评论
打印
And it's intentionally done like that, because this is how we often imagine the budget to be: so complex, so technocratic, bureaucratic we don't even want to engage.
而且，有意这样做，因为我们对预算通常的印象是：制定起来很复杂，需要大量技术含量，有我们都不想涉及的繁文缛节。
But the reality is very different than that.
但是，现实却完全与之相反。
In fact, all our budgets, be it your own budgets or public budgets, or company budgets, go through the four logical steps.
事实上，我们所有的预算，你们的私人预算，公共预算和公司预算，都会经过这四个必然的流程。
The first step is, of course, we are calculating our revenues.
我们首先肯定是计算财政收入。
In the sense of the state, it would be taxes and fees, right?
对国家来说，就是税费，是吧？
The second step is budget approval.
然后要经过预算批准。
After we figure out what we will do with the funds, it goes to the approval of the parliament.
我们规划好资金的用途，还要经过议会的批准。
And then, the third step, my personal favorite, is spending, or budget execution.
之后就是我最喜欢的步骤，预算执行。
Ideally, according to priorities -- not my personal favorite.
按理来说，这一步是要根据优先程度-而不是我个人的喜好。
And then, we go into control and budget oversight.
最后，我们要对预算进行控制和监管。
So whether we have actually spent the money as we planned, and also, whether we have achieved the objectives.
监管我们是否按计划使用资金，以及是否实现了目标。
So in the sense of the state, it would be an increased level of education, decreased level of poverty.
所以，从国家的角度来说，就是要提高教育程度，降低贫困率。
In the sense of the companies, it would be profit or income.
从公司的角度来说，就是利润和收入。
You see where I'm going.
你知道我在做什么了吧。
So what is really wrong with that?
所以，到底是哪里出错了呢？
It sounds perfectly logical.
这些步骤听起来非常的符合逻辑。
Well, what is wrong with that is that traditionally, in most countries, if not all around the world, we assume, when we are planning the budget funds, that we are targeting one universal, homogenous human that will have the same access to funds, the same needs, almost.
问题就在于，照惯例，大多数国家，甚至是全世界，都认为，计划资金预算时，我们计划的受益对象都是同样条件的人，他们基本上有同样的途径获取资金和同样的需求。
And then, a situation such as this one in the Ministry of Agriculture happens; then, we are surprised that our funds didn't really reach everybody.
然后，就会出现之前农业部的问题。我们惊讶于我们的资金并没有惠及每一个人。
So, what I want to also say here, what do we then do about that?
所以，我在这想说的是，我们对此能做些什么？
In Ukraine, the government has analyzed close to 300 budget programs.
乌克兰政府分析了近300个预算项目。
And when I say “budget programs,” these are expenditures in health, education, sports, infrastructure, defense -- anything you can think of that is funded with public funds.
我说“预算项目”时，指的是医疗、教育、体育、基础建设和国防的开支--任何你能想到的公共资金拨款。
And in every single one of these programs, we have found gender gaps.
我们在这些项目中都能找到性别差距。
We have found big gender gaps.
巨大的性别差距。
And these gender gaps were usually on account of women -- they didn't have access.
这些性别差距主要是女性--她们没有机会。
And why did this happen?
为什么会出现这样的结果？
It happened because finance officers were just doing their jobs, and they were doing it really well.
因为财务官员只是做了分内的工作，做的也很出色。
They were planning for economic effectiveness, efficiency, value for money ...
他们计划经济效益、经济效率和性价比。
We really love value for money.
我们真的很喜欢物有所值。
Performance budgeting, medium-term -- all of these very valid economic objectives, very valid goals, but we really didn't account for the needs of the people that we are serving with these funds.
预算的实际使用情况，中期的--这些都是有效的经济目标，非常有效，但是，我们却没有考虑这些资金受益人的需求。
And let me illustrate that.
我解释一下这一点。
So we have analyzed the program for tuberculosis. So, treatment of patients with tuberculosis.
我们分析了肺结核这个项目，对肺结核病人的治疗。
And you may be now asking, "OK, but you know, you need to treat the patient. Why is gender important here?"
你也许会问，“好吧，你知道，你需要治疗的是病人，但为什么需要重视性别概念？”
But when we have done the analysis, we have actually s een that 70 percent of the patients with tuberculosis were men.
我们做该项分析时，我们确实发现70%的肺结核病人是男性。
