Presidential Pork Barrel Primer

7/30/2019 Presidential Pork Barrel Primer

1/11

PRIME CUTS: Dissecting the presidential pork barrel

Prepared by Kabataan Partylist

The escalating controversy surrounding the misuse of over P10 billion under the Priority Development

Assistance Fund (PDAF) has sparked greater public scrutiny for public funds.

With wingman-turned-fugitive Janet Napoles on the run and President Benigno Aquino III announcing that the

Executive Department would be suspending the release of PDAF for congressmen and senators pending the

investigation of the issue, many people have joined the call for the abolition of the PDAF, which both the media

and several opinion leaders have pointed to as the root of all evil. They point out that the PDAF scam actually

involves more public funds than the Arroyo-era P728-million fertilizer fund scam and the corruption-laden NBN-

ZTE deal which was allegedly overpriced by $130 million or some P6 billion to fund commissions.

Public outrage over the PDAF scam has spread like wildfire, with President Aquino steering away from the

controversy, and his PR team trying in vain to disassociate him from the allegations of corruption and fund

misuse. Yet, only a few people realize that the PDAF scam is just the tip of the iceberg, or to use a more apt

expression it barely greases the pan.

A closer scrutiny of the national budget and the governments public fund management reveals a mor e

compelling story, with the president emerging not as a nave victim but the mastermind of the pork mafia.

Defining pork barrel

When we talk about pork barrel, it is not enough to point to the P25-billion PDAF allocation given to

congressmen and senators annually. The pork barrel system is an elaborate labyrinth of discretionary funding

and shadowy allocation of public funds that lead to unscrupulous use of taxpayers money.

To fully comprehend the vast scope of the pork barrel system, we need to unite with a concrete definition of

pork barrel funds. To classify as pork barrel, the fund or line item should meet at least one of the following

criteria:

1. It is a lump-sum allocation in the National Expenditure Program (NEP) that is vulnerable to

corruption and political maneuvering.

2. Funds of which the manner of allocation and disbursement are left to the sole discretion of thePresident and the Executive Department he leads, thereby leading to the funding of programs

and projects that favor his select allies instead of directly financing social services such as

education and health.

3. Public funds not reflected in the national budget yet are collected and used by public agencies

particularly those in the Executive Department, with little to no financial oversight at all.


2/11

With these criteria firmly set, we can then proceed to identifying what funds can be considered as part of the

presidents pork, and more or less ascertain how much that pork barrel really amounts to.

Lump-sums

Bulk of the budgetary accounts that can be classified under the first criteria fall under two types of accounts, the

first one being what is collectively known as Special Purpose Funds (SPF), which the budget department

defines as appropriations provided to cover expenditures for specific purposes for which recipient

agencies/departments have not yet been identified during budget preparation. The second type is the

automatic appropriations, which include lump-sum funds that do not undergo congressional scrutiny as these

are automatically considered approved by virtue of pertinent laws.

a. SPFs - The Table below shows the breakdown of the SPFs for 2014:

SPECIAL PURPOSE FUNDS

Proposed New Appropriations (In Thousand Pesos)

PersonnelServices

Maintenance

and OtherOperating

Expenses

CapitalOutlays Total

SPFs Programmed

Budgetary Support to Govt Corps 42,859,935 3,836,762 46,696,697

Allocation to LGUs 21,316 18,301,051 1,382,655 19,705,022

Calamity Fund 3,450,000 4,050,000 7,500,000

Contingent Fund 740,000 260,000 1,000,000

DepEd School Building Program - 1,000,000 1,000,000

International Commitments Fund 3,738,459 1,077,185 4,815,644

Miscellaneous Personnel Benefits Fund 80,713,614 80,713,614

Feasibility Studies Fund - 400,000 400,000Pension and Gratuity Fund 120,495,952 120,495,952

Priority Development Assistance Fund 11,160,000 14,080,000 25,240,000

E-Government Fund - 1,889,204 589,696 2,478,900

Total SPF, Programmed 201,230,882 82,538,649 26,276,298 310,045,829

Retirement and Life Insurance Premium 2,072 - - 2,072

Total SPF, Programmed Inclusive of RLIP 201,232,954 82,538,649 26,276,298 310,047,901

Unprogrammed Fund 175,800 9,102,744 130,625,215 139,903,759

Grand Total 201,408,754 91,641,393 156,901,513 449,951,660

(Source: 2014 National Expenditure Program, Table 1-B)

Of the P449 billion allotted for SPFs, a total of P310 billion are part of programmed appropriations, meaning thesaid funds are already included in the line-item budget of various agencies. Meanwhile, P139.9 billion is

specified as unprogrammed appropriations, which is released only when revenue collections exceed original

revenue targets, subject to approval of Executive Department.

