agenda for each sector. The macro aggregates developed in the previous year’s MTEF were updated to reflect the changing economic and political environment. The sectoral and program cost estimates were developed with close involvement from the central budget office and line ministries. This cooperation allowed for greater buy-in and set a workable pattern, but more difficulty lay ahead.

# _Unanticipated Interruption and Further Cooperation Challenges_

Following the Swedish model, reformers planned that budget ceilings for line ministries would be determined in a cabinet meeting led by the president. However, this plan was interrupted by unanticipated political upheaval. In March 2004, the opposition party initiated an impeachment vote for the president. As a result, the president could not chair the cabinet meeting, called the Financial Resources Allocation Meeting, scheduled for April 2004. This meeting was cancelled, and both the MTEF and the budget ceilings for line ministries were tagged as provisional. After the Constitutional Court ruled against the impeachment, the MTEF and the budget ceilings were approved ex post at a cabinet meeting held in June.<sup>9</sup> Major newspaper headlines about the meeting took on an ominous tone: “Ministers’ Survival Game for Their Budget,” and “Ministers War with Logic to Secure Their Budget.” Meanwhile, the Fiscal Planning Office and the central budget office continued to oppose each other on the reform. According to their arguments, the Fiscal Planning Office was not good at estimating the cost of budgetary programs, and the central budget office lacked mediumterm perspectives. This uneasiness between the two organizations indicated that organizational restructuring would be needed to accommodate the reformed budget process.

# _Complaints from the Central Budget Office and Line Ministries_

Based on the implementation plan developed by the reform task force, the new budget process was implemented in March 2004, amid growing bureaucratic complaints. The central budget office was not happy about increased workload. In the previous system, the beginning of the fiscal year was quiet, and the workload peaked during the second part of the fiscal year, when annual budget formulation was in full swing. In contrast, under the new system, there was no off-season. During the first part of the fiscal year, the budget office was to develop the MTEF with budget ceilings for line ministries and simultaneously review the performance of government spending programs. Because requests for additional government-office employees are rarely approved, officials worried that the MTEF reform would overburden the capacity of the budget office and thus impair the efficacy of employees’ work.

In principle, the annual budget formulation process called for in the reform was supposed to be less burdensome to the budget office, because detailed budget formulation was delegated to line ministries and initial reviews of the budget details were conducted in the process of developing the MTEF. In reality, the annual budget formulation process was almost the

> 9 Within a few weeks, the petition of impeachment adjudication was rejected by the Constitutional Court, and the president was able to resume his job.

14