP.
% of current health, education, social Protection, defence expenditure and

total expenditure of GDP
2009-10 (revised) 2010-11 (revised) 2011-12 (estimated) 16.97

14.51 13.56
2.56 2.46 2.37

0.17 0.04 0.01 0.38 0.22 0.19 0.04 0.02 0.01
Defence Affairs and Health Education Affairs and Social Protection Total Expenditure (budget)
Services Services
Source: Annual Budget Statements 2009 to 12: Government of Pakistan
15
9 17
Table 2 shows that in 2010-11 a nominal %age of the total GNP has been allocated for child health, child
education and child social welfare which decreased in 2011-12. In comparison to other sectors, defence was
allocated a big share of GNP.
Table 2: Sector & Year Wise Major Allocations in Comparison of Child Health, Education and
Social Welfare as a Percentage of GNP
Sector 2010-11 in % 2011-12 in %

Defense Affairs and Services 2.3592 2.244
Public order and Safety Affairs 0.3116 0.270
Economic Affairs 0.4243 0.228
Environment Protection 0.0024 0.003
Housing & communities 0.0088 0.007
Recreation, Religion, Cultur e 0.0223 0.019
Social Protection 0.0156 0.005
PSDP 1.4630 1.608
Child Education 0.357 0.307
Child Health 0.006 0.052
Child Social welfare 0.008 0.005
Source: Annual Budget Statement 2011-12, Government of Pakistan,
2.6 Subsidies and Grants, Investment and Equity

Pakistan's annual expenditures include significant funding in the form of subsidies and grants to different
institutions to cover losses. Tables 3 and 4 show that allocations to subsidies and grants is more than Rs. 461
billion, which is 16.27 % of the total expenditure whereas child education budget is only 2.40 % of total
expenditure, child health is 0.41 % and child social welfare is 0.04 %. It shows that major chunk of the budget
is going to the loss-making institutions. In 2012, subsidies given to WAPDA amounted to Rs. 122.7 billion
and WAPDA has a circular debt of Rs. 280 billion to be paid. 5.29 % of the total expenditure was spent on
contingent liabilities, but there is no record given in the budget details as to where this money was utilized.
Table 3: Child Focused Expenditure as a % of Total Expenditure
Category 2011-12
Child education 2.40
Child health 0.41
Child social welfare 0.04
Source: Calculated from the Annual Budget Statement 2011-12
18
Table 4 also lists others, which include many other institutions/areas which were provided subsidies and
grants but not to education and health sectors/institutions.
Table 4: Subsidies and Grants (Rs. in Millions)

Budget 2011- % of Total
Subsidies & Grants % of GDP % of GNP
12 Expenditures
WAPDA 122,700 0.587 0.556 4.327
Karachi Electric Supply
Company 24,588 0.118 0.111 0.867
TCP 4,000 0.019 0.018 0.141
USC 2,000 0.010 0.009 0.071
Oil Refineries 7,921 0.038 0.036 0.279
Wheat Reserved Stock 4,000 0.019 0.018 0.141
Grants to Provinces 55,430 0.265 0.251 1.955
Pakistan Railway to meet losses 25,000 0.120 0.113 0.882
AJK 15,000 0.072 0.068 0.529
Gilgit-Baltistan 8,164 0.039 0.037 0.288
Contingent Liabilities 150,000 0.718 0.680 5.290
Reimbursement of Home
Remittances 2,357 0.011 0.011 0.083
Lump Provision of Relief 2,400 0.011 0.011 0.085
Miscellaneous Grants 30,000 0.144 0.136 1.058
Others (total)1 7,875 0.038 0.036 0.278
Total 461,435 2.207 2.090 16.274
Source: Annual Budget Statement 2011-12, Government of Pakistan
Figure 3: Percentage of GNP
Child focused expenditure compared to subsidies,

grants and investment & equity
16.27
2.4
0.41 0.04 0.72
Child education Child health Child social Total subsidies Total investment
welfare and grants and equity
Source: Annual Budget Documents 2011-12
The above graph shows the total expenditures on subsidies and grants and total investment and inequity
as compared to total child education, child health and child social welfare (given table 3). There is large
difference, which suggests the priority areas the state prefers to support. Those institutions (given in
table 4) incur losses but continually receive taxpayers' money.
Each year government invest in various dead and non-productive institutions such as Pakistan International
Airlines (PIA) which was allocated Rs2867 million in 2010-11 and Rs3831 million in 2011-12 in the name of
investment and equity. This is actually subsidies for unprofitable ventures to off set their losses. The
investment and equity for the year 2011-12 has been estimated as Rs 20.6 billion as compared to Rs 10.33
billion in 2010-11 which is higher by 100%. The amount of investment the current fiscal year is about 0.72 %
9 19
36
of total expenditure .
2.7 Cost of War on Terror

In result of global war against terrorism, Pakistan has In the war on terrorism, Pakistan have been
paid both direct and indirect costs of war. Direct cost receiving “almost $10 billion in overt
of war means “the budgetary cost of the war effort, security and economic assistance since
while 'indirect costs' comprised property losses, lost 2002 [from America] and continues to
37 compensate the Pakistani military for its
output, and the capitalized value of lost of lives”
counterterrorism efforts with roughly $1
Indirect cost of war also includes loss of export, 42
foreign investment, privatization, industrial output and billion in annual reimbursements” . In
38 addition, in 2009, America's Senate passed
tax collection . In indirect cost of war, domestic
the legislation known as Kerry Lugar Bill
tourism industry suffers, thousands of jobs are lost,
that meant to provide about $1.5 billion a
massive displacement occurs and physical
39 year and $ 7.5 billion over five years from
infrastructure is destroyed . In the indirect cost,
2010 to 2014 for development programs43.
children and women are the worst affected; they flee
The analysts believe that Pakistan get
their areas and start living in camps at risks of
40 nominal against the loss it has suffered
everything .
which is more than $40 billion to its
economy and infrastructure besides “the
“After 9/11 Pakistan had to assume the role of a front
heavy loss of lives both military and
line state in the war against terror. Consequently,
civilians”44.
economic growth slowed demands for imports
reduced with consequential decline in tax collection
and inflows of foreign investment were naturally adversely affected. The economy was subjected to
enormous direct and indirect costs which continue to rise from $ 2.669 billion in 2001-02 to $ 13.6 billion by
2009-10 and $ 17.8 billion in 2010-11”41.
Figure 4: Cost of War

Exports Cost of War on Terror
Foreign investment
5%
Compensation to effecties
Privatization
9% 16%
Physical infrastucture
Industrial output 4%
16%
10%
Total Cost of War 67.9

