BUDGETING AND BUDGETARY CONTROL AND EFFECTIVE FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT IN GOVERNMENT PARASTATALS IN NIGERIA

CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background of the Study

Budgeting is the process of translating organizational plans and objectives into quantitative financial terms for a specified future period, typically one fiscal year. A budget is a comprehensive financial plan that specifies expected revenues, anticipated expenditures, and projected cash flows. Budgeting is a fundamental management tool that integrates strategic planning with operational execution. Budgetary control is the process of comparing actual performance against budgeted targets, identifying variances, investigating causes, and taking corrective action. Together, budgeting and budgetary control constitute the financial planning and control system that ensures resources are allocated efficiently, expenditures are controlled, and organizational objectives are achieved (Anthony and Govindarajan, 2018). (Anthony and Govindarajan, 2018)

Government parastatals (also called state-owned enterprises, SOEs, or public corporations) are entities established by Acts of Parliament or government directives to provide specific public services or engage in commercial activities on behalf of the government. Parastatals operate in various sectors: electricity (PHCN, now successor companies), telecommunications (NITEL, now privatized), transportation (NRC, NAMA, FAAN), water resources, education (universities, polytechnics), health (teaching hospitals), finance (Bank of Industry, Bank of Agriculture, NEXIM), and many others. Parastatals are distinct from government ministries and departments (MDAs) because they have some degree of operational and financial autonomy. However, they remain subject to government oversight (budget approval, audit, policy direction) (Oyedele, 2017). (Oyedele, 2017)

The importance of parastatals in the Nigerian economy cannot be overstated. Parastatals provide essential services: electricity (power generation and distribution), transportation (rail, air, ports), water supply, education, healthcare, and financial services (development finance). They employ hundreds of thousands of workers and control billions of Naira in assets and annual budgets. When parastatals are well-managed, they deliver quality services, generate revenue, and contribute to economic development. When parastatals are poorly managed, they become drains on the national budget (requiring subsidies and bailouts), deliver poor services, and contribute to corruption and inefficiency (Okonjo-Iweala, 2012). (Okonjo-Iweala, 2012)

The legal and regulatory framework for budgeting and budgetary control in Nigerian government parastatals includes several key instruments (Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999; 2004; 2007; 2020). (Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999; 2004; 2007; 2020)

Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (1999, as amended): Sections 80-83 govern public expenditure. Section 80 requires that no expenditure be incurred without appropriation by the National Assembly. Parastatals must have their budgets approved by the National Assembly or state Houses of Assembly.

Fiscal Responsibility Act (2007): The Act requires fiscal discipline, transparency, and accountability in government finances. Parastatals must prepare and submit annual budgets, operate within approved budgets, and report budget performance quarterly.

Public Procurement Act (2007): The Act regulates procurement by parastatals, requiring competitive bidding, due process, and transparency. Procurement must be budgeted for.

Financial Reporting Council (FRC) of Nigeria Act (2011): The FRC sets accounting standards (IPSAS) for public sector entities, including parastatals. IPSAS adoption improves financial reporting quality.

Companies and Allied Matters Act (CAMA) 2020: CAMA regulates the establishment and governance of government-owned companies (parastatals incorporated as companies).

Establishing Acts: Each parastatal has its own establishing Act that specifies its mandate, governance structure, sources of revenue, and financial management requirements.

The Nigerian public financial management system has undergone significant reforms in recent decades. The Medium-Term Expenditure Framework (MTEF) (introduced in 2007) links policy planning to budgeting over a 3-year rolling horizon. The Treasury Single Account (TSA) (2015) consolidates government revenues into a single bank account, improving cash management and expenditure control. The Government Integrated Financial Management Information System (GIFMIS) (2012) is an integrated computerized financial management system for budget execution, accounting, and reporting. These reforms apply to federal MDAs and parastatals (BudgIT, 2023). (BudgIT, 2023)

The budgeting process in government parastatals typically follows the government budget cycle (Schick, 2018). (Schick, 2018)

Stage 1: Budget Circular: The Ministry of Finance (or supervising ministry) issues budget circular with guidelines, ceilings, and deadlines.

Stage 2: Budget Preparation: Parastatal prepares budget estimates (revenue and expenditure) based on strategic plans, historical data, and guidelines. Budget includes recurrent (personnel, overhead) and capital components.

Stage 3: Budget Submission: Parastatal submits budget to supervising ministry, which reviews and consolidates into sectoral budget.

Stage 4: Budget Approval: National Assembly (or state House of Assembly) reviews, amends, and approves budget (Appropriation Act).

Stage 5: Budget Execution: Parastatal implements the budget (collects revenue, incurs expenditures) in accordance with approved budget.

Stage 6: Budget Control (Variance Analysis): Parastatal compares actual revenue and expenditure to budget monthly, quarterly, and annually. Variances are investigated, and corrective action is taken.

Stage 7: Budget Reporting: Parastatal submits financial reports (monthly, quarterly, annual) to supervising ministry, Ministry of Finance, and Auditor-General.

Stage 8: Audit and Oversight: Auditor-General audits the parastatal’s financial statements and budget compliance. Public Accounts Committee (PAC) reviews audit report and holds parastatal accountable.

The effectiveness of budgeting and budgetary control in government parastatals is measured by several criteria (World Bank, 2020). (World Bank, 2020)

Budget Credibility: The degree to which actual revenue and expenditure conform to budgeted figures. Low variance (e.g., ±5%) indicates high credibility. High variance (e.g., >20%) indicates poor planning or execution.

Budget Implementation Rate: The percentage of approved funds that are actually spent (released). For capital budgets, implementation rates below 70% indicate problems.

Variance Investigation and Corrective Action: The percentage of significant variances that are investigated and lead to corrective action.

Financial Irregularities: Unauthorized expenditures, payments without supporting documents, contract awards without due process, and non-retirement of advances. Low irregularities indicate good control.

Timeliness of Reporting: Financial statements submitted within required timeframe (e.g., 3 months after year-end). Delays indicate weak control.

Audit Opinions: Unqualified (clean) opinion indicates good control; qualified, adverse, or disclaimer opinions indicate problems.

Despite the legal framework and reforms, budgeting and budgetary control in Nigerian government parastatals face significant challenges (BudgIT, 2023; Auditor-General of the Federation, 2020). (Auditor-General of the Federation, 2020; BudgIT, 2023)

Poor Budget Credibility: Actual expenditures often deviate significantly from budgeted appropriations. Capital budget implementation rates average 50-70% (30-50% variance). Recurrent budget implementation is higher (>90%) but includes mandatory spending (salaries, debt service).

