Gender Unfriendly Macro-Economic Environment

Tanzania is currently implementing a Structural Adjustment Programme (SAP) which provides the macro-economic environment within which macro policies and plans are designed, budget frames are spelt out and budget ceilings and guidelines are provided. The macro level is the level, which has the power of making things happen. It is at this level where decisions for the entire nation are made and where the international events and forces are mediated for the nation. The decisions taken by macro level decision makers finally influence and impact the capacity of the country to access international resources, and also influence the pattern of resource allocation and distribution internally. The decisions as to how much is to go to debt servicing versus health and education, how much should go to military expenditure versus health, how much is to be spent in sending a few patients abroad at the expense of resource allocation for maternal and child health care are made at this level with no or with very little consultation with the major stakeholders.

The macro-economic context, within which the budgeting process is being done, is not conducive to gender equity policies. SAPs demand creation of a macro-economic context that will promote efficient functioning of free market. This has entailed less government involvement in the management of the economy including provision of social services. It has also entailed, allowing competitive market forces to determine demand and supply of such services, with no moral obligation for gender equity policies. Hence, while equity policies have remained on paper, the philosophy guiding planning and budgeting is free market doctrine, which promotes competition rather than equity. The market is not obliged to effect equity policies.

The Budgeting Process is Undemocratic and Male Dominated:

The budgeting process in Tanzania is a top down model that is also male dominated. This is well articulated in chapter two, which discusses the macro economic context. In all the key decision making organs, including the parliament, the cabinet, the Inter-Ministerial Technical Committee, the Central level Budget Committee, as well as sector level budget committees, are essentially controlled by men and decision making is top down. The center defines priorities, provides guidelines, and budget ceilings which cannot be altered by the bottom level or sector level organs. This limits the extent at which gender equity policies can be effected by sectors if gender equity is not identified by the center as being a priority area.

Resource Constraints:

The move to liberalize the economy has entailed limiting the role of state in managing the economy including provision of welfare related services such as education and health. Part of austerity measures being implemented under SAPs has been translated into budget cuts in all the sectors including social services. Budget cuts have negatively affected both the quantity and quality of the services. The government budget is very small and in all sectors, the lion’s share of the budget goes to salaries and other personal emoluments. Given the fact that men occupy top-level positions in all organs of the state, it follows that the government budget is essentially benefiting the few men who also control the decision-making processes.

The Global Context:

Additionally, global changes and particularly the defeat of communism as an alternative social system, has lead to changes in global flow of resources away from ‘altruistic’ type of project to investment oriented activities. The concept of ‘partnership’ that is being propagated by development agencies has literally meant moving away from traditional aid relationships to trade and commerce so that the relationship benefits both players. Some of the sectors that traditionally benefited from "aid" such as education and health are bound to be affected by these global changes. Both education and health are sectors that have direct benefit to women as illustrated in the two sector reports.

Leakage and Corruption:

A top down model of budgeting provides loopholes that facilitate corruption and leakage. Public office bearers are able to get away with leakage and corruption without being held accountable. The government in Tanzania, for instance, has ignored the Warioba Report that identifies sources of leakage, identifies individuals and institutions responsible for corruption and suggests measures to prevent corruption. Similarly, the Controller and Auditor General Report and Queries are not answered. As discussed in chapter three of this report, the government has decided to ignore the Controller and Auditor General’s queries and the public remain silent, even where millions of money is involved. A case involving US$60,000 is yet to be accounted for. If corruption is to be minimised, and if public office bearers are to be held accountable for their deeds, funds saved could make a difference in resource allocation and distribution.