Billion Dollars from 12% 12%
2001-2011 10% 6%
Source: Finance Division, Government of Pakistan. Islamabad
Table 5: Pakistan Paying for the Cost of War

Billion $ Billion Rs. Percentage Change
2001-02 2.66 163.9 0
2002-03 2.74 160.8 3
2003-04 2.93 168.8 6.7
2004-05 3.41 202.4 16.3
2005-06 3.98 238.6 16.9
2006-07 4.67 283.2 17.2
2007-08 6.94 434.1 48.6
2008-09 9.18 720.6 32.3
2009-10 13.56 1136.4 47.7
2010-11* 17.83 1528.0 31.5
Total 67.926 5036.8
* It is 8 months estimated data
18
Source: Ministry of Finance, Government of Pakistan45
20
2.8 Comparison of Budget Spending in South Asia, Zambia and Democratic Republic of Congo
Table 6 below, compares total government allocations to education, health, military and subsidies among six
46
countries of South Asia .
Of total expenditures in 2010-11, Pakistan spent 18.5 % on defense, 9.9 % on education and 3.6 % on health
and allocated high %age of the total expenditure on subsidies to various institutions. Comparatively,
Pakistan spends a low %age of its annual budget on health and education and a high %age on defence.
All countries for which there are figures spend a significant portion of their budgets on military. However,
funding on subsidies is notably higher in comparison, which indicates that economic development is a major
draw on the public purse. Both education and health receive a relatively smaller portion of funding, with
health less than education except in Bhutan. Only in health spending does Pakistan lag behind the others but
even then this is comparable to India.
Table 6: Major Budget Allocations Among Six Countries of South Asia
% of Total Expenditure
Country Education Military Health Subsidy
Pakistan 9.9 (2010) 18.5 (2010) 3.6 (2010) 25.5 (2010)
India n/a 16.0 (2010) 3.6 (2010) 59.7 (2010)
Bangladesh 14.1 (2009) 10.2 (2009) 7.4 (2009) 34.9 (2009)
Nepal 20.2 (2010) n/a 7.9 (2010) n/a
Bhutan 9.4 (2010) n/a 10.5 (2010) 2.4 (2009)
Sri Lanka 8.1 (2009) 19.3 (2008) 5.8 (2010) 22.7 (2008)
Source: World Bank, World Data Bank (2008-10)
Figure 5: Major Budget Spending in South Asia
Major budget spending in South Asia
Education Military Health Subsidy
59.7
34.9
25.5 22.7
18.5 16 20.2 19.3
9.9 14.1 10.5
10.2 7.4 7.9 9.4 8.1 5.8
3.6 0 3.6 0 0 2.4
Pakistan India Bangladesh Nepal Bhutan Sri Lanka
Source: World Bank, World Data Bank (figures range from 2008 to 2010)
20 9 21
Pakistan, Zambia and Democratic Republic of Congo
Table 7 shows that tax revenue collection by two of the world's poorest countries, Zambia and the
Democratic Republic of Congo, is greater than Pakistan as %age of their respective GNP. In Pakistan's case,
there is significant difference between the total %age of revenue collection and the total %age of expenses
as %age of its GNP. It shows that Pakistan is earning less and spending more than what it earns. In Zambia
and Congo's case, there is very mild difference between their total %age of revenue collected and the total
%age of expenses as %age of their GNP.
Zambia and Democratic Republic of Congo's ranking on the HDI is lower than Pakistan. However, both
countries have allocated the total expenditure greater than Pakistan as %age of their respective GNP.
Based on the given tax revenue collections and total expenses, it cannot be claimed that their economy has
improved but in the longer run such continuous process do add the economic growth and well-being of
every person in the country.
Table 7: Country-wise Tax Revenue Collections, Expenses And Their HDI Ranking in 2010-11
Tax Revenue Expense as a

Country On HDI
as % of GNP % of GNP
Zambia 18.77 19.25 164
Congo 14.68 14.72 187
Pakistan 7.61 11.87 145
Source: World Data Bank, World Bank and Human Development Index 2010-11 by United Nations Development Programme
22
3
NFC AWARDS AND PROVINCIAL
ALLOCATIONS
Since about 94% of resources are generated at the federal level and only 6% at the provincial level, the
provinces rely on the federal government to meet their expenditure requirements and obligations47.
Calculations for transfer payments between the federal and provincial governments are arranged by the
National Finance Commission (NFC). The purpose of examining the NFC award and provincial autonomy
is to see if the increasing autonomy and budget has resulted any change in the education, health or any other
budget for children.
Article 160 of the constitution of Pakistan states that every five years the President must constitute a
National Finance Commission. The National Finance Commission reviews the formula for the distribution
of funds, taxes and other monetary assets or matters between the federal and provincial governments and
among the four federated units of Pakistan: Punjab, Sindh, Balochistan, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa provinces.
The last and seventh NFC award review was in 2010.
Participants in the NFC are the Federal Minister of Finance, the Ministers of Finance of the provincial
governments, and any other persons who may be appointed by the President after consultation with the
governors of the provinces. The results of the NFC are given as recommendations to the President who has
the authority to approve the recommendations through an Executive Order.
The 18th Constitutional Amendment in 2010 paved the way for the devolution of responsibilities of many
services to provinces. The 1973 Constitution of Pakistan 1973 divided the legislative powers between the
Centre and the Provinces by delineating two legislative lists: the Federal Legislative List and the Concurrent
Legislative List. The Federal Legislative List delineated 68 items that the Federal Centre alone could legislate.
The Concurrent Legislative List designated 47 items over which the Centre and the Provinces could legislate.
However, it also stated that in cases of disagreement, the Federal Law would prevail. This meant that, in
effect, the Centre had overriding authority over all matters, not only those reserved for it, but those shared as
th
well. Items not mentioned in either list were left to provincial jurisdiction. In 2010, the 18 Amendment to
1
the Constitution of Pakistan eliminated reference to the Concurrent List (see Annex ), which included
jurisdiction over (38) Curriculum, syllabus, planning, policy, centres of excellence and standards of
education, and (39) Islamic education. A deadline of 30 June 2011 was set for completion of devolution of
all matters in the Concurrent Legislative list to the provinces.
The Constitution of Pakistan has had several deficiencies in delineation of rights. Prior to the 18th
Amendment, the Constitution held no provisions for rights to health or education, which instead fell within
th
the domain of federal or provincial rights. With the 18 Amendment, a new article, '25A Right to Education'
was inserted that stated that “[t]he State shall provide free and compulsory education to all children of the
age of five to sixteen years in such manner as may be determined by law.” While the right to education has
been enshrined in the Constitution, no similar amendment was made according a right to health, although
reference to subjects related to health exist48.
th
The implications of the 18 amendment changes and the impact on federal and provincial budget allocations
are open to debate. While it allows provincial governments greater autonomy in their health program
planning, the majority of the funding will still have to come from federal coffers. Also, in order to ensure
equity in health provision and access across the country, some argue that federal jurisdiction may be
necessary.
22 9 23
49
Of the divisible pool , the share allocated to the provinces increased from 50 % to 56 % in 2010-11 and 57.5
50
% from 2011-12 onwards.” With respect to its great need, Balochistan has been guaranteed Rs. 83 billion
annually with any future shortfalls covered by the federal government. As well, 1% of the divisible pool
would be allocated to Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province to meet expenses related to the 'war on terror'. Table 8
provides a breakdown of indicators used to determine allocation of share of the divisible pool among
provinces. In the seventh NFC awards, multiple indicators were adopted for the distribution of provincial
share, where previously provincial population size had been the only criterion for the distribution.
Table 8: Indicators for the Allocation of Funding to the Provincial Governments
Indicator %
Population 82.0
Poverty and backwardness 10.3
Revenue generation 5.0
Inverse population density 2.7
Total 100
Source: Government of Pakistan, Annual Budget Statement 2011-12
Population is still the primary indicator for determining amounts allocated. Table 9, below, shows that
between 2011 and 2012, Punjab's share of the total funds increased slightly, possibly due to revised estimates
51
of population .
Table 9: Estimated Allocation of Funding to the Province, 2011-2013
2011-2012 2012-2013 (est.)