Late Budget Approval: Budgets are often approved after the start of the fiscal year (January 1), leading to operating without appropriation for months. This violates the Constitution and weakens control.

Weak Budgetary Control: Many parastatals do not perform variance analysis, or perform variance analysis but do not investigate variances or take corrective action.

Weak Internal Controls: Many parastatals lack effective internal controls: segregation of duties is absent, approvals are not documented, reconciliations are not performed, and assets are not safeguarded.

Poor Record Keeping: Many parastatals do not maintain complete or accurate accounting records. Transactions are not recorded, source documents are not retained, and bank reconciliations are not performed.

Financial Irregularities: Audit reports consistently document unauthorized expenditures, payments without supporting documents, contract awards without due process, and non-retirement of advances.

Weak Audit Follow-up: Audit recommendations are rarely implemented. Public Accounts Committees (PACs) are weak (infrequent meetings, lack expertise, no enforcement). Officials face no consequences for irregularities.

Political Interference: Politicians interfere in budget preparation (adding projects, increasing allocations), budget execution (directing spending), and oversight (blocking audit follow-up).

Corruption: Budget padding (inserting fictitious projects), contract inflation, diversion of funds, and embezzlement are common in some parastatals.

Lack of Capacity: Many parastatals lack trained finance staff (accountants, budget officers, internal auditors). They cannot prepare realistic budgets, perform variance analysis, or maintain proper records.

The consequences of weak budgeting and budgetary control are severe. Waste: Funds are spent on unnecessary or overpriced goods and services. Fraud: Public funds are stolen. Poor service delivery: Parastatals fail to deliver essential services (electricity, water, transport, healthcare, education). Loss of public trust: Citizens lose confidence in government. Economic underdevelopment: Inefficient parastatals constrain economic growth (BudgIT, 2023). (BudgIT, 2023)

The COVID-19 pandemic (2020-2021) created additional challenges. Budgets became obsolete due to revenue shortfalls (economic contraction) and emergency expenditures (health response). Parastatals had to adapt quickly: revise budgets (supplementary budgets), reallocate resources (virement), and manage cash flow (delayed releases). Parastatals with flexible budgeting systems (rolling forecasts) adapted better than those with rigid annual budgets (Ogunyemi and Adewale, 2021). (Ogunyemi and Adewale, 2021)

Several theories explain the relationship between budgeting, budgetary control, and financial management. Agency theory (Jensen and Meckling, 1976) suggests that budgets reduce information asymmetry between government (principal) and parastatal management (agents), enabling monitoring and reducing agency costs. Stewardship theory (Donaldson and Davis, 1991) suggests that budgets enable parastatal managers to demonstrate responsible stewardship of public funds. Institutional theory (DiMaggio and Powell, 1983) suggests that budget reforms (MTEF, TSA, GIFMIS) are adopted for legitimacy, but may be decoupled from actual practice (decoupling). Public financial management theory (Schick, 2018) provides a framework for understanding budget credibility, variance analysis, and corrective action. (DiMaggio and Powell, 1983; Donaldson and Davis, 1991; Jensen and Meckling, 1976; Schick, 2018)

1.2 Statement of the Problem

Despite the legal framework (Constitution, Fiscal Responsibility Act, Public Procurement Act, establishing Acts), the adoption of budget reforms (MTEF, TSA, GIFMIS), and the existence of budgetary control mechanisms (variance analysis, internal audit, external audit), budgeting and budgetary control in Nigerian government parastatals remain weak. This problem manifests in several specific issues that undermine effective financial management.

First, poor budget credibility is pervasive. Actual expenditures often deviate significantly from budgeted appropriations. The Auditor-General consistently reports that parastatals exceed budget limits (unauthorized expenditures), spend on items not budgeted for, or fail to spend budgeted funds (low capital budget implementation). Budget credibility is low; the budget is not a reliable planning or control tool (Auditor-General of the Federation, 2020). (Auditor-General of the Federation, 2020)

Second, late budget approval is chronic. Budgets are often approved after the start of the fiscal year (January 1), sometimes months late. Parastatals operate without legal appropriation for the first quarter (or longer), violating the Constitution. Operating without appropriation creates uncertainty, encourages unauthorized expenditures, and weakens control (BudgIT, 2023). (BudgIT, 2023)

Third, weak budgetary control is widespread. Many parastatals do not perform variance analysis (comparing actual to budget), or perform variance analysis but do not investigate variances or take corrective action. Variance reports are produced but ignored. Without investigation and corrective action, budgetary control is ineffective (Okoye, Okafor, and Nnamdi, 2020). (Okoye et al., 2020)

Fourth, weak internal controls enable irregularities. Many parastatals lack effective internal controls: segregation of duties is absent (same person authorizes, records, and pays), approvals are not documented, reconciliations are not performed, and assets are not safeguarded. The Auditor-General consistently reports material internal control weaknesses (Auditor-General of the Federation, 2020). (Auditor-General of the Federation, 2020)

Fifth, poor record keeping undermines accountability. Many parastatals do not maintain complete or accurate accounting records. Transactions are not recorded in journals or ledgers; source documents (receipts, invoices, contracts) are not retained; bank reconciliations are not performed; and trial balances are not prepared. As a result, financial statements cannot be prepared, and auditors cannot verify transactions (BudgIT, 2023). (BudgIT, 2023)

Sixth, financial irregularities persist. The Auditor-General consistently reports: unauthorized expenditures (exceeding budget limits, spending on non-budgeted items), payments without supporting documents, contract awards without due process, and non-retirement of advances. The same irregularities appear year after year, indicating that audit recommendations are not implemented (Auditor-General of the Federation, 2020). (Auditor-General of the Federation, 2020)

Seventh, weak audit follow-up means no consequences. Audit recommendations are rarely implemented. The Public Accounts Committees (PACs) are weak: they meet infrequently (or not at all), members lack financial expertise, staff support is inadequate, and there is no political will to hold officials accountable. Without enforcement, parastatal officials have no incentive to comply with budget rules (BudgIT, 2023). (BudgIT, 2023)

Eighth, political interference undermines budgetary control. Politicians (ministers, legislators) interfere in budget preparation (adding projects, increasing allocations), budget execution (directing spending to political priorities), and oversight (blocking audit follow-up). Political interference overrides financial controls, creating opportunities for corruption and inefficiency (Okonjo-Iweala, 2012). (Okonjo-Iweala, 2012)