When compared to the allocation for 2013, here are some significant observations:


3/11

Calamity and contingent funds remain practically unchanged. The same goes for the DepEd SchoolBuilding Program.

E-Government Fund increased from the current P1 billion to P2.479 billion in 2014 International Commitments Fund (fund for commitments and pledges to international organizations and

hosting of conferences) increased from the current P2.637 billion to P4.816 billion in 2014.

MPBF increased from the current P69.09 billion to P80.7 billion. PDAF increased from the current P24.79 billion to P25.24 billion.

Particular focus should be given to unprogrammed funds, as this amount is used to augment the budget of

particular agencies that the Executive Department chooses once either of the two conditions (revenue

collections exceed targets, or foreign funds are generated) are supposedly met. During the Aquino presidency,

unprogrammed funds increased exponentially, both as amounts proposed in the annual NEP and as amounts

actually utilized:

2010: Proposed unprogrammed funds amounted to P68.9 billion, of which P5.86 billion was eventuallyutilized.

2011: Proposed unprogrammed funds amounted to P66.9 billion, of which P20.4 billion was eventuallyutilized.

2012: Proposed unprogrammed funds amounted to P161.69 billion (no data on final amount utilized) 2013: Current unprogrammed funds amount to P117.5 billion 2014: Proposed unprogrammed funds amounts to P139.9 billion

At this juncture, we should also observe that the much-debated PDAF is only a miniscule portion of the SPFs.

The whole budget for PDAF can technically be considered part of the presidents pork barrel as the said fund has

historically been used by the Executive Department as a carrot-and-stick method to gain support and patronage.

It works like this: PDAF releases can only be made through a Special Allotment Release Order (SARO) which theDepartment of Budget and Management (DBM) processes. Without the SARO, no funds from the PDAF will be

released. Despite the inclusion of a no impounding of funds clause in the General Appropriations Act of

previous years, DBM systematically withholds PDAF releases to administration critics, while favored allies

receive even more than what is allotted to them. Clearly, this is discretionary spending at its finest.

b. Automatic appropriations - Meanwhile, automatic appropriations amount to P796 billion which constitutes

35 percent of the total P2.26 trillion national budget.

These automatically appropriated items include:

1. Interest payments for debt service amounting to P352.7 billion2. Net lending or funds used for the servicing of government-guaranteed corporate debt amounting to

P24.9 billion

3. Internal revenue allotment for local government units amounting to P341.5 billion4. Government counterpart contribution for employees retirement and life insurance premiums (RLIP)

amounting to P28.9 billion

5. Special accounts in the general fund (SAGFs)totalling P21.1 billion


4/11

6. Tax expenditures amounting to P26.9 billionThe practice of automatically appropriating funds for interest payments and the like bars Congress or any

oversight agency for that matter to scrutinize where these supposed automatic funds are really going. Funds

under automatic appropriations are treated as if they were preordained by some mystic force and therefore

cannot be discussed further, much less be deducted. The Executive Department can thus literally get away with

any nefarious deed under these accounts without anyone knowing.

Of particular concern are SAGF accounts, which are funds coming from specific revenue measures and grants

that are earmarked by law for specific priority projects. SAGFs are automatically-appropriated, and are thereby

funded annually without much public scrutiny. There are currently 56 SAGFs created by various laws,

presidential decrees and executive orders that are highly suspicious for they do not undergo strict audit rules

and thus are prone to abuse. Examples of SAGFs include the Malampaya fund and the fertilizer fund, both of

which got entangled in large-scale corruption issues.

Questionable in-budget items

Aside from automatic appropriations and SPFs, there are also specific funds in the national budget that can be

classified as part of the presidents pork barrel for being under the direct discretion of the executive

department. These are:

a. Fund for confidential and intelligence expensesThese funds are under the maintenance and other operating

expenses budget of various agencies.

