resource requirements over the course of a year in advance (Piatti-Fünfkirchen and Schneider 2018, Cashin et al. 2017). Adjustments to the budget in due course may be possible, but the process of reallocating resources can be excessively cumbersome, requiring multiple upstream sanctions. Such processes may be warranted for large transactions but are an impediment for the effective delivery of services where at times quick decisions need to be taken. This restricts the flow of resources, and spending units may find it difficult to spend, despite having received allotments. Thus, enforcing a uniform and rigid control regime through deploying of an FMIS to the point of service delivery may neither be practical nor desirable, as it is costly and would place countries on the western side of the control/flexibility quadrant.

Given the difficulties involved with rolling the FMIS out, many countries have instead opted for a Microsoft Excel based accounting system or maintain paper-based ledgers at the spending unit level. Once funds are received by the spending unit, they are spent as needed and transactions are recorded manually. They are subsequently posted to the FMIS at the next highest level (e.g. district or region). This process allows de-facto for the necessary flexibility, because a manual recording system does not impose the same control regimes. As such, flexibility is given. However, unless there are rigorous and frequent audits, this process loses accountability because it is very difficult to verify that what funds have been reported on spending is actually what they have been spent on. This is so, because the payment and reporting processes are not integrated. While the amount of funds is likely to be small and may not constitute a fiscal risk, this does not mean that there should be no accountability on how funds are being used. They still need to be spent prudently, be adequately accounted for and reported on as per government chart of accounts. This paper does not argue that accountability is not necessary – rather a strict line item ex-ante control regime for small value transactions could be relinquished, while retaining necessary financial accountability.

With a growing sophistication of the banking sector, or the prevalence of mobile money, in many countries, there may be opportunities to integrate the expenditure process with the FMIS system. Through the use of bank accounts, mobile money accounts, and credit or debit cards, control can be facilitated at a higher level in the chart of accounts. A card or mobile money account could be given for the utilization of imprest advances, with limits equal to the release of funds for the Imprest head. Depending on the source of funds that payments are drawn from, it may be necessary to have more than one card, or mobile money account, to accommodate, for example donor payments. This would most apply to small-scale operating costs. Virement between large spending categories (e.g. payroll and goods and services) would still require approval process. Thereby the bank controls how much can be spent on a budget head but does not control how (e.g. what type of supplies) items are being purchased. Once funds are spent, the process is integrated in the FMIS, ensuring that actual transactions are being adequately captured 10