Ninth, lack of capacity limits effectiveness. Many parastatals lack trained finance staff (accountants, budget officers, internal auditors). They cannot prepare realistic budgets, perform variance analysis, maintain proper records, or implement internal controls. The Budget Office of the Federation and FRC have limited capacity to provide training and oversight (World Bank, 2020). (World Bank, 2020)

Tenth, the COVID-19 pandemic exposed weaknesses. Budgets became obsolete; parastatals struggled to adapt. Some used supplementary budgets and virement (transfers) to reallocate resources, but many lacked flexible budgeting systems (rolling forecasts). The pandemic demonstrated that traditional annual budgeting is inadequate in volatile environments (Ogunyemi and Adewale, 2021). (Ogunyemi and Adewale, 2021)

Eleventh, there is a significant gap in the empirical literature on budgeting and budgetary control in Nigerian government parastatals. Most studies focus on federal MDAs (ministries, departments) or state governments. Few studies focus on parastatals. Most studies are descriptive (surveys) rather than analytical (audit data, financial reports). Few studies examine the relationship between budgeting practices and financial management outcomes (budget credibility, irregularity reduction, service delivery). This study addresses these gaps (Okoye et al., 2020). (Okoye et al., 2020)

Therefore, the central problem this study seeks to address can be stated as: *Despite the legal framework and budget reforms, budgeting and budgetary control in Nigerian government parastatals remain weak. Poor budget credibility, late approval, weak budgetary control, weak internal controls, poor record keeping, financial irregularities, weak audit follow-up, political interference, lack of capacity, and COVID-19 challenges undermine effective financial management. The relationship between budgeting, budgetary control, and effective financial management has not been systematically documented in Nigerian government parastatals. This study addresses this gap by examining budgeting and budgetary control and effective financial management in government parastatals in Nigeria.*

1.3 Aim of the Study

The aim of this study is to critically examine budgeting and budgetary control and effective financial management in government parastatals in Nigeria, with a view to assessing the effectiveness of budgeting and budgetary control practices (budget credibility, variance analysis, corrective action, internal controls, record keeping), identifying the challenges (political interference, capacity, audit follow-up), and proposing evidence-based recommendations for strengthening budgeting and budgetary control to improve financial management in government parastatals.

1.4 Objectives of the Study

The specific objectives of this study are to:

1. Assess the current state of budgeting and budgetary control practices in Nigerian government parastatals: budget preparation (realism, participation), budget approval (timeliness), budget execution (implementation rates), budgetary control (variance analysis, investigation, corrective action), internal controls, record keeping, and financial reporting.
2. Evaluate the effectiveness of financial management in government parastatals as measured by: budget credibility (variance between budget and actual), budget implementation rates (percentage of funds released and spent), financial irregularities (unauthorized expenditures, unsupported payments), audit opinions (unqualified, qualified, adverse, disclaimer), and service delivery outcomes.
3. Examine the relationship between budgetary control practices (variance analysis, investigation, corrective action) and financial irregularities (reduction in unauthorized expenditures, unsupported payments).
4. Examine the relationship between internal control quality and budget credibility (variance reduction).
5. Examine the relationship between staff capacity (training, qualifications) and budgeting effectiveness.
6. Examine the relationship between political interference and financial irregularities.
7. Assess the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on budgeting and budgetary control in government parastatals.
8. Propose evidence-based recommendations for strengthening budgeting and budgetary control to improve financial management in government parastatals.

1.5 Research Questions

The following research questions guide this study:

1. What is the current state of budgeting and budgetary control practices in Nigerian government parastatals (budget preparation, approval, execution, control, internal controls, record keeping, reporting)?
2. How effective is financial management in government parastatals as measured by budget credibility, implementation rates, financial irregularities, audit opinions, and service delivery?
3. What is the relationship between budgetary control practices (variance analysis, investigation, corrective action) and financial irregularities?
4. What is the relationship between internal control quality and budget credibility?
5. What is the relationship between staff capacity (training, qualifications) and budgeting effectiveness?
6. What is the relationship between political interference and financial irregularities?
7. How did the COVID-19 pandemic affect budgeting and budgetary control in government parastatals?
8. What recommendations can be proposed for strengthening budgeting and budgetary control?

1.6 Research Hypotheses

Based on the research objectives and questions, the following hypotheses are formulated. Each hypothesis is presented with both a null (H₀) and an alternative (H₁) statement.

Hypothesis One (Budgetary Control and Irregularities)

• H₀₁: There is no significant relationship between the quality of budgetary control (variance analysis, investigation, corrective action) and the level of financial irregularities in government parastatals.
• H₁₁: There is a significant negative relationship between the quality of budgetary control and the level of financial irregularities (higher quality control associated with fewer irregularities).

Hypothesis Two (Internal Controls and Budget Credibility)

• H₀₂: There is no significant relationship between the quality of internal controls (segregation of duties, authorizations, reconciliations) and budget credibility (variance between budget and actual).
• H₁₂: There is a significant positive relationship between the quality of internal controls and budget credibility (stronger controls associated with smaller variances).

Hypothesis Three (Staff Capacity and Budgeting Effectiveness)

• H₀₃: There is no significant relationship between the qualifications and training of finance staff and the effectiveness of budgeting (budget realism, variance analysis, reporting timeliness).
• H₁₃: There is a significant positive relationship between staff qualifications and training and budgeting effectiveness.

Hypothesis Four (Political Interference and Irregularities)

• H₀₄: Political interference does not significantly affect the level of financial irregularities in government parastatals.
• H₁₄: Political interference significantly increases the level of financial irregularities.

Hypothesis Five (Audit Follow-up and Compliance)

• H₀₅: There is no significant relationship between the rate of audit recommendation implementation and the recurrence of financial irregularities.
• H₁₅: There is a significant negative relationship between audit recommendation implementation and the recurrence of financial irregularities (higher implementation associated with fewer repeat irregularities).

Hypothesis Six (Budget Credibility and Service Delivery)

• H₀₆: There is no significant relationship between budget credibility (variance) and service delivery outcomes (project completion rates, service quality).
• H₁₆: There is a significant negative relationship between budget variance and service delivery outcomes (smaller variance associated with better service delivery).

Hypothesis Seven (COVID-19 Impact)

• H₀₇: The COVID-19 pandemic did not significantly affect budget credibility in government parastatals.
• H₁₇: The COVID-19 pandemic significantly reduced budget credibility (increased variance) in government parastatals.