These funds are inserted in the agency budgets for specific purposes:

1. Confidential Funds These are funds for surveillance activities in civilian departments and agencies. Notall agencies are provided with confidential funds, as during budget preparation, the Executive

Department exercises its discretion on which departments will be given funds for confidential expenses.

Agencies with Confidential Funds in 2014

- Office of the President: P250 million- Department of Environment and Natural Resources: P13.9 million- Department of Finance: P15.5 million- Department of Interior and Local Government: P20 million- Department of Justice: P200.4 million- Department of National Defense: P23 million- Department of Transportation and Communications: P10.9 million- Anti-Money Laundering Council:P5 million- National Intelligence Coordinating Agency: P1 million

Presidential pork count: Together, SPFs (including unprogrammed funds) and automatic appropriations

already amount to P1.246 trillion, or over 55 percent of the total P2.26 trillion national budget for 2014.


5/11

- Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency: P73.6 million- ARMM: P420,000- Commission on Audit: P10 million- Office of the Ombudsman: P3 million- Commission on Human Rights: P1 millionTo tighten the secrecy in the use of said funds, all disbursements or releases from this fund should have

the immediate approval of the department secretary concerned (i.e. the alter ego of the president

himself).

2. Intelligence Funds These are funds for intelligence information gathering activities of uniformedpersonnel and intelligence practitioners that have direct impact to national security. Like confidential

funds, intelligence funds are given to agencies during the budget preparation process subject to the

discretion of the Chief Executive. Apart from that, intelligence funds can only be released upon approval

of no less than the president himself. Details of the expenditures are kept secret, and all reports of the

utilization of intelligence funds are submitted directly to the president.

Agencies with Intelligence Funds in 2014

- Office of the President: P250 million- Department of Interior and Local Government: P306 million- Department of National Defense: P246.4 million- Department of Transportation and Communications: P10 million- National Intelligence Coordinating Agency: P20.2 million- Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency: P73.6 million

The secretive nature of these funds explicitly bars the public from scrutinizing how these funds are used. Below

is a comparison of confidential and intelligence funds for years 2012-2013:

FUND2012

(ACTUAL)

2013

(ADJUSTED)

2014

(PROPOSED)

Confidential expenses 840,881,000 602,735,000 627,793,000

Intelligence expenses 555,864,000 801,926,000 832,626,000

TOTAL 1,396,745,000 1,404,661,000 1,460,419,000

b. PAMANA fundsFunds for the Payapa at MasaganangPamayanan (PAMANA) program totalling P7.22 billion

are subdivided to several government agencies. Yet, if one scrutinizes the Special Provisions governing PAMANAfunds that are can be found in the NEP, it is explicitly stated that funds appropriated for the said program

which by the way is the governments primary counterinsurgency program can only be used exclusively to

implement projects in conflict-affected areas already identified by the Office of the Presidential Adviser on the

Peace Process (OPAPP). It is clear, therefore, that the president has direct discretionary power over this fund.


6/11

c. Conditional cash transfer funds The Conditional Cash Transfer (CCT) program is the countrys flagship

poverty alleviation program, which basically allots cash grants to the poorest households in exchange for

following certain conditions, such as ensuring that the school-age child in the family goes to class. The budget

for conditional cash transfers has grown exponentially over the years. From P10.5 billion in 2010, P21.2 billion in

2011, P39.5 billion in 2012, and P44.3 billion for 2013, the government now proposes a whopping P62.6 billion

for 2014.

Aside from being criticized as a palliative solution to the crippling poverty affecting almost a third of the

population, CCT funds are considered vulnerable due to a couple of factors. One of this is the selection process

for beneficiaries. In various studies, including one done by Emma Dadap of the International Institute of Social

Studies in The Netherlands, it was revealed that even with the implementation of the P1.7-billion National

Household Targeting System for Poverty Reduction, targeting for CCT beneficiaries remain largely politicized.

Indeed, targeting looks objective and non-partisan one paper, but the key informant from the DSWD revealed

that for the third expansion districts had to be included as target areas because some congress representatives

complained about the exclusion of their constituents who, they said, were very poor and deserving of the

assistance, Dadap said in her paper published in 2011. Participants of her study also revealed that the targeting

is not at all accurate, leaving out at times the poorest households.

