TheJournal.ie uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Click here to find out more »
Dublin: 12 °C Saturday 25 May, 2013

Column: We need a whole new type of Budget for Ireland. Here’s how to do it.

It is ridiculous to plan an incredibly complex €50 billion budget in less than six months – but there is an alternative, writes Aaron McKenna.

Aaron McKenna

IT’S ONLY LATE June and already the fratricidal warfare that is the Irish budgeting process has begun. It will be December before we have the budget for 2013, but the arguing, briefing and back biting will only intensify over the silly season that is the summer break.

All this week we’ve been hearing back and forth about the Croke Park Agreement, income taxes and stealth measures to come. We can be sure as night follows day that social welfare, education, health and a million and one special little projects will come under the glare of attention in the coming weeks and months.

Our government is constrained by ridiculous election promises that led everyone with half a vote to be promised protection from austerity. Labour won’t cut spending and Fine Gael won’t raise taxes, yet we’ll still bridge the €20 billion a year gap no problem. We know what size of an envelope we have to fit our budget into, but the horse trading continues right up to budget day and, in the case of the SNAFU’s like cuts to disabled children that make it through, onto Joe Duffy.

Six months of political argument may seem like an interminably long time to listen to our ruling classes showing themselves up as halfwits, but I would argue that it is actually more ridiculous to plan a €50 billion budget, in all its thousands of complex individual parts, in six months or less (counting for last minute wrangling).

The budgeting process is a long and complex one, building up from individual organisations and programs to departmental budgets and woven into macroeconomic mathematics. The government eats up half the oxygen in the economy to add to the importance of the process. It is not, in short summary, something that should be handled like a day at the Smithfield horse fair.

One can only feel sorry then for the professional managers trying to build forecasts, organisational development and ultimately define goals for the money they spend; only to have some politician who has hardly had a real job in their life beyond minding their constituency get onto the Six One news and upend the apple cart in public after the private wrangling didn’t lead to a result they were satisfied with.

Projects and initiatives that have real value when run over several years can end up being cut out because numbers had to be made up to preserve whatever other program happens to be flavour of the month. There is no holistic approach in the sharp elbows school of management.

The uncertainty over the annual Budget doesn’t help anyone

It must be difficult too to live in a world of political fictions while trying to define very mathematical models that make up a budget. The HSE is predicting (almost predictably) a €500 million overspend this year. Part of this is because the same high quality individuals who couldn’t run the organisation well last year and the year before are still running it today, and dropping the ball on projects like a €150m drug price reduction scheme. But a bigger part of their overspend will come because, just like last year and the year before, the service plans presented to hospitals are a convenient fiction to fit a political narrative. When too many sick people show up looking for medical care, the fiction – and the budget – is blown.

Public service management aren’t the only people suffering uncertainty around budget time. The government keeps assuring us that there will be no tax increases levied on people in the next budget. The IMF in its reviews keeps on suggesting quite strongly that we will need more taxes on income. One doesn’t need to wonder for long who will win the argument in the end. The back and forth from the government for months on end has people wound up about what they have in their pockets that we can spend. Similarly there is no clarity on what new taxes we can expect on our homes, our water, or anything else.

This feeds from consumers into businesses that are suffering today as retail sales continue to fall, and that will suffer tomorrow as entrepreneurs cannot reliably predict what the business environment will be in 6, 12 or 24 months.

How things could be different

What we need is a detailed multi-year budget that our government commits to at the beginning of its term. Not a high level document explaining what we expect the total tax and spend to be, but a line by line explanation of how much will be spent on this quango and that school, and how much we will be taxed for what.

This is a pretty complex undertaking. Not only do you have to budget for multiple years, taking account for demographic and economic conditions, but you would have to present several scenarios for different growth conditions within the country.

This would be complex and require a new and enlarged budgeting infrastructure within our government. I would view this as an improvement from the existing, slightly ad-hoc approach we have. It would force the government to think through its plans at a high level, asking not what programs we will save today but where we want to be in five years time. If we say “Top five in IT education in the world,” it’s easier to work backwards and harder to chop our IT universities in half to make up the numbers one year.