Hypothesis Eight (Rolling Forecasts and Adaptability)

• H₀₈: Parastatals that use rolling forecasts (quarterly budget updates) do not have significantly higher budget credibility than parastatals that use fixed annual budgets.
• H₁₈: Parastatals that use rolling forecasts have significantly higher budget credibility than parastatals that use fixed annual budgets.

1.7 Significance of the Study

This study holds significance for multiple stakeholders as follows:

For Government Parastatals (Management and Boards):
The study provides empirical evidence on the weaknesses in budgeting and budgetary control. Parastatal management can use this evidence to strengthen financial management: improve budget preparation (realism), implement variance analysis and corrective action, strengthen internal controls, improve record keeping, and invest in staff training. Boards can use this evidence to oversee management and hold them accountable.

For the National Assembly (Public Accounts Committees, PACs):
PACs are responsible for reviewing audit reports and holding parastatals accountable. The study provides evidence on systemic weaknesses that require legislative action: budget approval delays, weak audit follow-up, political interference. PACs can use this evidence to prioritize oversight, strengthen audit follow-up, and recommend legislative reforms.

For the Ministry of Finance and Budget Office:
The Ministry of Finance (and Budget Office) sets budget guidelines, approves budgets, and releases funds. The study provides evidence on parastatal budgeting challenges: unrealistic budgets, late approvals, weak variance analysis, low capital implementation. The Ministry can use this evidence to improve budget guidelines, provide training, enforce compliance, and link fund releases to performance.

For the Office of the Auditor-General and State Auditors-General:
Auditors rely on budgets to assess compliance. The study provides evidence on which budget control weaknesses are most associated with irregularities. Auditors can use this evidence to focus audit procedures on high-risk areas, and to make evidence-based recommendations.

For the Fiscal Responsibility Commission (FRC):
The FRC enforces the Fiscal Responsibility Act. The study provides evidence on parastatal compliance (or non-compliance). The FRC can use this evidence to target enforcement, impose sanctions for non-compliance, and recommend legislative amendments.

For Civil Society Organizations (BudgIT, Enough is Enough, TI-Nigeria):
CSOs advocate for transparency and accountability. The study provides evidence on systemic weaknesses that CSOs can use in advocacy campaigns (e.g., “budget credibility is low, funds are not being spent as planned”). The study also provides evidence to monitor reform progress.

For International Development Partners (World Bank, IMF, DFID, EU):
Development partners support public financial management reforms. The study provides evidence on the effectiveness (or ineffectiveness) of past reforms (MTEF, TSA, GIFMIS) and identifies remaining gaps. Development partners can use this evidence to design future programs, focusing on the most critical weaknesses.

For Academics and Researchers:
This study contributes to the literature on public financial management in several ways. First, it provides evidence from a developing economy context (Nigeria), which is underrepresented. Second, it focuses on parastatals (understudied compared to MDAs). Third, it examines the relationship between budgeting practices and financial management outcomes. Fourth, it includes the COVID-19 pandemic as a natural experiment. The study provides a foundation for future research in other African countries and emerging markets.

For the Nigerian Citizen and Taxpayer:
Citizens pay taxes and deserve to know that public funds are managed effectively. The study provides evidence on whether parastatals are managing funds properly. Citizens can use this evidence to demand accountability from their elected officials and to vote based on fiscal performance.

For the Nigerian Economy:
Parastatals provide essential services (electricity, water, transport, healthcare, education, finance). When parastatals manage funds effectively, services improve, economic activity increases, and poverty declines. By identifying how to strengthen budgeting and budgetary control, this study contributes to better parastatal performance and, ultimately, economic development.

1.8 Scope of the Study

The scope of this study is defined by the following parameters:

Content Scope: The study focuses on budgeting and budgetary control and effective financial management in government parastatals. Specifically, it examines: (1) budgeting practices (budget preparation, approval, execution); (2) budgetary control practices (variance analysis, investigation, corrective action); (3) financial management outcomes (budget credibility, implementation rates, financial irregularities, audit opinions, service delivery); (4) internal controls; (5) staff capacity; (6) political interference; (7) audit follow-up; and (8) COVID-19 impact. The study does not examine revenue collection (except as it relates to budget execution). The study does not examine procurement processes in depth except as they relate to budget control.

Organizational Scope: The study covers federal government parastatals in Nigeria. Examples include: Nigerian Railway Corporation (NRC), Nigerian Ports Authority (NPA), Federal Airports Authority of Nigeria (FAAN), National Universities Commission (NUC), National Health Insurance Scheme (NHIS), Bank of Industry (BOI), Bank of Agriculture (BOA), Nigerian Export-Import Bank (NEXIM), and others. The study excludes state government parastatals and local government parastatals. The study excludes ministries, departments, and agencies (MDAs) that are not parastatals.

Geographic Scope: The study covers parastatals headquartered in the Federal Capital Territory (Abuja) and Lagos State, where most federal parastatals are located. Findings may be generalizable to state government parastatals, but caution is warranted.

Time Scope: The study covers a 5-year period from 2019 to 2023, encompassing pre-COVID (2019), COVID-19 pandemic (2020-2021), and post-pandemic recovery (2022-2023). This period enables analysis of budgeting effectiveness before, during, and after the pandemic.

Respondent Scope: Within each parastatal, respondents include: (1) Chief Financial Officers (CFOs) or Finance Managers (for budgeting and financial management practices); (2) Budget Officers (for budget preparation and execution details); (3) Internal Auditors (for internal control and compliance); (4) Chief Executive Officers (CEOs) or Managing Directors (for oversight and political interference); and (5) Audit Committee members (for oversight). Multiple respondents per parastatal enable triangulation.

Data Sources: The study uses multiple data sources: (1) audit reports (Auditor-General of the Federation); (2) financial statements and budget execution reports (parastatals); (3) budget documents (appropriation acts, budget proposals); (4) surveys of finance staff; (5) interviews with key informants (Auditor-General, FRC, Budget Office); and (6) case studies of selected parastatals.

Theoretical Scope: The study is grounded in agency theory, stewardship theory, institutional theory, and public financial management theory. These theories provide the conceptual lens for understanding the relationship between budgeting, budgetary control, and financial management.

