Approved growth (2019/20→2023/24)
24.25%
Actual growth (2019/20→2023/24)
73.03%
Peak total execution year
2021/22 (93.26%)
Worst foreign execution year
2023/24 (8.12%)
5-year Approved (sum)
70,236,207,354,772
5-year Actual (sum)
58,989,387,517,915
5-year Execution (Total)
83.99%
5-year Exec (Local)
95.42%
5-year Exec (Foreign)
43.58%
5-year Unspent foreign gap (sum)
9,308,876,340,688
Top 10 share of actual (range)
76.45%–87.05%
Top10 overlap (range, out of 10)
7–9
Foreign zero-spend votes (range)
6–48
Top 1 vote share (start year)
Vote 098 • 25.22%
Top 1 vote share (end year)
Vote 058 • 15.57%
Votes always in Top 10 by actual (count)
7
Approved=0 but Actual>0 flags (5y count)
7
National development envelope: Approved vs Actual (5-year)
The development envelope expanded from 12.246 T in FY2019/20 to 15.216 T in FY2023/24 (+24.27%). Actual spending rose faster—from 7.989 T to 13.824 T (+73.01%)—but still did not fully catch up to the approved path. Across the five years, 58.989 T was spent against 70.236 T approved (83.99% overall execution), leaving a cumulative underspend of 11.249 T. The closest-to-plan year is FY2021/22 at 93.26% execution (underspend 0.974 T), showing that execution can tighten materially when financing and implementation align.
National execution rate — Total vs Local vs Foreign
Headline execution improves from 65.24% (FY2019/20) to 90.86% (FY2023/24), but the composition of that execution changes dramatically. Local execution climbs from 68.41% to 113.61%, including local overspends of 1.458 T in FY2022/23 and 1.624 T in FY2023/24—signalling domestic resources increasingly drive delivery. In contrast, foreign execution collapses from 52.31–53.64% in FY2019/20–FY2021/22 to 27.26% in FY2022/23 and just 8.12% in FY2023/24. In FY2023/24 alone, foreign underspend is 3.016 T, meaning national totals can look resilient while external-financing delivery risks intensify.
Actual development spending composition: Local vs Foreign
Development spending becomes overwhelmingly domestically financed over the period. Foreign-funded actual spending declines from 1.313 T in FY2019/20 (16.43% of actual) to 0.266 T in FY2023/24 (1.93% of actual). Over the same period, local-funded actual spending rises from 6.676 T to 13.559 T, lifting the local share of actual to 98.07%. For policy, this is a structural shift: delivery is increasingly contingent on domestic releases, while the foreign component is increasingly delayed or not translating into recorded outturns.
Concentration: Top 10 votes’ share of total actual (development)
Development execution remains concentrated, but less so over time. The Top 10 votes account for 87.05% of total actual in FY2019/20 (6.955 T of 7.989 T), falling to 76.45% in FY2023/24 (10.569 T of 13.824 T). This widening spread suggests implementation is reaching more votes, but it also raises the oversight burden: managing execution performance now requires stronger monitoring beyond the usual largest institutions.
Planning vs spending alignment: Top 10 overlap (Approved vs Actual)
Alignment between planning and delivery is consistently strong but not perfect: each year, 7–9 of the Top 10 votes by approved allocation also appear in the Top 10 by actual spending. FY2019/20 shows the weakest alignment (7 of 10), consistent with major reallocations or implementation bottlenecks among large allocations. FY2020/21–FY2022/23 peak at 9 of 10, indicating more predictable execution among the biggest votes; FY2023/24 returns to 8 of 10, suggesting renewed execution re-ranking as foreign delivery weakens.
Foreign zero-spend votes (Approved Foreign > 0, Actual Foreign = 0)
Foreign execution risk becomes increasingly widespread. Votes with foreign approvals but zero recorded foreign spending rise from 7 in FY2019/20 to 48 in FY2023/24. In FY2023/24 alone, these votes carry 2.330 T in foreign approvals with no recorded foreign outturn, reinforcing why foreign execution collapses to 8.12%. This pattern is a clear governance signal: it points to disbursement delays, project implementation constraints, or reporting/classification breaks that can systematically understate externally financed delivery.
Foreign gap by funding source (Top 5 donors by 5-year gap)
Unspent foreign allocations are heavily concentrated in a small set of funding sources. Over the five years, donor codes 0WB (5.000 T), 0AB (1.490 T), 0IN (0.835 T), 0EU (0.769 T), and 0FR (0.708 T) together account for 73.10% of the total foreign gap (9.309 T). The foreign gap accelerates in FY2023/24 to 3.029 T, with 0WB alone contributing 1.478 T (48.80%). This is actionable: targeted portfolio problem-solving with the top funding sources will move the national foreign execution needle far more than broad, undifferentiated reforms.