The biggest boon would be the clarity it would provide. We would know what will be coming out of our pockets to within a few euros depending on growth in the economy; and the government and public service could focus on delivery rather than constant turf wars.

The government knows how many billion euros it will have to take in and spend in 2015. Why not make the decision today on what it will spend, bar the reason that it would be difficult?

Aaron McKenna is a businessman and a columnist for TheJournal.ie. You can find out more about him at aaronmckenna.com or follow him on Twitter @aaronmckenna.

Read: More columns from Aaron McKenna on TheJournal.ie >

Read next:

Comments (18 Comments)

  • I’ve always said that the Governments accounts should be available for the public, to see exactly where our money is going. I think at least, this will give the public a better understanding of how much, or how little is being spent in a particular area.

    Reply
  • They can’t budget accurately for 1 year so the solution is 5 yr accurate budgets? If only it was that easy. Too many variables I would think. Oil prices rise suddenly due to middle east tension. Consumer demand in china drops lowering commodity prices. Countries and companies go bankrupt, this has always been the way.

    Reply
  • We need all whole new bunch of politicians who dont have any past debt and favour to do for anyone…

    Reply
  • Neil 30/06/12 #

    While this all sounds ideal, I would question the practicality of it. Long range forecasting and budgets are never accurate. Given the ERSI are regular changing short term growth forecasts how can the government be expected to prepare long range plans?nnIt could also be counter intuitive especially if shared with the general public. Leaks of changes to VAT rates for example could lead to stall or rush on purchasing which only serve to skew figures.nnI agree that earlier planning of the 12 month budget is necessary but it’s a moving target dependent on government tax returns and expenditure levels each quarter.nnPerhaps a more prudent long term method is to view capital investments as long term projects calculating annual return over a 1 to 5 year basis, although I’d say that’s already being done.

    Reply
  • thankfully under new EU legislation we are changing our budget process. from next year on it will be an transparent and inclusive process, same like most EU states. also the EU itself uses a open process to determine its multi annual budget framework

    Reply
  • Gerard 30/06/12 #

    good idea Aaron .however asking that of our great leaders is like asking a 6year old to sit university exams. when will we get real adult politicians ??

    Reply
  • Crystal Balls Aaron. If only they functioned like we wished they would, economists, stock marketers and speculators, business persons ad inf. would never have egg on their face.

    A government budget is a set of strategies that rely on assumptions. Assumption is known to be the mother of all ‘screw ups’ and thus an abandonment of agile responses when assumptions turn out to be false would be the work of a fool.

    Reply
  • Forecasts will be forecasts and as any businessman knows trying to make a best guess in to a ‘science’ has the nagging ability to turn into a gaff . . . Hence the world of the stock and bond markets, simply a bookie office for the suits because the variables are so fluid. Road maps, forecasts and budgets call them what you like, often need bigger contingencies than is often imagined; trouble is when the monies not there and the half wits we have at the helm pay themselves some of the the highest salaries in senior grades, they are too busy worrying about their own cash to bother about how our’s is been spent. Get control back of spending at the top and we may find our budgets working out a lot better for those on the ground who provide the service.

    Reply
  • The amount of times the word ‘complex’ appeared in this column totally distracted me. Semantic satiation eat your heart out! (thanks buzz feed for that one).

    Reply
  • mel 30/06/12 #

    Makes sense but it will never happen
    If the government had to lay its dirty laundry out in public like that then what would they have to lie about

    Reply
  • Miles, human behaviour *can* be mathematically modelled to a point, however, this is an emerging and immature field (popularly referred to as behavioural economics) and of mixed accuracy. A model should never be misunderstood for reality, but the process of making assumptions explicit and finding ways to test and compute them is a more useful approach than not doing so. Some models financial and behavioural are far more useful than others.

    A related challenge is known as the “Dunning-Kruger effect” whereby people struggle to appraise their own competency, and incorrectly assume they are competent in areas they do not measure. Thats why “Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds” by Charles McKay is required reading at leading business schools.