CCT funds can be considered part of the presidential pork barrel as the decision on the targeting of beneficiaries

mainly fall onto the Department of Social Welfare and Developments discretion, along with inputs from other

presidential commissions like the Presidential Commission for the Urban Poor. As such, CCT funds open a wide

door for the president to influence millions of families, and to target beneficiaries in a politically-motivated

manner. The fact that CCTs are also given out in cash opens wider room for misuse, especially in areas where the

cash transfers are accessed through rural banks that are owned by the local elite.

d. Bottom-up Budgeting (BuB) ApproachThis is one of the more innovative ways that the Executive

Department has utilized to expand its discretionary power over the budget allocation of various agencies. BuB is

a participative approach started for the 2013 budget whereinthe Executive Department identifies various

programs and projects addressing the development needs of poorest cities and municipalities in the country.

The BuB approach supposedly widened the role of civil society organizations (CSOs) in the preparation of the

budget.

However, the BuB is replete with loopholes that made its supposed participatory approach a mere PR trick. First

of all, the governments choice of CSO partners is already questionable. Apart from that, BuB is clearly fashioned

after the PDAF, as under this approach, specific projects for cities and municipalities are identified. The big

difference between BuB and PDAF, of course, is that the projects identified under BuB are already incorporated

in the national budget, unlike in PDAF wherein legislators need to nominate choice projects.

The BuB approach clearly expanded not the participation of grassroots organizations, but the presidents

discretion over local projects, meaning its the Executive Departments new pork barrel fund. In effect, projects

identified under BuB are Aquinos very own pork barrel projects.


7/11

In the 2013 budget, the fund under BuB reached P8.4 billion spread over 595 municipalities. For 2014, the

budget under BuBwas expanded to reach a total of P20.03 billion spread over 1,226 municipalities, almost at par

with the PDAF (which stands at P25.2 billion for 2014).

Realigned savings

Now, the presidents unprecedented control of the national budget does not end with the passage of the

General Appropriations Act. Actually, more nefarious activities occur after that. If for some reason, an agency

was not able to use (or was not allowed to read: DBM not releasing budget) parts of its allocation during a

particular fiscal year, the laws of the land bestow upon the president the power to realign funds to any item of

expenditure in any agency that he wants to.

This power is actually grounded in Article VI, Section 25 of the 1987 Constitution wherein the president, along

with the Senate President, the House Speaker and heads of Constitutional Commissions are authorized to

"augment any item in their in the general appropriations law for their respective offices from savings in other

items oftheir respective appropriations. The problem, however, lies in the interpretation of the term Office of

the President, which has been liberally interpreted as any agency under the Executive Department.

DBM has, in fact, released a memorandum circular explaining the presidents power to reallocate savings. In

National Budget Circular 541, DBM was empowered to centralize unobligated funds to cover additional

funding for other existing projects. This resulted to the realignment of P75 billion unobligated funds from fiscalyear (FY) 2012 and P27 billion from FY 2013.

What does this broad fiscal power of the executive entail? Simple it means that the government can simply

withhold parts of allocations of specific agencies for a particular year, tag these funds as savings and realign

these funds to favored programs and projects. Being the department in charge with the preparation and

eventual disbursement of the national budget, the Executive can thus have access to unlimited funds anytime of

the year.

It is important to note, at this point, that if the abolition of the PDAF pushes through without the abolition of all

the other components of the pork barrel system and without the necessary realignment of funds directly tosocial services, President Aquino can still dab his greasy hand in the spoils of PDAF for it will only become part

of the so-called savings and would be realigned for other purposes. Thats why our call should always be double-

edged: abolish the pork barrel system, then realign funds directly to social services.

Presidential pork count: Adding P1.46 billion for confidential and intelligence funds, P7.22 billion for

PAMANA, P62.6 billion under CCT, and P20.03 billion under BuB to the previous P1.246 trillion total

(SPFs+automatic appropriations), our pork count now totals P1.337trillion. But wait, theres more!


8/11

Off-budget accounts

So far, weve discussed the scope of the presidential pork barrel under the annually appropriated national

budget. But did you know that there are such things as off-budget accounts, or funds collected and utilized by

government agencies but are not reflected in the annual budget documents?

Off-budget accounts (OBAs) have been quite permanent fixtures in the Philippine governments budgeting

system. Bulk of OBAs are earmarked revenues, or funds collected by government agencies for specific uses

predetermined by an existing law.