Execution distribution over time (vote counts by execution band)
Most votes under-execute in every year, indicating system-wide implementation and absorption constraints. Across the period, 56–71 of 88 votes fall below 80% execution each year, while only 0–4 votes per year exceed 105%. Yet spending outcomes are driven by a few large votes: in FY2021/22, just 2 votes exceed 105% execution, but they account for 48.54% of total development spending that year. The implication is dual: improve baseline execution capability across many low performers, and tighten in-year controls over the largest votes where small deviations have outsized national impact.
National development summary (by year)
| FY | Approved (T) | Actual (T) | Exec % | Local % | Foreign % | Variance (T) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2019/20 | 12.246 T | 7.990 T | 65.24% | 68.58% | 52.31% | -4.256 T |
| 2020/21 | 12.779 T | 10.027 T | 78.46% | 85.49% | 52.68% | -2.752 T |
| 2021/22 | 14.990 T | 13.979 T | 93.26% | 105.42% | 62.69% | -1.011 T |
| 2022/23 | 15.006 T | 13.169 T | 87.76% | 98.42% | 39.14% | -1.837 T |
| 2023/24 | 15.216 T | 13.824 T | 90.86% | 113.61% | 8.12% | -1.391 T |
Across FY2019/20–FY2023/24, total development execution averages 83.99% (58.989 T spent of 70.236 T approved). FY2019/20 is the low point at 65.24% (underspend 4.253 T), while FY2021/22 is the closest to plan at 93.26% (underspend 0.974 T). The local–foreign split explains most volatility: foreign execution holds around 53% through FY2021/22, then drops to 27.26% in FY2022/23 and 8.12% in FY2023/24, while local execution rises above 100% in the final two years.
Top 10 by actual: stability across years (development)
| Vote | Years in Top 10 | Overspend years | Foreign zero-spend years | 5-year Actual (T) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Vote 062 — Ministry of Transport | 5 | 3 | 2 | 10.575 T |
| Vote 058 — Ministry of Energy | 5 | 1 | 1 | 9.894 T |
| Vote 098 — Ministry of Works | 5 | 4 | 0 | 8.262 T |
| Vote 046 — Ministry of Education, Science and Technology | 5 | 3 | 1 | 4.943 T |
| Vote 056 — President Office - Regional Administration and Local Government Authorities | 5 | 0 | 1 | 2.877 T |
| Vote 049 — Ministry of Water | 5 | 0 | 1 | 2.479 T |
| Vote 052 — Ministry of Health | 5 | 2 | 1 | 2.132 T |
| Vote 021 — The Treasury | 4 | 0 | 1 | 2.355 T |
| Vote 057 — Ministry of Defence and National Service | 3 | 2 | 0 | 2.200 T |
| Vote 043 — Ministry of Agriculture | 3 | 2 | 1 | 1.051 T |
| Vote 065 — PMO-Labour, Youth, Employment and Persons with Disability | 2 | 2 | 0 | 0.476 T |
| Vote 061 — National Electoral Commission | 2 | 1 | 0 | 0.344 T |
| Vote 069 — Ministry of Natural Resources and Tourism | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0.178 T |
Development spending is driven by a small, persistent core of institutions. Across five years, 13 unique votes appear in the Top 10 by actual spending at least once, but 7 votes appear in the Top 10 in every year. These 7 consistently dominant votes execute 41.163 T over the period—69.78% of all development spending (58.989 T). In FY2023/24, 6 of these 7 dominant votes record zero foreign outturn despite foreign approvals, showing how foreign non-execution is concentrated exactly where national spending power sits.
Execution consistency heatmap: development votes that always dominate spending (FY2019/20–FY2023/24)
| Vote | 2019/20 | 2020/21 | 2021/22 | 2022/23 | 2023/24 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Vote 062 — Ministry of Transport | 42.94% | 64.38% | 129.50% | 112.99% | 109.04% |
| Vote 058 — Ministry of Energy | 56.31% | 91.04% | 100.75% | 77.89% | 72.71% |
| Vote 098 — Ministry of Works | 155.71% | 105.26% | 109.03% | 116.42% | 88.23% |
| Vote 046 — Ministry of Education, Science and Technology | 85.09% | 111.87% | 117.79% | 115.31% | 88.06% |
| Vote 056 — President Office - Regional Administration and Local Government Authorities | 62.80% | 53.19% | 76.83% | 85.80% | 69.19% |
| Vote 049 — Ministry of Water | 78.30% | 50.45% | 82.12% | 86.80% | 61.67% |
| Vote 052 — Ministry of Health | 49.08% | 105.07% | 105.79% | 62.63% | 48.43% |
Heatmap: green = near 100% execution, red = under-execution, amber = over-execution.
The heatmap shows that the votes driving most development spending also drive most execution volatility. Vote 056 is persistently under-executed (below 80% in 4 of 5 years), while Vote 098 consistently over-executes (above 105% in 4 years, peaking at 155.71% in FY2019/20). Vote 062 swings sharply from 42.94% to 129.50%, underscoring that national outcomes are shaped by a handful of large votes shifting between underspend and overspend. For policy makers, this signals where intensified delivery troubleshooting and tighter in-year controls will have the highest fiscal and service-delivery returns.