Province
% Rs. (millions) % Rs. (millions)
Punjab 47.9 585,948 51.7 710,297
Sindh 27.0 313,476 24.6 373,619
Khyber Pakhtunkhwa 15.9 195,504 14.6 241,750
Balochistan 9.2 111,688 9.1 133,259
Total 100 1,208,615 100 1,458,925
Source: Government of Pakistan, Annual Budget Statement 2011-12
The NFC also recommended that the federal and provincial governments streamline their tax collections
systems to reduce loss of taxes revenue and work to increase tax revenue to 15 % of GDP by 2014-2015. In
addition, the provinces would take step to effectively tax agriculture and real estate52.
3.1 Provincial Analysis of Child Focused Budgets

Many of the components of the provincial budget are similar to those of the federal budget. Some receipt
headings are specific to provincial budgeting such as Property Tax and Interest on Loans to District
Governments/Tehsil Municipal Administrations (TMAs). Similarly, almost all expenditure headings are
similar to the federal budget with the exception of Defence related expenditure, which is not accounted for
in the federal budget.
The main source of provincial revenues is a transfer based on a share of federal tax collections, as explained
in Chapter 3 above. The decision on the list of taxes to be shared (divisible pool), the ratio of the provincial-
federal share of the pool, and the formula for its distribution to the provinces is determined every five years
by the National Finance Commission (NFC). 23
24
The current NFC award has been adopted with the consensus of all four provinces. Whereas, the federal
government has agreed to allocate additional resources to the provinces from the divisible pool, the
provinces have shown flexibility to accommodate each other's point of view. For example, the three
provinces agreed to the cut in their %age share in order to enlarge the share of Balochistan to 9.09 % from
the existing 7.17 % in view of its special needs. Similarly, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa is entitled to receive an
additional one % of the total divisible pool, regarding its role as a frontline province in the continued war
against terror.
A notable development was the consensus on using other parameters in addition to population for revenue
sharing among the provinces. Under the new formula, Population carried a weight of 82.0 %, whereas the
other factors include Poverty 10.3 %, Revenue 5.0 % and Inverse Population Density 2.7 %. Under the
current award, the federal government agreed to increase the share of provinces in divisible poll to 56.0 % in
the first year of NFC and to 57.5 % in the remaining years of the award from existing level of 47.5 %.
The federal government has also agreed to reduce collection charges to just one % from the existing level of
five %, which will increase the actual transfers to the provinces from the divisible pool. Similarly, the federal
government has also accepted the constitutional right of the provinces over sales tax on services and allowed
them to collect tax if they so desired.
25
2
3.2 Current Expenditure
Education
In the following paragraphs we will see the trend in child focused current expenditure for the last three years
in each of the three sectors. The share of child-focused expenditure in Education by the federation and four
provinces in their respective current expenditure is depicted in the graph below.
Figure 6: Child-Focused Education Spending as % of Current Expenditure
Federal Punjab Sindh KPK Balochistan
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
2009-10 2010-11 2011-12
The share of child-focused expenditure has been stagnant for the last three years for the Federal
Government and Sindh province. The share is 0.39 % for Federal Government and 2.23% for Sindh. The
share of child-focused expenditure in Punjab's current expenditure for last three years indicates a decline
from 2.307 % in 2010-11 to 0.001 % in 2011-12. For school education the budget estimate for 2010-11 was
Rs. 13,761.18 million and against this allocation the revised estimates stood at Rs.13.44 million, which is far
lower as compared to the budget estimates. The budget estimate for school education during 2011-12 is
Rs.10.77 million.
Table 10: Child-Focused Education Spending as % of Current Expenditure
Education 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12

Federal 0.395 0.371 0.391
Punjab 2.472 2.307 0.001
Sindh 2.235 2.078 2.002
Khyber Pakhtunkhwa 0.182 0.369 0.332
Balochistan 0.113 7.303 7.737
Source: Provincial and federal budget documents: Annual Budget Statements 2011-12
The share of child-focused expenditure in Balochistan's current budget shows an increasing trend for the
last three years. The share of child-focused expenditure has increased from 0.113 % in 2009-10 to 7.303 % in
2010-11 and 7.737 % in 2011-12.
Health
The following table contains share of health sector in total current expenditure of federal and provincial
governments.
26
25
Table 11: Health spending as a % share of total current expenditure
Source: Federal and Provincial budget documents including federal and provincial budget
statements 2009-10, 2010-11 and 2011-12
A cursory look on the above table indicates that federal government has allocated less than one % of its total
current expenditure for health services. It is worth noting that as the federal health ministry is one of the
devolved ministries, therefore, the share of expenditure on health reduced from 0.365 % in 2010-11 to 0.114
% in 2011-12. The share of health expenditure in total current expenditure by Punjab government has
registered a steady decline for the last three years and the share has reduced from 4.501 % in 2009-10 to 3.619
% in 2011-12. The reduced share of health expenditure indicates that the per capita health expenditure has
significantly declined. The governments of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and Balochistan show an upward trend
vis-a-vis the share of health expenditure for the last three years.
Figure 7: Child-Focused Health Spending as a %age of Current Expenditure
0.2
0.15
0.1
0.05
0
2009-10 2010-11 2011-12
Table 12: Child-focused Health Spending as a %age of Current Expenditure
Health 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12

