Budget, State and People Budget Process, Civil Society and Transparency in Angola
2007
- 184Usage
Metric Options: CountsSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Metrics Details
- Usage184
- Downloads175
- Abstract Views9
Article Description
The Norwegian Embassy in Luanda, through Norad, has contracted the Chr. Michelsen Institute to conduct this study on obstacles and opportunities for increased transparency and popular consultation in the prioritisation of state expenditure and handling of revenue. The overall objectives of the study are (a) to contribute to increased insight into the present state of budgetary transparency and openness to the public in Angola, and (b) to indicate ways in which such transparency and openness may be increased. The conclusions and recommendations in the report stand for the authors of the report and are not necessarily shared or supported by the Norwegian Embassy in Luanda. We have attempted to describe the budget system and processes as our mission to Angola found them in late 2006. We attempt to point out the weaknesses we found and to some extent how these ought to be dealt with, and in particular what improving transparency and stimulation of public interest in budget matters via civil society organisations could do to improve budgeting in Angola.
Bibliographic Details
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know