Local execution consistency heatmap: development votes that always dominate spending (FY2019/20–FY2023/24)
| Vote | 2019/20 | 2020/21 | 2021/22 | 2022/23 | 2023/24 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Vote 062 — Ministry of Transport | 45.73% | 63.81% | 137.98% | 114.91% | 115.32% |
| Vote 058 — Ministry of Energy | 52.27% | 89.36% | 92.91% | 77.72% | 82.51% |
| Vote 098 — Ministry of Works | 172.82% | 106.64% | 129.46% | 120.11% | 107.32% |
| Vote 046 — Ministry of Education, Science and Technology | 93.02% | 86.69% | 120.87% | 119.36% | 102.35% |
| Vote 056 — President Office - Regional Administration and Local Government Authorities | 101.94% | 105.88% | 93.92% | 98.10% | 89.22% |
| Vote 049 — Ministry of Water | 62.20% | 65.20% | 108.04% | 136.48% | 105.41% |
| Vote 052 — Ministry of Health | 47.39% | 128.94% | 73.19% | 78.55% | 82.43% |
Heatmap: green = near 100% execution, red = under-execution, amber = over-execution. “—” = no local allocation/spend.
Local execution among the always-Top-10 development votes is strong for some large implementers but uneven overall. Vote 098 (Works) is persistently above plan in every year (172.82% in FY2019/20, still 107.32% in FY2023/24), indicating repeated in-year scaling or reallocation into this vote. Several votes improve markedly after FY2021/22—e.g., Vote 062 (Transport) moves from 45.73% (FY2019/20) and 63.81% (FY2020/21) to sustained over-execution (137.98% in FY2021/22 and 115.32% in FY2023/24), while Vote 049 (Water) rises from 62.20% to 105.41% by FY2023/24. By contrast, Vote 052 (Health) shows a one-off local spike in FY2020/21 (128.94%) followed by persistent under-execution—73.19% (FY2021/22), 78.55% (FY2022/23) and 82.43% (FY2023/24)—suggesting constraints in absorption or project readiness despite large development spending needs. The policy implication is that domestic financing is increasingly carrying development delivery, but execution performance is diverging across major votes—requiring targeted problem-solving in chronic under-executers and tighter in-year controls where repeated over-execution is observed.
Foreign execution consistency heatmap: development votes that always dominate spending (FY2019/20–FY2023/24)
| Vote | 2019/20 | 2020/21 | 2021/22 | 2022/23 | 2023/24 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Vote 049 — Ministry of Water | 99.86% | 35.96% | 61.67% | 6.18% | 0.00% |
| Vote 098 — Ministry of Works | 100.00% | 99.91% | 21.27% | 100.00% | 26.61% |
| Vote 052 — Ministry of Health | 50.75% | 21.59% | 135.28% | 17.55% | 0.00% |
| Vote 056 — President Office - Regional Administration and Local Government Authorities | 9.30% | 4.86% | 32.35% | 10.71% | 0.00% |
| Vote 046 — Ministry of Education, Science and Technology | 68.54% | 172.79% | 109.49% | 97.93% | 0.00% |
| Vote 058 — Ministry of Energy | 105.71% | 107.53% | 195.62% | 80.65% | 0.00% |
| Vote 062 — Ministry of Transport | 0.00% | 77.67% | 51.93% | 80.43% | 0.00% |
Heatmap: green = near 100% execution, red = under-execution, amber = over-execution. “—” = no foreign allocation/spend.
Foreign execution deteriorates sharply among the very votes that dominate development spending. By FY2023/24, six of the seven always-Top-10 votes record zero foreign outturn despite having foreign allocations, consistent with the national foreign execution collapse to 8.12%. Vote 098 is the exception, but even it falls to 26.64% foreign execution in FY2023/24 after reaching 82.61% in FY2022/23. The relevance-based sorting is critical for interpretation: it pushes votes with consistent foreign exposure to the top, so decision-makers see real foreign-delivery performance rather than rows dominated by ‘no foreign allocation’ years.
5-year execution story (Development Budget)
- • Over FY2019/20–FY2023/24, 58.989 T was spent against 70.236 T approved (83.99% overall execution), leaving a cumulative underspend of 11.249 T.
- • The development envelope expanded from 12.246 T to 15.216 T (+24.27%), while actual spending rose from 7.989 T to 13.824 T (+73.01%), indicating partial catch-up but persistent absorption constraints.
- • The defining shift is financing composition: local execution rises to 113.61% in FY2023/24 (local overspend 1.624 T), while foreign execution collapses to 8.12% (foreign underspend 3.016 T), meaning domestic resources increasingly carry development delivery.
- • Concentration remains high: Top 10 votes execute 76.45–87.05% of total development spending each year. Seven votes appear in the Top 10 in every year and together account for 41.163 T (69.78% of five-year spending).
- • Foreign delivery risk becomes widespread: votes with foreign approvals but zero recorded foreign spending rise from 7 to 48, carrying 2.330 T of foreign approvals with no recorded outturn in FY2023/24. The foreign gap is concentrated in a few funding sources, led by donor code 0WB (5.000 T over five years).