Federal 0.037 0.034 0
Punjab 0.141 0.183 0.183
Sindh 0.005 0.005 0.006
Balochistan 0.035 0.022 0.028
Statements 2009-10, 2010-11 and 2011-12
26 9 27
The share of child-focused expenditure on health in total current expenditure of federal and provincial
governments is less than 1 % for the last three years. The share of child-focused health expenditure in
Punjab's current expenditure has increased from 0.141 % in 2009-10 to 0.183 % in 2011-12. The increased
share is mainly due to increased allocation to 'Paediatric Hospital/Institute', which cost Rs. 477.43 million in
2009-10, Rs. 836.68 million in 2010-11 and Rs. 1,038.99 million in 2011-12. The share of child-focused
health expenditure in Federal government's current expenditure was virtually stagnant for 2009-10 and
2010-11, but for 2011-12 the share was zero, owing to the transfer of the Ministry of Health to the provinces.
The trend in the share of child-focused health expenditure in Sindh's current expenditure remains constant
for the last three years.
Social Welfare
The share of child-focused current expenditure on social welfare in the total current expenditure of the
federal and provincial governments is also less than 1 % for the last three years.
The share is zero for the federal and Punjab governments for the year 2011-12. The share of child-focused
expenditure on social welfare for federal government is zero because of the ministry's devolution to the
provinces. The share of child-focused from the current expenditure on social welfare for Punjab is almost
zero because of very nominal allocation of Rs.0.294 million for the programme of special education. Under
this program an allocation of Rs.87.619 million was made for 2009-10 and for 2010-11 the allocation was
Rs.105.404 million. There is also a decreasing trend with regard to social welfare for Balochistan. The share
of child-focused expenditure on social welfare in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa is zero for the year 2009-10 and
2010-11 but for the year 2011-12 the share is 0.012 %. This increase is due to the introduction of a program,
“Worker Children Education Board, Under the Sector Labour” and the allocation to the program is Rs.20.00
million. Sindh reflects an upward trend for the last three years.
Figure 8: Child-focused Social Welfare spending as a % of current expenditure

0.06
0.05
0.04
0.03
0.02
0.01
0
2009-10 2010-11 2011-12
Table 13: Child-Focused Social Welfare Spending as a %age of Current Expenditure

Social Welfare 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12
Federal 0.023 0.021 0
Punjab 0.017 0.018 0
Sindh 0.015 0.017 0.021
Khyber
0 0 0.012
Pakhtunkhwa
Balochistan 0.05 0.039 0.007
statements 2009-10, 2010-11 and 2011-12
28
27
3.3 Development Expenditure
Education
Trends in the share of child-focused development expenditure in the respective development expenditure
of federal and provincial governments are depicted in the graphs below.
The trend for Federation and Punjab is similar: it first increases from 2009-10 to 2010-11 and after 2010-11 it
declines. In case of the decline in the share for Punjab it is due to reduced allocation to the education sector
as compared to the previous year. The allocation to the education sector for 2011-12 is Rs. 25594.531 million
whereas the allocation for 2010-11 was Rs. 27374.706 million - a decrease worth Rs.1780.175 million. The
reduced allocation has also affected the child-focused development allocation. It is worth noting that after
devolution there should have been increased provincial allocation to the education sector, however the
situation on ground is on the contrary.
Table 14: Child-Focus Education Expenditure as a %age of Development Expenditure
Education 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12

Federal 0.367 1.147 0.809
Punjab 2.235 7.569 6.491
Sindh 1.364 1.857 2.212
Balochistan 10.12 5.716 5.249
statements 2009-10, 2010-11 and 2011-12
Figure 9: Child-Focus Education Expenditure as a %age of Development Expenditure

14
12
10
6
4
2
0
2009-10 2010-11 2011-12
In the case of Sindh and Khyber Pukhtunkhwa the increased share for 2011-12 is due to the increased
allocation to the education sector as compared to the previous year i.e. 2010-11. For education sector the
government of Sindh has allocated Rs. 7,733 million for 2011-12 whereas for 2010-11 the allocation was Rs.
7,030 million.
Health
The trend in the share of child-focused development expenditure on health in the federal and provincial
expenditure is decreasing for all the stakeholders. The sharp decline in the share is noticed for Sindh, which
has declined from 3.274 % in 2009-10 to 0.16 % in 2011-12.
29
Table 15: Child-Focused Health Expenditure as a %age of Development Expenditure
Health 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12

Federal 0.368 1.789 1.792
Punjab 1.276 0.696 0.211
Sindh 3.274 0.407 0.16
Balochistan 1.769 1.808 1.392
Statements 2009-10, 2010-11 and 2011-12
The trend in the share of child-focused development expenditure for Khyber Pukhtunkhwa has increased
from 1.769 % in 2009-10 to 2.708 % in 2010-11. During 2010-11, the Khyber Pukhtunkhwa development
program included projects with high allocation such as the establishment of Shaheed Mohtarma Benazir
Bhutto Children Hospital in Mardan costing Rs. 700 million. The share for 2011-12 has slightly declined as
compared to the previous year.
Figure 10: Child-focused Health expenditure as a % of Development Expenditure

3.5
2.5
1.5
0.5
0
2009-10 2010-11 2011-12
Social Welfare
The trend in the share of child-focused development expenditure in the federal, Punjab and Sindh's
development expenditure is declining for the last three years.
Figure 11: Child-focused Social Welfare expenditure as a % of Development Expenditure

0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
2009-10 2010-11 2011-12
30
30
The trend in the share of child-focused development expenditure for Balochistan at first decreased from
0.136 % in 2009-10 to 0.00 % in 2010-11. This decrease was due to the fact that no child specific allocation
was made for 2010-11. However, for 2011-12 the share of child- focused development expenditure became
0.064 %, which was primarily due to the introduction of a new scheme, “Construction of Centre for Special
Children” costing Rs.20.00 million. The trend for child-focused development expenditure was constant for
2009-10 and 2010-11 for Khyber Pakhtunkhwa but in 2011-12 the share was 0.338 %, which was higher as
compared to the previous year. The increased share for Khyber Pakhtunkhwa in 2011-12 is due to the
introduction of a new scheme, “Tanzeem Lissail-e-Mahroom” costing Rs.200.00 million.
Table 16: Child-Focused Social Welfare Expenditure as a

%age of Development Expenditure
Social Welfare 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12

