Education Sector Plan: Education for All: Embracing Change, Securing Finale | Page 71

5. Cost and financing
Table 13: Education budget
2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
Macro-economic framework
56,923 57,579 58,287 58,977 59,678
Population growth
Population
1.2% 1.2% 1.2% 1.2% 1.2%
GDP at current prices* 2,715 2,866 3,015 3,167 3,323
GDP at constant prices* 2,670 2,760 2,842 2,923 3,006
3.5% 3.4% 3.0% 2.8% 2.8%
GDP per capita at current prices 47,696 49,775 51,727 53,699 55,682
GDP per capita at constant prices 46,910 47,934 48,765 49,566 50,365
25.0% 23.8% 23.0% 23.0% 23.0%
678 681 693 728 764
Current expenditure as % of resources 70.3% 68.3% 66.3% 66.3% 66.3%
Capital expenditure as % of resources 21.2% 19.8% 19.0% 19.0% 19.0%
Economic growth
Projected government budget
Government resources as % of GDP
Government resources*
Current expenditure* 477 465 460 483 506
Capital expenditure* 144 135 132 138 145
Current in % of government current expenditure 19.4% 19.4% 19.4% 19.4% 19.4%
Capital in % of government capital expenditure 13.3% 13.3% 13.3% 13.3% 13.3%
Education current expenditure** 92,284 90,070 88,973 93,459 98,062
Education capital expenditure** 19,087 17,866 17,483 18,365 19,270
111,371 107,936 106,457 111,824 117,332
Projected education budget
Education total expenditure**
Source: GoSKN (2013d, 2014b, 2015, 2016, 2017), Nevis Island Administration (2012a, 2012b, 2013a, 2013b, 2014a, 2014b, 2015a, 2015b)
and IMF (2016).
Note: *constant XCD millions 2016; **constant XCD thousands 2016.
5.3. Estimating and managing the plan financing gap
The plan financing gap is calculated by comparing the estimated cost of the plan with the projected financing available
for implementation, and including guaranteed funding for special programmes. Additionally, as shown at the bottom
of Table 14, a second calculation recalculates the gap over investment and programme costs to account for financing
likely to be obtained.
As shown, the financing gap over the recurrent budget is reasonably sustainable, with a peak of 7.4% in 2019; this is
attributed to the previously mentioned targeted expansion of the system. It represents an average gap of 3.6% over
the plan period. The financing gap over the potential capital budget is more difficult to discuss owing to the variability
of capital budget year to year. Using estimations of likely financing for certain special programmes (e.g. USAID/
OFDA support of school safety policy in Quality and Relevant Teaching and Learning, or UNICEF support of ECD
development initiatives in Access and Participation), the financing gap over the capital budget still shows a peak of
10% in 2019. It represents an average gap of 7.5% over the plan period.
Considering the scope of the strategies to be implemented, the financing gap over the recurrent and investment
budgets are expected yet manageable. This analysis is perhaps optimistic, but it is anticipated that the MoF will
respond positively to requests for increased budgetary allocations in pursuit of this strategy. Recent reforms in the
annual budget negotiation process have highlighted the criticality of using strategic plans, with clear monitoring
frameworks and cost components, to bring to bear fruitful budget negotiations. Accordingly, this plan meets MoF
expectations for considering increased allocations to the MoE, within the government’s Medium-Term Expenditure
Framework (MTEF).
Additionally, the MoE will work to strengthen partnerships with the private sector, donors, and other non-state
providers to defray the cost of plan implementation. Where austerity measures are necessary, annual plan targets
and activities will be modified to align with the available financing. This will be done through the annual performance
plan preparation and review processes. Last, but certainly not least, as the MoE strengthens knowledge management
for decision making and builds capacity in financial forecasting and planning, unit costs will be reviewed and amended
as necessary, which may lower estimated plan costs.
69