How Credible and Executable Are Saint Lucia’s Annual Budgets? A Plan-to-Outturn Assessment, FY2014/15–FY2024/25

Full abstract

Abstract

Budget credibility concerns whether fiscal outcomes resemble the plan originally approved by the legislature. This study constructs a source-vintage-controlled panel for Saint Lucia’s budgetary central government covering 11 completed fiscal years, FY2014/15–FY2024/25. Original revenue plans are drawn from annual Estimates; legally approved expenditure totals are anchored to Appropriation Acts; and reported administrative outturns are taken from the latest Economic and Social Review, with classification bridges for the April 2019 chart-of-accounts reform and the later treatment of principal repayment. Current revenue was comparatively accurate: its mean execution rate was 100.7%, its median was 100.8%, and its mean absolute error was 4.6%. Total revenue and grants averaged 96.1%, principally because grants realized only 56.7% of their pooled approved amount and fell below plan in every year. Operating/current expenditure averaged 97.9% of plan, whereas strict capital/development expenditure averaged 72.9% and was below plan in 10 of 11 years. Capital execution was lower than operating execution in 10 years; the mean paired difference was −25.0 percentage points (one-sided exact sign test, p = .0059). Total expenditure excluding principal and refunds was below plan in every year and averaged 92.0%. Later official outlooks were substantially closer to reported outturns, particularly for capital, but this improvement reflects a later information set rather than initial-budget credibility. Department and project extensions identify material reconciliation priorities without treating variances as illegality, project failure, or value-for-money evidence. The findings support a category-specific conclusion: Saint Lucia’s budgets are comparatively credible for current revenue and operating spending but materially less reliable for grants and capital execution.