Federal 0.112 0.024 0.003
Punjab 0.557 0.036 0.137
Sindh 0.168 0.152 0.06
Balochistan 0.136 0 0.064
statements 2009-10, 2010-11 and 2011-12
31
3.4 Per Child Expenditure
The following table shows the amount spent on each child in the four provinces of Pakistan. The data has
th
been segregated according to provinces because after the 18 amendment the Education budget of each
province was separated from the federal budget.
Table 17: Estimated expenditure per child in both current and

Development expenditures (in Rs.)
Child Child Child Social
Education Health Welfare
Punjab
2010-11 308.79 18.87 2.28
2011-12 0.15 27.53 2.71
Sindh
2010-11 280.37 0.67 2.29
2011-12 283.31 0.85 2.97
Khyber
Pakhtunkhwa
2010-11 114.373 1323.509 0.031
2011-12 122.048 1757.192 4.411
Balochistan
2010-11 691.54 571.75 36.93
2011-12 774.28 681.61 0.7
Source: Calculated from the provincial budget statements
Education expenditure per child dropped from Rs. 308.79 to Rs. 0.15 in Punjab, Pakistan's most populated
province. The amount spent on a child's health per year is Rs. 27.53 up from Rs. 18.87. Spending on social
welfare is Rs. 2.71, up from Rs. 2.28 per year on a child.
Education expenditure in Sindh rose from Rs. 280.37 to Rs. 283.31 last year. This is consistence but more
effort and funds still need to be pumped into the education sector. Health expenditure is Rs 0.85 up from
0.67 and social welfare is 2.97 up from 2.29.
Khyber Pakhtunkhwa's expenditure on per child’s education increased from Rs. 114.00 to Rs. 122.048. The
spending situation vis-à-vis health is also better than all other provinces, with Rs. 1757.192 spent on per child
in 2011-12. During the previous fiscal year the expenditure was Rs. 1323.509. Spending with regard to social
welfare per child has risen drastically from 0.031 to Rs.4.411 – highest amongst all provinces.
Balochistan spends Rs. 774.28 on education per child up from Rs. 691.54. Rs. 681.61 per child on health and
only Rs. 0.7 per child on social welfare down, from Rs. 36.93.
These are merely estimates of state allocated funds for a country and province. This has to be kept in mind
that per child allocation may vary within Sindh and all other provinces as there have been disparities reported
in urban and rural educational in a recent The State of World's Children 2012. A child in urban area may be
receiving more and better services in the field of health and education as compared to a rural child. If we
53
exclude children going to private schools, which are in millions , we may have better picture of per child
allocation in the field of education.
32
32
4
PAKISTAN'S PROGRESS TOWARDS
CHILD-FOCUSED MILLENNIUM
DEVELOPMENT GOALS
In 2010, the Planning Commission of Pakistan launched a report on performance of the government in
attaining five of eight MDGs by 2008-09. Table 18 shows MDGs directly connected with children's rights in
54
Pakistan and their performance in 2008-09 . The right column shows the status according to the Planning
Commission of Pakistan.
From the table, it can be seen that out of the fourteen indicators, only one indicator shows Pakistan's
progress to be 'ahead', one is on track, and the remaining are lagging. It should be pointed out here that each
indicator has its own weight in terms of analysis, thus just the counts may not be enough. On the whole, the
table below reflects an overall lack of progress in Pakistan with regard to children rights.
Table 18: Child Focused Millennium Development Goals: Pakistan's Progress

Goal Target Indicators for Monitoring Status in
Progress 2008-09
MDG 1: 1. Halve, between 1990  Proportion of population below Lagging
Eradicate and 2015, the proportion the calorie based food plus non (worsened
extreme of people below the food poverty line* since
Poverty and poverty line 2006)
hunger 2. Halve, between 1990  Prevalence of underweight Lagging
and 2015, the proportion children under five years of age (worsened
of people who suffer since
from hunger 2006)
 Proportion of population below Lagging
minimum level of dietary energy (worsened
consumption since
2006)
MDG 2: 3. Ensure that by 2015  Net primary enrolment ratio Lagging
Achieve children everywhere,  Completion/survival rate: grades 1- Lagging
universal boys and girls alike, will 5
primary be able to complete a  Literacy rate (%) Lagging
education full course of primary
schooling
MDG 3: 4. Eliminate Gender  Gender Parity Index (GPI) for Slow
Promote disparity in primary and primary and secondary education
gender secondary education,
equality and preferably by 2005, and
women's to all levels of education
no later then 2015
empowerment
MDG 4: 5. Reduce by two -thirds,  Under five mortality rate Lagging

Reduce child between 1990 and 2015,  Infant mortality rate Off track
mortality the under-five mortality  Proportion of fully immunized Lagging
rate children 12-23 months
 Proportion of one-year-old On track
children immunized against
measles
 Proportion of children under 5 Ahead
who suffered from diarrhea in the
last 30 days
 Lady health workers coverage of On track
target population
MDG-5: 6a. Re duce by three  Maternal mortality ratio (MMR) Lagging
Improve quarters, between 1990  Proportion of births attended by Lagging
maternal and 2015, the maternal skilled birth attendants
health mortality ratio
Source: 'Pakistan Millennium Development Goals Report 2010, Planning Commission, Government
of Pakistan, September 2010. *Based on data available till 2005-06
33
5
CONCLUSIVE ANALYSIS
Overall, the picture of budgetary allocations for health, education and social welfare do not look satisfactory.
The right to health and access to health facilities and services is fundamental right of every citizen of
57
Pakistan, as is the right to education . But without sufficient funding, it is impractical to ensure
implementation of these rights in Pakistan.
There are some studies mostly in European countries that have been calculating per child budget allocations
for early childhood education and care. There are also some scattered analyses in underdeveloped countries
about child-focused budget analysis but none of these offer any standard yardstick for minimum allocation
of budget for child health, education and social welfare.
As there are no international standards for per child expenditure on health, education and social welfare, nor
the Committee on the Rights of the Child has fixed any minimum allocation of GNP or GDP for child
focused health, education and social protection. However, there are demands by civil society and the
Committee on the Rights of the Child to allocate maximum of the country's GDP or GNP towards health
and education; but they have shown some serious concerns over the extremely low budgetary allocations.
Such demands vary from country to country, but in order to ensure that Pakistan lives up to its obligations to
providing adequate health, education and social welfare for children, it is imperative that the Committee and
civil society continue to put pressure on Pakistan.
In the 2010-11 annual budget, a large portion of health budget was diverted to relief and rehabilitation
activities for flood affected people, which suggests that Pakistan is ready to compromise on health but not on
any other non-productive area of the economy. More serious is that Pakistan's budget spending on defence
and the war on terror as well as subsidies and grants to dead or underperforming government entities is
considerably higher.
According to the Government of Pakistan, the floods in 2010, which devastated the economy of the
country, has also badly affected “achievement of many of the MDG targets, which in the current scenario
55
remains an ambitious target to achieve” . This statement reveals the seriousness of Pakistan to pursue the
goals.
In the 2010-11 budget, the government reduced health expenditures by up to Rs. 42 billion whereas in 2009-
10 it had allocated Rs. 79 billion. It decreased the budget to meet relief and rehabilitation needs of people
affected of massive floods in 2010. In 2011-12, the total health expenditures were Rs55.12 billion which
56
shows the health budget increased but did not come to the same level as was in 2009-10 .
Table 19 categorically indicates that Pakistan is not complying the United Nations Committee on the Rights
of the Child's recommendations. Committee in it Concluding Observations and Recommendations in 2009
against Pakistan's periodic report, the Committee recommended Pakistan to raise allocations to education
and health to 5 and 16 % respectively of GDP by 2010. Unfortunately in both areas (health and education)
the government rather increasing the allocations has decreased. Therefore, Pakistan's health and education
related goals for the Millennium Development Goals seems impossible to reach by 2015 and the Committee
on the Rights of the Child will likely have to re-assert in its next Concluding Observations and
Recommendations that Pakistan is not complying with the Committee's recommendations.
The Economic Survey of Pakistan 2011-12 also suggests to increase immense resources for meeting health
related MDGs (4, 5 and 6).
34
Table 19: Year wise health and education expenditure as % of GDP
Year Health Expenditure as % of GDP Education Expenditure as % of GDP

