An analysis of governance in budget approval by the Parliament of Thailand

Abstract

This research examines the budget approval by the parliament of Thailand in fiscal year 20032006 and 2009. The purpose of this dissertation is first, to study the details of the budget approval process by the parliament of Thailand; second, to study governance in budget approval; third, to investigate the factors influencing governance in budget approval; finally, to provide recommendations on the process of budget approval. In order to accomplish these purposes, the dissertation encompasses the following: a review of the concept of governance in budget approval and relevant theories on the factors affecting the parliament’s budget approval; an examination of the budget approval in Thailand; and identification of the governance level and factors affecting governance in budget approval. An extensive review of the literature yielded four areas of governance in budget approval; namely, the rule of law, allocative efficiency, transparency, and responsibility. The theoretical framework and empirical research applied in this dissertation unveiled four groups of factors that would affect governance in budget approval, composing the institutionalrelated factor, the individual factor, the information factor, and participant mechanisms. In this dissertation, the quantiative approach provides the dominant paradigm and the qualitative approach is a supplemenetary component. The census sampling method was used. The samples are the parliamentarians that worked for the Budget Scrutiny Committee in fiscal years 20032006 and 2009. The total number of samples was 196. Data collection using questionnaires was carried out from July to September 2009. The research results indicate that governance in budget approval by the parliament of Thailand is limited to a relatively moderat score level. With respect to the findings, the score level of the rule of law and responsibility was high. Particular consern involved allocative efficiency and tranasparency, as the level scores exhibited a moderate scorelevel. The results of this research also reveal limitations in almost all of the proposed determinant factors. The findings showed that only the individual factor of knowledge and understanding attained a high score level in supporting the task of budget approval. For the independent variables of institutionalrelated factors and information factor, a moderate score level was unveiled; and a low level of participant mechanisms was detected. Upon multiple regression testing between determinant factors and governance, the findings indicate that the institutional factor of constitutional provision , the MPs’ knowledge and understanding, budget documents, and completeness information have positive relationships with the subscale governance. Interestingly, negative relationships between variables were also exhibited. According to the statistical findings, the institutional factors of supporting staff, knowledge and understanding, and participation of the Budget Scrutiny Committee also have negative influences on the sub-scale governance. Regarding the research results, the statistical findings are supported by data obtained by means of indepth interviews. The information collected from these interviews and documenet analyses can best explain the statistical findings. Although the statistical results contradicted the hypothesis, the findings are sustained since they are supported by the qualitative results. The findings from this study suggest that a key challenge in the reform of governance of the budget resides in the ability to create effeciant reforms in an effort to enhance accountability in public finance management. Governance reform within the legislative branch should be stressed by reform initiatives so as to improve the legislature’s budgetapproval process The findings from the study can be utilized by policy makers to formulate agendas and development plans in order to improve the constitutional framework, the setting structure of the Budget Scrutiny Committee, the independent budget analysis and supporting staff, information provision, and the MPs’ knowledge and expertise, thereby enhancing the level of governance in budget approval.