1.9 Definition of Terms

The following key terms are defined operationally as used in this study:

Term	Definition
Budget	A comprehensive financial plan that specifies expected revenues, anticipated expenditures, and projected cash flows for a specified fiscal year.
Budgeting	The process of translating organizational plans and objectives into quantitative financial terms for a specified future period.
Budgetary Control	The process of comparing actual performance against budgeted targets, identifying variances, investigating causes, and taking corrective action.
Budget Credibility	The degree to which actual revenues and expenditures conform to budgeted estimates. High credibility means actual figures are close to budget (low variance).
Variance Analysis	The process of comparing actual results to budgeted results, calculating favorable and unfavorable variances, and investigating root causes.
Financial Irregularity	Unauthorized expenditure, payment without supporting documents, contract award without due process, non-retirement of advances, or other violation of financial regulations.
Government Parastatal	A state-owned enterprise (SOE) or public corporation established by an Act of Parliament or government directive to provide specific public services or engage in commercial activities on behalf of the government.
Internal Control	Policies and procedures designed to safeguard assets, ensure accuracy of records, prevent and detect fraud, and ensure compliance with laws and regulations.
Public Accounts Committee (PAC)	A legislative committee responsible for reviewing audit reports and holding government entities (including parastatals) accountable for financial irregularities.
Fiscal Responsibility Act (2007)	An Act requiring fiscal discipline, transparency, and accountability in government finances, including budget preparation, execution, and reporting.
Medium-Term Expenditure Framework (MTEF)	A rolling 3-year budget framework that links policy planning to budgeting, intended to improve budget credibility.
Treasury Single Account (TSA)	A unified bank account into which all government revenues are deposited and from which all payments are made, improving cash management and expenditure control.
GIFMIS	Government Integrated Financial Management Information System. An integrated computerized financial management system for budget execution, accounting, and reporting.
Appropriation Act	The law passed by the National Assembly (or State House of Assembly) that authorizes the government to spend funds from the Consolidated Revenue Fund.
Virement	The transfer of funds from one budget line to another during budget execution, often used to reallocate funds without legislative approval.

CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 Introduction

This chapter presents a comprehensive review of literature relevant to budgeting and budgetary control and effective financial management in government parastatals in Nigeria. The review is organized into five main sections. First, the conceptual framework section defines and explains the key constructs: budgeting, budgetary control, budget credibility, variance analysis, financial management, and government parastatals. Second, the theoretical framework section examines the theories that underpin the relationship between budgeting, budgetary control, and financial management, including agency theory, stewardship theory, institutional theory, and public financial management theory. Third, the empirical review section synthesizes findings from previous studies on budgeting and budgetary control in public sector organizations globally and in Nigeria. Fourth, the regulatory framework section examines the Nigerian context, including the Fiscal Responsibility Act, MTEF, TSA, GIFMIS, and audit requirements. Fifth, the summary of literature identifies gaps that this study seeks to address.

The purpose of this literature review is to situate the current study within the existing body of knowledge, identify areas of consensus and controversy, and justify the research questions and hypotheses formulated in Chapter One (Creswell and Creswell, 2018). By critically engaging with prior scholarship, this chapter establishes the intellectual foundation upon which the present investigation is built. (Creswell and Creswell, 2018)

2.2 Conceptual Framework

2.2.1 The Concept of Budgeting

Budgeting is the process of translating organizational plans and objectives into quantitative financial terms for a specified future period, typically one fiscal year. A budget is a comprehensive financial plan that specifies expected revenues, anticipated expenditures, and projected cash flows. In the public sector, budgeting serves multiple functions (Schick, 2018). (Schick, 2018)

Planning: The budget translates government policies and development plans into financial terms. It answers: “How much will be spent on what?”

Authorization: The budget, when approved by the legislature (Appropriation Act), authorizes the executive to spend funds from the Consolidated Revenue Fund.

Allocation: The budget allocates scarce public resources to competing priorities (education, health, infrastructure, defense, etc.).

Control: The budget provides a benchmark against which actual performance is compared. Variances signal problems requiring corrective action.

Accountability: The budget provides a basis for holding government accountable for its use of public funds (through audit and legislative oversight).

The budget cycle in the public sector consists of four phases (Schick, 2018). (Schick, 2018)

Phase 1: Budget Formulation: The executive (Ministry of Finance, Budget Office, spending ministries) prepares the budget proposal based on policy priorities, revenue forecasts, and expenditure ceilings.

Phase 2: Budget Approval: The legislature (National Assembly, State Houses of Assembly) reviews, amends, and approves the budget (Appropriation Act).

Phase 3: Budget Execution: The executive implements the budget (collects revenue, incurs expenditures, delivers services).

Phase 4: Budget Audit and Oversight: The Auditor-General audits the financial statements and budget compliance. The Public Accounts Committee (PAC) reviews the audit report and holds the executive accountable.

2.2.2 The Concept of Budgetary Control

Budgetary control is the process of comparing actual performance against budgeted targets, identifying variances, investigating causes, and taking corrective action. Budgetary control is the ex-post (after the fact) phase of the budget cycle. It ensures that actual expenditures do not exceed budgeted appropriations and that resources are used efficiently and effectively (Anthony and Govindarajan, 2018). (Anthony and Govindarajan, 2018)

The budgetary control process consists of several stages (Anthony and Govindarajan, 2018). (Anthony and Govindarajan, 2018)

Stage 1: Recording Actual Results: Financial transactions are recorded in the accounting system. Actual revenues and expenditures are captured.

Stage 2: Comparing Actual to Budget: Variance analysis calculates the differences between actual and budget. Variances can be favorable (actual better than budget) or unfavorable (actual worse than budget).

Stage 3: Investigating Variances: Significant variances are investigated to determine root causes. Causes may be internal (efficiency, pricing) or external (economic conditions, policy changes).

Stage 4: Taking Corrective Action: Based on variance analysis, managers take corrective action: adjust operations, revise budgets, or update policies.

Stage 5: Reporting: Variance reports are submitted to management, the board, the supervising ministry, the Ministry of Finance, and the Auditor-General.

Stage 6: Performance Evaluation: Performance against budget is used to evaluate managers and hold them accountable.

Key tools for budgetary control include (Anthony and Govindarajan, 2018). (Anthony and Govindarajan, 2018)

Variance Analysis: Calculation and investigation of differences between actual and budget.

Flexible Budgets: Budgets that adjust for changes in activity volume, providing a fairer basis for performance evaluation.

Responsibility Accounting: Assignment of revenues and costs to specific managers who have authority over those items.

Management by Exception: Focusing management attention on significant variances (not all variances). The Pareto principle (80/20 rule) suggests that 20% of variances cause 80% of the problems.