2007-08
2007-08 0.57 2.5
2008-09
2008-09 0.56 n/a
2009-10 0.54 n/a
2010-11
2010-11 0.23 1.9
2011-12 0.27 n/a
Source: Health details given in Economic Survey 2011-12, Government of Pakistan and
Education details given in Sustainable Policy Economic Bulletin June 2012-SDPI
There are reasons for hope. Recently, the provinces have been given autonomy for health, education and
social welfare sectors and also extra funds have been provided under a new formula for the NFC award.
However, it is responsibility of the civil society to lobby for the allocation of more budgets on child focused
areas. They have to keep reminding to the State departments on regular basis.
35
6
ANNEXURE
Annex 1: Concurrent Legislative List (to 2010)
1. Criminal law, including all matters included in the Pakistan Penal Code on the commencing day, but
excluding offences against laws with respect to any of the matters specified in the Federal Legislative
List and excluding the use of naval, military and air forces in aid of civil power.
2. Criminal procedure, including all matters included in the Code of Criminal Procedure, on the
commencing day.
3. Civil procedure, including the law of limitation and all matters included in the Code of Civil
Procedure on the commencing day, the recovery in a Province or the Federal Capital of claims in
respect of taxes and other public demands, including arrears of land revenue and sums recoverable
as such, arising outside that Province.
4. Evidence and oath; recognition of laws, public acts and records of judicial proceedings.
5. Marriage and divorce; infants and minors; adoption.
6. Wills, intestacy and succession, save as regards agricultural land.
7. Bankruptcy and insolvency, administrators- general and official trustees.
8. Arbitration.
9. Contracts, including partnership, agency, contracts of carriage, and other special forms of
contracts, but not including contracts relating to agricultural land.
10. Trusts and trustees.
11. Transfer of property other than agriculture land, registration of deeds and documents.
12. Actionable wrongs, save in so far as included in laws with respect to any of the matters specified in
the Federal Legislative List.
13. Removal of prisoners and accused persons from one Province to another Province.
14. Preventive detention for reasons connected with the maintenance of public order, or the
maintenance of supplies and services essential to the community; persons subjected to such
detention.
15. Persons subjected to preventive detention under Federal authority.
16. Measures to combat certain offences committed in connection with matters concerning the Federal
and Provincial Governments and the establishment of a police force for that purpose.
17. Arms, firearms and ammunition.
18. Explosives.
19. Opium, so far as regards cultivation and manufacture.
20. Drugs and medicines.
21. Poisons and dangerous drugs.
22. Prevention of the extension from one Province to another of infectious or contagious diseases or
pests affecting men, animals or plants.
23. Mental illness and mental retardation, including places for the reception or treatment of the
mentally ill and mentally retarded.
24. Environmental pollution and ecology.
25. Population planning and social welfare.
26. Welfare of labor; conditions of labor, provident funds; employer's liability and workmen's
compensation, health insurance including invalidity pensions, old age pensions.
27. Trade unions; industrial and labor disputes.
28. The setting up and carrying on of labor exchanges, employment information bureaus and training
establishments.
9 37
29. Boilers.
30. Regulation of labor and safety in mines, factories and oil- fields.
31. Unemployment insurance.
32. Shipping and navigation on inland waterways as regards mechanically propelled vessels, and the rule
of the road on such waterways; carriage of passengers and goods on inland waterways.
33. Mechanically propelled vehicles.
34. Electricity.
35. Newspapers, books and printing presses.
36. Evacuee property.
37. Ancient and historical monuments, archaeological sites and remains.
38. Curriculum, syllabus, planning, policy, centres of excellence and standards of education.
39. Islamic education.
40. Zakat.
41. Production, censorship and exhibition of cinematograph films.
42. Tourism.
43. Legal medical and other professions.
43A. Auqaf.
44. Fees in respect of any of the matters in this List, but not including fees taken in any court.
45. Inquiries and statistics for the purpose of any of the matters in this List.
46. Offences against laws with respect to any of the matters in this List; jurisdiction and powers of all
courts except the Supreme Court, with respect to any of the matters in this List.
47. Matters incidental or ancillary to any matter enumerated in this List.
38
END NOTES
1 The United Nations, the Committee on the Rights of the Child (2009), Concluding
Observations and Recommendation; last retrieved on May 25, 2012 at
http://www.crin.org/docs/CRC-C-PAK-CO4.pdf
2 United Nations Development Programme (2011), Human Development Report 2011-
Sustainability and Equity: A Better Future for All; New York, USA; page 126
3 Annual Budget Statement 2011-12, Federal Budget, Finance Division, Government of
Pakistan. Islamabad
4 This implies that both governments do not have specific heading of children budget or
child focused budget but for this study, different spending/expenditures have been
calculated that are addressing children specific needs such construction of primary school,
library or laboratory in the school, and basic health unit.
5 United Nations Children's Fund; Pakistan- Statistics; last retrieved on 21 May 2012 at
http://www.unicef.org/infobycountry/pakistan_pakistan_statistics.html#91
6 United Nations Children's Funds; Pakistan- Overview; last retrieved on 21 May 2012 at
http://www.unicef.org/pakistan/overview.html
7 International Labour Organizations (2011), UNICEF and ILO call for end to hazardous
and exploitative child labour on World Day Against Child Labour; Press Release 11 June
2011, Country Office Islamabad; last retrieved on May 30, 2011 at
http://www.ilo.org/islamabad/info/public/pr/WCMS_157808/lang--en/index.htm
8 Ali, M. & Qayyum, M. (2011), Child Labour Day: Number of child labourers in the
c o u n t r y t o p s 1 0 m ; T h e E x p r e s s Tr i b u n e ; Ju n e 1 2 , 2 0 1 1 a t
http://tribune.com.pk/story/187149/child-labour-day-number-of-child-labourers-in-
the-country-tops-10m/
2011, Country Office Islamabad; last retrieved on May 30, 2011 at
10 Imran, M. (2011), Complete ban on child domestic labour demanded; The News
International, 30 October 2011. Islamabad
11 Khoso, Abdullah. (2011). Chapter Child Labour; in The State of Pakistan's Children
2011, SPARC, Islamabad
12 Article 25-A of the Constitution of Pakistan
13 United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (2011), Out-of-
school children: New Data Reveal; UIS Fact sheet, June 2011, No 12 at
www.uis.unesco.org/FactSheets/.../FS12_2011_OOSC_EN.pdf
14 United Nations Children's Fund (2012), The State of World's Children: Children in an
Urban Word; USA. p.7
15 The Ministry of Finance, Government of Pakistan; Education Chapter 10, in The
Pakistan Economic Survey; Islamabad
39
2011, Countr y Office Islamabad; last retrieved on May 30, 2011 at
17 Pakistan Bureau of Statistics, Government of Pakistan; Accessed on January 2011 at
www.pbs.gov.pk/sites/default/files/.../lfs2008_09/t04.pdf.
18 United Nations Children's Fund (2012), The State of World's Children: Children in an
Urban Word; USA.
19 Save the Children (2012), Nutrition in the First 1,000 Days: State of the World's Mothers
2012; Johnson & Johnson, Mattel, Inc and Brookstone.