    At least we now have the technology to organise data better, test who’s financial / behavioural models are worth relying upon, and leverage feedback loops to keep decision makers in check and make the follies of ignorance more visible.

    Reply
    • Thomas, the field of academic endeavour known as economics is littered with defunct theories that proved useless. History shows when economists throw out a theory they all move on to a new fad until that blows up in their face. And the cycle goes on and on. The ‘emerging and mature’ label will give the new field life and generate income for a few exponents for a few years and when it fails a new fad will replace it. An old and mature field of academic endeavour called history attests this to be the case.

      To quote Donald Trump “people who teach business school cannot do business that’s why they teach business school”.

      The theories of Dunning and Kruger are not mathematical models or is the work of Charles McKay proving that mathematics is deficient but geeks will always think it can predict human behaviour. The renaming of ‘Gaussian Copula Formula’ (a predictor of risk) to the ‘Recipe for Disaster’ demonstrates the folly of using mathematics to predict human behaviour. Will it stop people? No, there is too much money to be made taking advantage of cognitive misery and leading the unskilled into believing the intellectual superiority of economists. Bet the house on their theories and one will loose it!

      Reply
  • It would seem that in Ireland macro economic decisions are made by networks of committees, many of which operate politically, where each committee has limited foresight or systemic awareness and members skillfully navigate the personalities of adjoining committees to get what they think they want or need.

    The quality of decisions made by these committees is limited by the quality of information they work from and their ability to interpret it, analyse it and surmise the outcomes of their decisions. Limiting the flow of information to quarterly or annual budgets prevents people from thinking precisely. During the boom years, this yielded a culture where people who only vaguely understand what they are doing chose to spend their entire budget in any given year, so they can justify that budget the future year without neccessarily needing it.

    *But* shenanigans is not a strategy.

    In a different world, a lot of sophisticated start up businesses construct financial models comprising 10+ excel spreadsheets, interlinked, that allow high quality scenario based predictions over several years. The discipline of constructing such a spreadsheet forces clarity and insight about the systems of cashflow and timing in a business, allowing resource planning and calibrated awareness of decisions. Done right, this reduces the risk of an otherwise viable business running out of cash, and reduces the risk of a decision maker misunderstanding the implications of a course of action and allows many better decisions to be made. Cumulatively, this makes for a more efficient and profitable business. Moreover, all other factors being equal, a business that doesn’t adopt this approach cannot compete effectively with one that does.

    The downside of decision by interlinked committees and their social relation is that many budgetary forecasts have been drip fed to the people to micro-manage their reactions and sentiment, instead of providing the clarity they actually need to make the right choices going forwards.

    Though a considerable undertaking, we have the technology to literally build a transparent and predictive financial model for our whole nation and system of government. There may be human aversions to any such proposal because the folly of existing processes would be highlighted en-masse. The upside is, it would be possible to get a much better ROI on everything we do, and as Aaron rightly argues, a five year advance budget would give the people of Ireland a context of certainty from which they can calculate what to do. With good awareness about what is likely to happen in coming years, we can make better decisions.

    I wonder what would have to happen to crowdsource something like this?

    Reply
    • Thomas let’s examine your statement “In a different world, a lot of sophisticated start up businesses construct financial models comprising 10+ excel spreadsheets, interlinked, that allow high quality scenario based predictions over several years.”

      How many sophisticated ‘financial models’ predicted the financial bust? Surely well run organisations like Banks with thousands of ‘experts’ would be able to use these financial models to predict an impending calamity! Surely financial geniuses using the best computer financial models would have been able to predict that the Facebook share price was overpriced.

      Thomas this is the same argument made in support of the Gaussian Copula formula a few years ago. Just because a theory is mathematical and sounds complicated it does not mean that it works even if a lot of people believe in it at the same time. The truth is that financial models are dysfunctional at best and buffoonish at worst.

      The bottom line; human behaviour cannot be mathematically modelled. Until such time as it can be, we are forced to rely on politicians and defective data from financial models and administrators.

      Reply

Add New Comment