2.2.3 Budget Credibility

Budget credibility is the degree to which actual revenues and expenditures conform to budgeted estimates. High budget credibility means that actual figures are close to budget (low variance). Low budget credibility (high variance) indicates that the budget is not a reliable planning tool, that legislative oversight is ineffective, and that resources are not being allocated as intended (IMF, 2018). (IMF, 2018)

The International Monetary Fund (IMF) recommends that aggregate expenditure variance should not exceed 5% for a credible budget. In Nigeria, capital expenditure variance often exceeds 30%. Low budget credibility has several causes (IMF, 2018). (IMF, 2018)

Unrealistic Revenue Forecasts: Overly optimistic revenue forecasts lead to expenditure cuts when revenues fall short.

Late Budget Approval: Budgets approved after the start of the fiscal year lead to operating without appropriation, then rushed spending when funds are released.

Late Fund Releases: Funds are released late (sometimes in the last quarter), leading to rushed spending and low implementation.

Political Interference: Politicians reallocate funds to pet projects without legislative approval.

Weak Procurement Systems: Procurement delays (bidding, contract awards) prevent spending of appropriated funds.

Budget credibility is measured by (IMF, 2018). (IMF, 2018)

• Revenue variance: (Actual revenue – Budgeted revenue) / Budgeted revenue
• Expenditure variance: (Actual expenditure – Budgeted expenditure) / Budgeted expenditure
• Expenditure composition variance: Differences in allocation across sectors (e.g., education vs. health)

2.2.4 Variance Analysis in the Public Sector

Variance analysis is the process of comparing actual results to budgeted results, calculating favorable and unfavorable variances, and investigating root causes. In the public sector, variance analysis is essential for budgetary control (Premchand, 2017). (Premchand, 2017)

Revenue Variances: Actual revenue vs. budgeted revenue. Causes: tax collection efficiency, economic growth, oil price changes (for oil-dependent countries), exchange rate changes.

Expenditure Variances: Actual expenditure vs. budgeted expenditure. Causes: price changes (inflation), volume changes (more patients in hospitals), efficiency changes (waste), policy changes (supplementary budgets).

Capital vs. Recurrent: Capital expenditure variances are typically larger than recurrent expenditure variances because capital projects are more complex (procurement delays, project management problems).

Variance analysis is only useful if variances are investigated (root cause analysis) and corrective action is taken. Without investigation and corrective action, variance analysis is an academic exercise. In many Nigerian parastatals, variance reports are produced but ignored (Okoye, Okafor, and Nnamdi, 2020). (Okoye et al., 2020)

2.2.5 The Concept of Government Parastatals

Government parastatals (also called state-owned enterprises, SOEs, or public corporations) are entities established by Acts of Parliament or government directives to provide specific public services or engage in commercial activities on behalf of the government. Parastatals are distinct from government ministries and departments (MDAs) because they have some degree of operational and financial autonomy (Oyedele, 2017). (Oyedele, 2017)

Key characteristics of parastatals include (Oyedele, 2017). (Oyedele, 2017)

Legal Status: Parastatals are established by law (Act of Parliament, decree, or government directive). They have legal personality (can sue and be sued, own assets, enter contracts).

Governance: Parastatals have a board of directors (appointed by the government) and a chief executive (Managing Director, Director-General). They report to a supervising ministry.

Autonomy: Parastatals have some operational and financial autonomy (approve budgets within limits, hire staff, procure goods). However, they remain subject to government oversight (budget approval, audit, policy direction).

Funding: Parastatals may be funded by: (1) government budget allocations (subsidies); (2) internally generated revenue (IGR) from fees, charges, sales; (3) loans and grants; and (4) donor funding.

Accountability: Parastatals are accountable to the supervising ministry, the Ministry of Finance, the Auditor-General, and the legislature (Public Accounts Committee).

Examples of Nigerian federal parastatals include (Oyedele, 2017). (Oyedele, 2017)

• Transportation: Nigerian Railway Corporation (NRC), Nigerian Ports Authority (NPA), Federal Airports Authority of Nigeria (FAAN), Nigerian Maritime Administration and Safety Agency (NIMASA)
• Education: National Universities Commission (NUC), Tertiary Education Trust Fund (TETFund), Joint Admissions and Matriculation Board (JAMB)
• Health: National Health Insurance Scheme (NHIS), National Agency for Food and Drug Administration and Control (NAFDAC)
• Finance: Bank of Industry (BOI), Bank of Agriculture (BOA), Nigerian Export-Import Bank (NEXIM), Nigeria Deposit Insurance Corporation (NDIC)
• Other: National Communications Commission (NCC), National Broadcasting Commission (NBC), National Agency for Science and Engineering Infrastructure (NASENI)

2.2.6 Effective Financial Management in Government Parastatals

Effective financial management in government parastatals refers to the processes, systems, and controls that ensure that public funds are used efficiently, effectively, and in compliance with laws and regulations. Effective financial management contributes to service delivery, asset preservation, and public trust (World Bank, 2020). (World Bank, 2020)

Key indicators of effective financial management include (World Bank, 2020). (World Bank, 2020)

Budget Credibility: Low variance between budget and actual (≤5% for aggregate expenditure, ≤15% for sectoral allocations).

Budget Implementation: High implementation rates for capital projects (>70%).

Financial Irregularities: Low incidence of unauthorized expenditures, unsupported payments, contract awards without due process, and non-retirement of advances.

Internal Controls: Strong internal controls (segregation of duties, authorizations, reconciliations, asset safeguarding).

Record Keeping: Complete, accurate, and timely recording of all financial transactions. Retention of source documents.

Financial Reporting: Timely (within 3 months of year-end), complete, and accurate financial statements prepared in accordance with IPSAS.

Audit Opinions: Unqualified (clean) audit opinion. No material weaknesses in internal control.

Service Delivery: Achievement of service delivery targets (e.g., number of patients treated, students enrolled, kilometers of road constructed).

2.3 Theoretical Framework

This section presents the theories that provide the conceptual lens for understanding the relationship between budgeting, budgetary control, and effective financial management. Four theories are discussed: agency theory, stewardship theory, institutional theory, and public financial management theory.

2.3.1 Agency Theory

Agency theory, developed by Jensen and Meckling (1976), posits a conflict of interest between principals (citizens, government) and agents (parastatal managers). Agents may pursue self-interest (corruption, patronage, empire building) rather than the public interest. This divergence creates agency costs, including monitoring costs (expenditures to oversee agents) and bonding costs (expenditures by agents to assure principals). Budgeting and budgetary control reduce agency costs in several ways (Jensen and Meckling, 1976). (Jensen and Meckling, 1976)

• Budget targets: Budgets set specific financial targets that parastatal managers must achieve, reducing managerial discretion.
• Variance analysis: Monitors actual performance against targets, enabling principals (supervising ministry, Ministry of Finance, Auditor-General) to detect deviations.
• Audit: Independent audit verifies compliance with budget and financial regulations.
• Legislative oversight: Public Accounts Committee (PAC) holds parastatal managers accountable.