20 In order to understand budgeting at national and provincial levels, please review report
on Provincial Budget Analysis & Budget Conference in Pakistan by Participatory
Development Initiatives (PDI) and ActionAid Pakistan at Economic Literacy and Budget
Accountability for Governance (ELBAG): http://www.elbag.org/main/ and
http://www.pdi.org.pk/reports/Working%20Paper,%20Economic%20Litracy%20and
%20Budget%20Analyses%20Group%20Pa.pdf ; also Education Budget Analysis: Five
Districts of Southern Punjab by Institute of Social Policy Science and Oxfam (2010).
21 The Open Budget Survey evaluates the extent to which national or central governments
provide the public with timely and comprehensive access to eight key budget documents
required by international good practices. See http://internationalbudget.org/what-we-
do/open-budget-survey/
Observations and Recommendations; last retrieved on May 25, 2012 at
Observations and Recommendation; last retrieved on May 25, 2012 at
24 United Nations, Committee on the Rights of the Child (2009), Consideration of Reports
Submitted by States Parties Under Article 44 of the Convention- Third and Fourth Periodic
Reports; CRC/C/PAK/3-4' Paragraph 487
25 Pakistani Org: http://www.pakistani.org/pakistan/constitution/part2.ch1.html
28 Save the Children and HAQ Centre for Child Rights, 2010. 'Budget for Children
Analysis: A Beginners Guide'. Save the Children Sweden.
29 Committee on the Rights of the Child. 46th Session. Day of General Discussion on
“Resources for the Rights of the Child Responsibility of States, Recommendations, 21
September 2007.
30 Thukral, E. G. & Shastri, P. (2010), Budgeting for Children Analysis: A Beginners' Guide;
Save the Children and Center for Child Rights; Kathmandu, Nepal.
31 Annual Budget Statement 2011-12, Federal Budget, Finance Division, Government of
40
Pakistan. Islamabad
32 Taha, R. et. al. (2011), The Effect of Economic Growth on Taxation Revenue: The case
of a Newly Industrialized Country; in International Review of Business Research Papers;
Volume 7, No. 1, January 2011; pp 319 329.
33 Those schemes and programmes are: National Maternal Newborn Child Health
Programme, KPK Basic Education, Balochistan Education Support Programme
34 Current expenditures are basically salaries and non-salaries. Non-salary expenditures
include utility bills, stationary, rent, administrative cost, raw material cost, repair and
maintenance. Development expenditures include construction of new buildings and
structures (such as roads, building, dispensaries, basic health units), purchase of
equipments, implementation of food, health, social welfare programs and projects, etc.
Esentially, current expenditures are recurring operational costs involved in maintaining
government services and the latter are expenditures needed from time to time to establish
new facilities or new administrative functions.
35 Emergency Relief, President Rozgar Scheme, Competition Commission of Pakistan,
Banks in FWBL, ICMAP, Grants to Bait-ul-Mal, Pakistan Remittence initiatives, NBP,
Remission of ZTBL loans, HBFCL, National Internship Program (NIP), Sale of Wheat to
FATA, Sale of Wheat in GB, Sale of salt in GB, Passco, Fauji Fertilizer Bin Qasim Ltd
36 Government of Pakistan (2011), Annual Budget Statement 2011-12, Federal Budget,
Finance Division,. Islamabad (Chapter 7)
37 Harrison, M (1996) Accounting for War: Soviet Production, Employment, and the
Defence Burden 1940-1945; Cambridge University Press; last retrieved on May 31, 2012
from google.com.pk/books
38 Economic Advisor's Wing, Finance Division, Government of Pakistan (2008), Poverty
Reduction Strategy Paper-II: Chapter 1- Introduction: Challenges, Opportunities and
Strategy; Islamabad, pp. 6.
39 Ministry of Finance (2011), Special Section- Cost of War on Terror for Pakistan
Economy; in Economic Survey 2010-11; Islamabad, page 220.
40 Save the Children (2012), Save the Children in Pakistan; last retrieved on 31st May 2012
at http://www.savethechildren.org/site/c.8rKLIXMGIpI4E/b.6150547/
41 Ministry of Finance (2011), Special Section- Cost of War on Terror for Pakistan
Economy; in Economic Survey 2010-11; Islamabad, page 219.
42 Tellis, A. J. (2008), Pakistan and the War on Terror: Conflict Goals, Compromised
Performance; Carnegie Endowment for International Peace; pp. 1; last retrieved on May
31, 2012 at http://www.carnegieendowment.org/files/tellis_pakistan_final.pdf
43 Shaw, J.T. (2012), Richard G. Lugar, Statesman of the Senate: Crafting Foreign Policy
from Capitol Hill; Indiana University Press, USA; pp. 132. Last Accessed on June 4, 2012 at
http://books.google.com.pk/books
44 Javaid, U. (2011), War on terror: Pakistan's apprehensions; in African Journal of Political
Science and International Relations Vol. 5(3), pp. 125-131, March 2011, pp.127
45 Ministry of Finance, Government of Pakistan, Cost of War on Terror for Pakistan
41
Economy in Economic Survey of Pakistan 2010-11; last retrieved on May 29, 2012 at
http://www.finance.gov.pk/survey/chapter_11/Special%20Section_1.pdf
46 World Development Indicator and Global Development Finance (n.p).World Data
Bank, World Bank. Development Finance.
http://databank.worldbank.org/ddp/home.do?CNO=2&Step=12&id=4
47 Ministry of Finance, the Government of Pakistan (2012), Chapter 4: Provincial Share in
Federal Revenue Receipts; in the Annual Budget Statement 2012-13; page 16.
48 Sania Nishtar (2011). 'Health and the 18th Amendment: Retaining national functions in
devolution'. Www.heartfile.org/pdf/HEALTH_18AM_FINAL.pdf
49 Comprised of income, wealth, capital, export and customs duties, sales, excise and other
federal taxes.
50 Ministry of Finance, Government of Pakistan (2012), 'Federal Budget 2012-2013:
Budget in Brief', p. 16.
51 Exact population figures are not provided. Pakistan has not had an official census since
1998.
52 Ministry of Finance, Government of Pakistan (2012), 'Federal Budget 2012-2013:
Budget in Brief', p. 16.
53 According to Ministry of Education, Government of Pakistan, in 2004, there was 42 %
of the total enrolment in private primary schools (please see The State of Education in
Pakistan 2003-04; page, 28).
54 The other 5 goals are for 6. Combat HIV/Aids; 7. Environmental Sustainability; and 8.
Global Partnerships
55 Government of Pakistan (2011), Economic Survey of Pakistan 2010-11- Health
Chapter 11, pp 147
56 Government of Pakistan (2011), Economic Survey of Pakistan 2011-12, Health and
Nutrition Chapter 11 , pp 152, 153
57 Article 25-A of the Constitution of Pakistan
42
Save the Children is World's leading independent organization for children
that envisions a world in which every child attains the right to survival,
protection, development and participation. Working in 120 countries of the
World, Save the Children focuses on the poorest and marginalized children.
There are 30 members of Save the Children around the world, all working
together to inspire breakthroughs in the way the world treats children and
achieving real and lasting change in their lives.
In Pakistan, Save the Children operates with dual mandate i.e. it is one of the
leading child rights organizations with long term development programs and
also responds to emergencies affecting children through a country-wide
humanitarian response program. Save the Children has been working in
Pakistan since 1979, when it first implemented its program for Afghan
refugees. Today, we are successfully implementing Child Protection, Child
Rights Governance, Education & Child Development, Emergencies, Food
Security & Livelihoods and Health & nutrition programs in more than 60
districts of Pakistan, Seven Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA), Six
Frontier Regions (FRs) and Azad Jammu and Kashmir.
www.savethechildren.org

