The social protection budget
Towards a Mozambican Social Protection Floor
17
These allocations are still extremely low given the extent of the coverage gaps. Once again, and looking at the problem of fragmentation, it is also advisable for the Government
to look carefully at expenditures that despite being social protection are implemented by other institutions, particularly those that have very limited coverage in terms of the number
of beneficiaries, and reduced impact. A strategy of concentration in some priority programmes could increase effectiveness and efficiency in the system as a whole.
Table 2.4 provides some further insights into MMAS and INAS institutional spending, besides the programme costs. It clearly points to the fact that recurrent and
investment costs have higher than programme costs in some years. The positive fact is that this relationship is changing: MMAS and INAS running and investment costs have moved
from 139 per cent of the transfers in 2008 to 53 per cent in 2012. Most of the efficiency savings, however, seem to have come from MMAS rather than INAS. Without entering
into an analysis of the quality and reasons for this expenditure, one must conclude that the high share of fixed and variable administrative costs is one challenge that needs to be
addressed by the sector, while acknowledging that further capital investment and capacity building will be required to face the challenges posed by the implementation of new and
larger programmes.
Table 2.4. MMAS and INAS institutional spending, executed budget 2008
–12 MT millions
2008 2009
2010 2011
2012
MMAS 455
428 327
370 298
INAS 81
126 180
139 287
Total 536
554 507
509 585
Ratio total institutional costs MMAS + INAS INAS programme costs
139 114
72 71
53 Ratio INAS institutional costs programme costs
21 26
26 19
26 Total institutional + programme costs as a of GDP
0.22 0.21
0.16 0.14
0.14
Note: Within the State Budget the transfers from donors are presented as external investment. To avoid double counting, the authors subtracted the amounts from donors that were channelled to transfers.
Sources: OE and CGE 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012; INAS reports.