Agency theory predicts that stronger budgeting and budgetary control (realistic budgets, timely variance analysis, corrective action, audit follow-up) will reduce agency costs and improve financial management. Weak budgeting and control enable agent opportunism (corruption, waste) (Jensen and Meckling, 1976). (Jensen and Meckling, 1976)

2.3.2 Stewardship Theory

Stewardship theory, developed by Donaldson and Davis (1991), offers an alternative to agency theory. Stewardship theory argues that government officials (parastatal managers) are inherently motivated to act in the best interests of citizens because they derive satisfaction from achieving organizational goals and acting as responsible stewards. Unlike agency theory’s assumption that monitoring is necessary, stewardship theory suggests that officials will act responsibly when empowered and trusted (Donaldson and Davis, 1991). (Donaldson and Davis, 1991)

From a stewardship perspective, budgeting and budgetary control are not primarily monitoring mechanisms but enabling tools that help parastatal managers manage public funds effectively. Budgets help managers plan and allocate resources. Variance reports help managers learn and improve. Stewardship theory predicts that when budgeting and control systems are perceived as helpful (rather than punitive), managers will use them more effectively, leading to better financial management (Donaldson and Davis, 1991). (Donaldson and Davis, 1991)

In the Nigerian public sector, however, the prevalence of corruption suggests that stewardship theory may be less descriptive than agency theory (Donaldson and Davis, 1991). (Donaldson and Davis, 1991)

2.3.3 Institutional Theory

Institutional theory, developed by DiMaggio and Powell (1983), argues that organizations adopt practices not only for their economic benefits but also because of institutional pressures: coercive pressures (legal requirements), mimetic pressures (copying successful organizations), and normative pressures (professional norms). Organizations adopt practices to gain legitimacy, which is essential for survival (DiMaggio and Powell, 1983). (DiMaggio and Powell, 1983)

In the context of public financial management, institutional theory suggests that budget reforms (MTEF, TSA, GIFMIS, IPSAS) are adopted to gain legitimacy with international partners (IMF, World Bank) and citizens. However, adoption may be “decoupled” from actual practice: governments may adopt reforms on paper but not implement them effectively (decoupling). Decoupling explains why Nigeria has adopted many budget reforms but still experiences poor budget credibility and financial irregularities (DiMaggio and Powell, 1983). (DiMaggio and Powell, 1983)

Institutional theory predicts that decoupling is more likely when enforcement is weak. This study examines decoupling in Nigerian government parastatals (DiMaggio and Powell, 1983). (DiMaggio and Powell, 1983)

2.3.4 Public Financial Management (PFM) Theory

Public Financial Management (PFM) theory, articulated by Schick (2018) and Allen, Schiavo-Campo, and Garrity (2004), provides a framework for understanding budget credibility, budgetary control, and financial management. PFM theory identifies three core objectives: (1) aggregate fiscal discipline (total expenditure does not exceed total revenue plus sustainable borrowing); (2) allocative efficiency (resources are allocated to strategic priorities); and (3) operational efficiency (resources are used to achieve outputs at minimum cost) (Schick, 2018). (Schick, 2018)

PFM theory identifies key institutions and processes for achieving these objectives: (1) a credible budget; (2) a treasury single account (TSA) for cash management; (3) commitment control; (4) internal controls; (5) accounting and reporting; (6) internal audit; (7) external audit; and (8) legislative oversight. Budgeting and budgetary control are central to all these processes (Allen et al., 2004). (Allen et al., 2004)

PFM theory also recognizes that PFM reforms must be adapted to country context. What works in developed economies may not work in developing economies with weak capacity, corruption, and political interference. The effectiveness of budgeting and budgetary control in Nigerian parastatals depends on Nigeria’s capacity to implement and enforce them (Allen et al., 2004). (Allen et al., 2004)

References for Section 2.3.4

• Allen, R., Schiavo-Campo, S., and Garrity, T. C. (2004). Assessing and reforming public financial management. World Bank.
• Schick, A. (2018). The capacity to budget. Urban Institute Press.

---

2.4 Empirical Review

This section reviews empirical studies that have examined the relationship between budgeting, budgetary control, and financial management. The review is organized thematically: global studies, African studies, Nigerian studies (parastatals and MDAs), and studies on specific issues (audit, political interference, capacity).

2.4.1 Global Studies

In a study of 20 OECD countries, Diamond (2013) examined the relationship between budget credibility and budgetary control. Using panel data from 1995-2010, he found that countries with robust budgetary control systems (commitment control, variance analysis, corrective action) had significantly lower expenditure variances (mean 2.3% vs. 5.1% of budget, p < 0.01). The study concluded that budgetary control is the most important factor for budget credibility. (Diamond, 2013)

In a study of 30 developing countries, Dorotinsky and Pradhan (2007) examined the relationship between integrated financial management systems (IFMIS) and budget execution. They found that IFMIS adoption improved commitment control and reduced expenditure overruns. However, the effect was only significant when accompanied by: (1) staff training; (2) management enforcement; (3) internal audit; and (4) external audit. Countries with IFMIS but weak enforcement saw no improvement. (Dorotinsky and Pradhan, 2007)

In a study of 100 US state governments, Lienert (2015) examined the relationship between audit follow-up and financial irregularities. He found that states with strong audit follow-up (PAC meetings, recommendation implementation tracking, sanctions for non-compliance) had 60% fewer repeat irregularities than states with weak audit follow-up. (Lienert, 2015)

2.4.2 African Studies

In a study of 50 African countries, Lienert (2016) examined budget credibility in Sub-Saharan Africa. He found that aggregate expenditure variance averaged 15% (significantly higher than the 5% IMF benchmark). Capital expenditure variance was even higher (20-30%). Factors associated with low budget credibility: weak commitment control, late budget approval, unrealistic revenue forecasts, and political interference. (Lienert, 2016)

In a study of 20 Ghanaian government agencies, Amoako and Asante (2018) examined the relationship between budgetary control and financial irregularities. Using a survey of 100 finance staff, they found that agencies that performed variance analysis regularly (monthly) had 40% fewer irregularities than agencies that did not. Variance investigation and corrective action were the most important predictors of irregularity reduction. (Amoako and Asante, 2018)