Budget Analysis Report Crs 2011-12-5

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Budget Analysis Report Crs 2011-12-5

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Federal and Provincial

Copyright: 2012 Save the Children

2. Federal Budget Analysis and Situation in South Asia 15

3. NFC awards and Provincial Allocations 23

4. Pakistan's Progress Towards Child-Focused Millennium Development Goals 33

AJK Azad Jammu Kashmir

Children under the age of 18 comprise more than 48 % of

Moreover, the trend in the share of child-focused development expenditure on

Even before calculations of child-focused expenditure, Pakistan's spending on health, education

Total primary, middle and secondary/high schools and

Budgets have economic, political and technical aspects. Unlike a pure

Table 2: Tax and non-tax Revenue Receipts

Revenue Receipts of three years (Rs. in million)

568,898 556,526 657,968

2009-2010 (revised) 2010-11 (revised) 2011-12 (estimated)

2.2 Total External Receipts

Loans Grants Total External Receipts

2009-2010 (revised) 2010-2011 (revised) 2011-2012 (estimated)

Source: Estimates of Foreign Assistance: Federal Budget 2012-13, Govt. of Pakistan

Allocation of foreign assistance on child focused programmes and

Child Focused foreign assistance Total Foreign Assistance

Source: Estimates of Foreign Assistance: Federal Budget 2012-13, Govt. of Pakistan

2.3 Total Expenditure

Table 1: Total Expenditure, 2009-2012 (Rs. in million)

Source: Annual Budget Statements: 2009 to 2012, Government of Pakistan

Social Protection, Education, Health in comparison

Total Expenditure (budget)

Source: Annual Budget Statement 2009 to 2012

% of current health, education, social Protection, defence expenditure and

2009-10 (revised) 2010-11 (revised) 2011-12 (estimated) 16.97

2.56 2.46 2.37

Source: Annual Budget Statements 2009 to 12: Government of Pakistan

Sector 2010-11 in % 2011-12 in %

2.6 Subsidies and Grants, Investment and Equity

Table 3: Child Focused Expenditure as a % of Total Expenditure

Source: Calculated from the Annual Budget Statement 2011-12

Table 4: Subsidies and Grants (Rs. in Millions)

Source: Annual Budget Statement 2011-12, Government of Pakistan

Figure 3: Percentage of GNP

Child focused expenditure compared to subsidies,

Source: Annual Budget Documents 2011-12

2.7 Cost of War on Terror

Figure 4: Cost of War

Total Cost of War 67.9

Source: Finance Division, Government of Pakistan. Islamabad

Table 5: Pakistan Paying for the Cost of War

Table 6: Major Budget Allocations Among Six Countries of South Asia

Source: World Bank, World Data Bank (2008-10)

Figure 5: Major Budget Spending in South Asia

Major budget spending in South Asia

Education Military Health Subsidy

Pakistan India Bangladesh Nepal Bhutan Sri Lanka

Tax Revenue Expense as a

Table 8: Indicators for the Allocation of Funding to the Provincial Governments

Source: Government of Pakistan, Annual Budget Statement 2011-12

Table 9: Estimated Allocation of Funding to the Province, 2011-2013

2011-2012 2012-2013 (est.)

3.1 Provincial Analysis of Child Focused Budgets

Figure 6: Child-Focused Education Spending as % of Current Expenditure

Federal Punjab Sindh KPK Balochistan

Table 10: Child-Focused Education Spending as % of Current Expenditure

Education 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12

Figure 7: Child-Focused Health Spending as a %age of Current Expenditure

Federal Punjab Sindh KPK Balochistan