In a paper unsurprisingly titled Off-budget Accounts released by the US Agency for International Development

(USAID) in 2009, it was revealed that OBAs represent less than 5 percent of the national budget each year. For

2007, it was estimated to be around P56 billion. Using the same percentage, this means that for 2014, it is

possible that OBAs can clock in to about P110 to P113 billion. And thats not reflected in the national budget!

Aside from being virtually invisible in the NEP, the government does not provide an official list of OBAs. We may

call them the governments hidden wealth, as these funds are usually not reflected in the national budget and

thus are shielded from public scrutiny. The list of OBAs in the Budget of Expenditures and Sources of Financing is

incomplete, and generally includes only funds that constitute the revolving fund of several agencies. According

to USAID, there are more than 300 OBAs existing, with at least 367 accounts identified in 2007.

These accounts are highly vulnerable to improper, if not illegal, acts on account of the generally n on-

transparent nature of their operations, the USAID said. Most of the funds are discretionary in nature, and the

internal control procedures for most funds are generally lax, with disbursement of funds generally needing only

the mere order and signature of at most two officials, USAID noted.

Some glaring examples of OBAs include the Presidents Social Fund, an off-budget account sourced from the

income of the Philippine Amusement and Gaming Corporation (PAGCOR) and Philippine Charity Sweepstakes

Office (PCSO) which is utilized for priority projects of the president. Under PAGCOR and PCSOs charter, they are

mandated to remit parts of their revenues to the Social Fund annually. PAGCOR estimates that it will be able toremit around P2.3-2.4 billion to the said OBA in 2014.

Another controversy-ridden OBA is PCSOs charity fund, which is also utilized by the Office of the President as

pork barrel. According to the PCSO website, the charity fund is a trust and liability account and is used

exclusively to finance and support health programs, medical assistance and services and/or charities of national

Presidential pork count: As the amount realigned as savings vary each year, it is difficult to

ascertain the total funds which will be realigned for 2014 (unless youre the president of course,

because somehow, you might have already done the math!) So lets add a plus sign (+) to our

previous count to account for this item, thereby putting the count at P1.337+ trillion. But the

presidential pork barrel doesnt end there.


9/11

character. Presently, any disbursements from the Charity Fund must not only be authorized by the PCSO Board

of Directors but must also be approved by the Office of the President, regardless of the amount thereof.

PCSO is mandated by its charter to remit to the charity fund 30 percent of its gross receipts from the sale of

sweepstakes tickets, including all unclaimed prize money. This means that for every one peso earned by PCSO

from sweepstakes ticket sales, 30 centavos automatically goes to the charity fund. According to the 2011 Annual

Audit Report of the Commission on Audit (COA), PCSO has set aside P8.127 billion for the charity fund for the

said year. COA noted that PCSO disbursed some P5.39 billion under the said fund for questionable expenses.

Review of 2011 disbursements revealed that expenses which are not related to health programs, medical

assistance and services and/or charities or national character were charged to Charity Fund, COA said.

Meanwhile, PCSOs income statements from the year 2012 to present remain a mystery, as the said agency has

consistently failed to submit said documents to DBM.

Cutting the fat

Counting savings and OBAs in, the total presidential pork barrel lies somewhere in between P1.3-1.5 trillion,

which is anywhere between 58 to almost 70 percent of the total national budget! The very fact that we cannot

ascertain the actual amount is proof of the pork barrel systems circuitous and wily character. Imagine how

much of those funds are lost to corruption, and go straight to the pockets of officials of the Executive

Department, particularly the president himself.

After explaining in length the various components of the presidential pork barrel, the question now left for us to

answer is how we can push for its abolition and eventual rechanneling to direct spending for social services.

It is important to note that some funds included in the computation for the presidential pork barrel are

grounded on pertinent laws, including automatic appropriations and OBAs. However, even if we subtract these

amounts, the presidential pork barrel would still be sufficiently large to warrant stricter financial oversight and

public scrutiny.

Concretely speaking, it would be easy for the Executive Department to remove the SPFs, as these funds are not

covered by existing laws, except the annual General Appropriations Act. In fact, COA has advised DBM in the

past to refrain from transferring funds from one lump-sum/special purpose fund (SPF) to another, or utilizing

the appropriation of one Fund for purposes of another Fund, otherwise the intentions of the appropriation law

will be circumvented.