In a study of 30 Kenyan government parastatals, Ochieng and Wamukoya (2019) examined the relationship between internal controls and financial irregularities. Using audit report data, they found that parastatals with strong internal controls (segregation of duties, authorizations, reconciliations) had 50% fewer irregularities than parastatals with weak internal controls. The most common internal control weaknesses were lack of segregation of duties and failure to reconcile bank accounts. (Ochieng and Wamukoya, 2019)

2.4.3 Nigerian Studies

Several Nigerian studies have examined budgeting and budgetary control in the public sector. Okoye, Okafor, and Nnamdi (2020) surveyed 50 federal parastatals on budgeting practices. They found that: (1) 70% prepared annual budgets; (2) 45% performed variance analysis; (3) 30% investigated variances; (4) 20% took corrective action; (5) 25% submitted financial statements on time; (6) 35% had unqualified audit opinions. Parastatals that performed variance analysis had 30% fewer irregularities than those that did not. (Okoye et al., 2020)

Adeyemi and Ogundipe (2019) examined the relationship between staff capacity and budgeting effectiveness in 40 federal parastatals. Using a survey of 120 finance staff, they found that parastatals with professionally qualified accountants (ICAN, ANAN) had significantly higher budget credibility (variance 12% vs. 25%, p < 0.01) and lower irregularities than parastatals without qualified staff. (Adeyemi and Ogundipe, 2019)

Auditor-General of the Federation (2020) documented financial irregularities in federal parastatals. Key findings: unauthorized expenditures (₦15 billion), payments without supporting documents (₦12 billion), contract awards without due process (₦8 billion), and non-retirement of advances (₦5 billion). The Auditor-General noted that the same irregularities appear year after year because audit recommendations are not implemented. (Auditor-General of the Federation, 2020)

BudgIT (2023) analyzed budget implementation in federal parastatals from 2015-2022. Key findings: (1) capital budget implementation averaged 55% (range 40-70%); (2) recurrent budget implementation averaged 90% (range 85-95%); (3) budget approval was late in 60% of years (passed after January 1); (4) supplementary budgets added 10-20% to original budgets; (5) virements were frequent. (BudgIT, 2023)

Ogunyemi and Adewale (2021) examined the impact of COVID-19 on budgeting in 20 federal parastatals. They found that: (1) 70% of parastatals experienced revenue shortfalls (mean -25%); (2) 60% submitted supplementary budget requests; (3) 45% used virement to reallocate funds; (4) 30% used rolling forecasts; (5) 20% had no COVID-19 response plan. Parastatals using rolling forecasts had 20% smaller revenue shortfalls than those using fixed budgets. (Ogunyemi and Adewale, 2021)

2.4.4 Studies on Factors Affecting Budgeting Effectiveness

Several studies have examined factors that affect budgeting effectiveness. Political interference is a major factor. Ochieng and Wamukoya (2019) found that political interference (ministers overriding budget controls) was associated with 3x higher irregularities. In Nigeria, Okonjo-Iweala (2012) documented cases where politicians directed parastatals to award contracts to unqualified bidders. (Ochieng and Wamukoya, 2019; Okonjo-Iweala, 2012)

Staff capacity is another factor. Adeyemi and Ogundipe (2019) found that parastatals with professionally qualified accountants had significantly better budgeting outcomes. The Budget Office of the Federation (2020) reported that 40% of parastatal finance staff lacked professional qualifications. (Adeyemi and Ogundipe, 2019; Budget Office, 2020)

Audit follow-up is critical. Lienert (2015) found that countries with strong audit follow-up had 60% fewer repeat irregularities. In Nigeria, BudgIT (2023) found that audit recommendation implementation rates averaged 15% (only 15% of recommendations were implemented). (BudgIT, 2023; Lienert, 2015)

Internal controls are essential. Ochieng and Wamukoya (2019) found that strong internal controls reduced irregularities by 50%. In Nigeria, the Auditor-General (2020) reported that 70% of audited parastatals had material internal control weaknesses. (Auditor-General of the Federation, 2020; Ochieng and Wamukoya, 2019)

2.5 Regulatory Framework in Nigeria

This section outlines the key regulatory provisions governing budgeting and budgetary control in Nigerian government parastatals.

Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (1999 as amended): Sections 80-83 govern budget and appropriation. Section 80 requires that no expenditure be incurred without appropriation by the National Assembly. Parastatal budgets must be approved by the legislature.

Fiscal Responsibility Act (2007): The Act establishes the Fiscal Responsibility Commission (FRC) to enforce fiscal discipline. It requires: (1) realistic budget estimates; (2) medium-term expenditure framework (MTEF); (3) quarterly budget performance reports; (4) audited financial statements within 6 months of year-end.

Public Procurement Act (2007): The Act establishes the Bureau of Public Procurement (BPP) to regulate procurement. It requires competitive bidding, due process, and transparency. Procurement must be budgeted for.

Treasury Single Account (TSA) Policy (2015): TSA requires that all government revenues be deposited into a single bank account and that all payments be made from that account. Parastatals are required to operate TSA accounts.

Government Integrated Financial Management Information System (GIFMIS) Implementation Framework (2012): GIFMIS is an integrated computerized financial management system for budget execution, accounting, and reporting. Parastatals are required to use GIFMIS.

Medium-Term Expenditure Framework (MTEF) Guidelines: MTEF is a rolling 3-year budget framework linking policy planning to budgeting. Parastatals are required to prepare MTEF submissions.

2.6 Summary of Literature Gaps

The review of existing literature reveals several significant gaps that this study seeks to address.

Gap 1: Limited Nigerian-specific evidence on budgeting and budgetary control in parastatals. Most studies focus on MDAs (ministries, departments). Few studies focus on parastatals. This study addresses this gap.

Gap 2: Lack of comprehensive assessment of multiple factors (budget credibility, variance analysis, internal controls, capacity, political interference, audit follow-up). Most studies focus on one factor. This study examines multiple factors.

Gap 3: Limited use of objective data (audit reports, financial statements). Most Nigerian studies use perceptual surveys. This study uses audit reports and financial statements.

Gap 4: Lack of research on COVID-19 impact on budgeting in parastatals. Only one Nigerian study has examined COVID-19 impact. This study provides additional evidence.

Gap 5: Limited examination of the relationship between budgetary control practices and financial irregularities. Most studies describe irregularities; few examine what causes them. This study examines causality.

Gap 6: Lack of testing of theoretical frameworks (agency, stewardship, institutional, PFM). Most Nigerian studies are descriptive. This study tests multiple theories.

Gap 7: Small samples and limited parastatals. Most Nigerian studies use 20-30 parastatals. This study uses a larger sample (50+ parastatals).