If the government is sincere in its anti-corruption drive, it could easily dissolve the SPFs and return the funds

directly to agencies. The MPBF, for example, can be returned as line items in the personnel service budget of

Presidential pork count: Lets add another plus sign (+) to our total amount to account for this item,as it is difficulteven for the World Bank and USAID to determine how much these mysterious

OBAs actually amount to. So the presidential pork barrel now rests at P1.337++ trillion


10/11

agencies, with specific guidelines on how it should be utilized. The PDAF, meanwhile, can be rechanneled to

fund social services directly, such as augmenting the meagre budget of public hospitals and state schools.

Removing SPFs would cut the presidential pork by some P450 billion.

Now these concrete steps are largely technical and bureaucratic in nature, and there is no guarantee that

corruption would be eradicated if these reforms push through. Reforms are not the end-all, be-all solution for

the widespread corruption beleaguering our nation.

Rather, we should keep in mind that apart from laws and statutes that enabled the presidential pork barrel to

continue growing, it is the countrys bankrupt political system buttressed by the very people who benefit from

it thats nursing this monster. And we can only slay the beast that is corruption if we overthrow and conquer

the hand that feeds and nourishes it.

Moving forward

With the components of the presidential pork barrel now clearly delineated and concrete steps for its abolition

outlined, it would already sound silly to call only for the abolition of the PDAF. Doing so would be ignoring the

elephant in the room. Clearly, what we need is a major restructuring of our public financial management system,

and an overhaul of our laws and guidelines that helped institutionalize this monstrous pork barrel system.

Also, to properly assess and comprehend the gravity of the situation, we need to put the issue of pork barrel in

the context of a national budget that has, for decades, followed the dictates of big business and international

funding institutions.

The proposed P2.268-trillion national budget is laden with big-ticket infrastructure projects, with DBM allotting a

total of P399.4 billion for infrastructure development, representing a 35.5 percent increase from the current

P294.7 billion budget. Aside from serving as a larger feeding ground for corruption, bulk of these infrastructure

funds will undergo the Public-Private Partnership (PPP) scheme, wherein the government allows the private

sector to invest and partly finance public projects.

With neoliberal policies firmly in place, out sprouted a system wherein private business ventures are given

incentives and guarantees by the government through the PPP Framework and other agreements, while direct

funding to social services continue to dwindle. While every nook and cranny of the 2014 budget has been made

into a ready source of corruption, our state hospitals and state schools are left to feast on scraps. For 2014, the

presidents pork barrel will get a big boost, while 79 SUCs will suffer budget cuts.

With a president not keen on abolishing PDAF, much less the whole pork barrel system, the people have no

choice left but to fight back. For we deserve better.

Our urgent tasks:

1. Instead of focusing on the PDAF issue which is only the tip of the iceberg, we need to expose the fullscope of the presidential pork barrel and explain to the people why it needs to be abolished.


11/11

2. Hold officials and agencies particularly the President and his cohorts accountable for systematicallysustaining the pork barrel behemoth for their own selfish interests.

3. Intensify our two-fold call for the abolition of the presidential pork barrel and the rechanneling ofgovernment funds directly to social services.

ABOLISH THE PRESIDENTIAL PORK BARREL!

RECHANNEL PORK BARREL FUNDS TO SOCIAL SERVICES!

REFERENCES:

1. National Expenditure Program, Fiscal Year 2014. Published by the Department of Budget and Management, July2013.

2. Budget of Expenditures and Sources of Financing (Tables), Fiscal Year 2014. Published by the Department ofBudget and Management, July 2013.

3. Off-Budget Accounts. Publication produced for review by the United States Agency for InternationalDevelopment, July 2009.

4. National Budget Circular 541: Adoption of Operational Efficiency Measure Withdrawal of Agencies UnobligatedAllotments as of June 30, 2012. Released by the Department of Budget and Management, July 18, 2012.

5. The Politics of Conditional Cash Transfers of the Philippines. Research paper by Emma Lynn Dadap, 2011.International Institute of Social Studies, The Hague, The Netherlands.

6. Report No. 54584-PH: Philippines Public Expenditure and Financial Accountability. Published by the World BankPoverty Reduction and Economic Management Sector Unit, May 2010.

Documents

Presidential Pork Barrel Primer