Where Does Public Money Go?Tracking Tunisia’s Major Development Expenditures from Budget to Results
Document- and Data-Based Investigative Report
Prepared and published by: Mohamed Chaieb Barhoumi
ATEP MED – Arabic Digital Center for Media & Development
Introduction: Following the Money
Every year, the Tunisian state allocates billions of dinars to public expenditure, investment, infrastructure, public services and development programmes.
These figures appear in budget documents, financial laws, government programmes, investment plans and project announcements. Yet one of the most important questions often begins after the money has been allocated:
Where does the money actually go, what is eventually delivered, and what changes for citizens on the ground?
This investigation examines the journey of public development expenditure from budget allocation to implementation, completion and measurable results.
The objective is not simply to identify how much money is allocated. It is to follow the entire chain:
Budget → Allocation → Project → Contract → Implementation → Payment → Completion → Beneficiary → Impact.
Tunisia's Ministry of Finance publishes official budget information and an open-budget platform that provides data on development-related expenditure. The platform allows users to examine allocated and executed development expenditure by mission, programme, sub-programme and project group.
This creates an important opportunity for investigative journalism: public money can be followed through documents and data rather than through announcements alone.
1. The Size of the Public Spending Question
The 2026 state budget is estimated at 79.624 billion Tunisian dinars.
Within the economic classification of expenditure, the Ministry of Finance estimates 12.0556 billion dinars in equipment expenditure for 2026.
This includes:
- approximately 4.4238 billion dinars in direct investment;
- approximately 4.0849 billion dinars in public financing;
- approximately 2.25 billion dinars in state investment financed through external borrowing.
These figures are not merely accounting numbers.
Behind every investment allocation there should be a project, a public need, an implementation process and eventually a measurable result.
The investigative question is therefore not simply:
How much has the government budgeted?
It is:
What does Tunisia receive in return for these expenditures?
2. From Budget Allocation to Real Projects
A budget allocation does not automatically mean that a project has been completed.
A project may pass through several stages:
Identification of need
↓
Planning
↓
Budget allocation
↓
Procurement or financing agreement
↓
Contract
↓
Implementation
↓
Payment
↓
Completion
↓
Operation
↓
Beneficiary impact
At every stage, there is a possibility that the reality differs from the original plan.
A project may be delayed.
Its cost may change.
Its implementation may be slower than expected.
Its physical progress may differ from its financial execution.
Infrastructure may be completed but not fully operational.
Equipment may be purchased but insufficiently used.
A training programme may reach thousands of participants without producing the expected employment results.
For investigative journalism, these differences are where the story begins.
3. The Difference Between Money Spent and Results Achieved
One of the central principles of this investigation is that financial execution should not automatically be treated as evidence of social or economic impact.
A ministry may report that a large percentage of a project's budget has been executed.
That tells us something important about spending.
But it does not necessarily tell us:
- how many people benefited;
- whether the infrastructure works;
- whether services improved;
- whether jobs were created;
- whether household income increased;
- whether poverty declined;
- whether the project remains operational;
- whether the original objectives were achieved.
This distinction is particularly important for development projects.
A project can have a high financial execution rate while producing limited measurable outcomes.
Conversely, a project may experience implementation delays for legitimate reasons while still producing significant long-term benefits.
Therefore, the investigation must compare financial indicators with physical and social indicators.
4. What the Official Data Can Tell Us
Tunisia's Ministry of Finance has developed an open-budget platform that provides information on development-related expenditure.
The development expenditure dashboard distinguishes between allocated credits and executed credits, and allows expenditure to be examined by missions, programmes, sub-programmes and project groupings.
The platform also provides downloadable datasets in formats including XLSX, CSV and JSON, creating opportunities for journalists and researchers to conduct independent analysis.
This is important because investigative journalism does not have to depend exclusively on press releases.
The data can be downloaded, cleaned, compared and analysed.
A journalist can ask:
Which sectors receive the largest development allocations?
Which regions receive the largest investments?
Which projects have the largest financial allocations?
Which programmes show significant differences between allocated and executed amounts?
Which projects appear repeatedly in annual budgets?
Which investments experience delays?
Which projects have large budgets but limited publicly documented outcomes?
These questions can transform a general budget story into a detailed investigation.
5. The Regional Question
Public investment is also a question of geography.
Where public money is invested matters.
A project in Tunis does not necessarily have the same development significance as a project in Kairouan, Kasserine, Gafsa, Jendouba, Tataouine or another region facing different economic and social conditions.
The Ministry of Finance publishes documentation concerning the regional distribution of investment, making it possible to examine the geographic dimension of public investment.
An investigative project could therefore construct a regional comparison based on:
- public investment allocations;
- number of projects;
- project values;
- infrastructure expenditure;
- employment-related investment;
- health and education infrastructure;
- water and sanitation projects;
- agricultural investment;
- project completion;
- delays;
- population served.
The objective would not be to assume that every region should receive identical amounts.
Instead, the investigation would ask whether differences can be explained by population, needs, infrastructure gaps, poverty levels, strategic priorities and measurable development objectives.
6. From Public Contract to Public Result
Another important stage is public procurement.
Once a project receives funding, the next question is often:
Who implements it?
This requires examining procurement notices, contracts, contractors, implementation deadlines, contract values, amendments and final results.
Tunisia's national public procurement portal publishes information concerning public procurement, including annual plans, calls for tenders and results.
The public procurement authority also identifies governance, transparency, execution, control and evaluation as important components of public procurement oversight.
For investigative reporting, this creates a documentary trail.
The investigation can attempt to reconstruct:
Public authority
→ Project
→ Tender
→ Winning company
→ Contract value
→ Implementation period
→ Payments
→ Completion
→ Final beneficiary
This chain is essential for understanding where public money goes.
7. What Happens When Projects Are Delayed?
A project that appears in a budget does not necessarily become a functioning public service immediately.
Delays can occur for many reasons:
- procurement procedures;
- land issues;
- technical difficulties;
- changes in project design;
- financing problems;
- contractor performance;
- administrative procedures;
- disputes;
- changes in priorities;
- force majeure.
An investigation should not automatically interpret a delay as evidence of wrongdoing.
Instead, the journalist should establish:
What was the original deadline?
What is the current deadline?
How much has already been spent?
What percentage of physical work has been completed?
Why was the project delayed?
Who is responsible for monitoring it?
Has the contract been modified?
Has the budget increased?
When will citizens actually receive the intended service?
This approach separates documented facts from assumptions.
8. The Difference Between Completion and Use
One of the most important questions in development journalism is often overlooked:
Does completed infrastructure actually work?
A school can be constructed but lack equipment.
A health facility can be completed but face staffing shortages.
A water project can be inaugurated but operate below capacity.
A road can be completed but deteriorate rapidly.
A digital service can be launched but have limited use.
Therefore, the investigation should go beyond the official announcement of completion.
It should examine the operational reality.
This is where field journalism becomes essential.
Documents can tell us what was planned.
Budget data can tell us how much was allocated.
Procurement records can tell us who was contracted.
But interviews and field observation can help determine what citizens actually experience.
9. Five Questions for Every Major Development Project
For the purposes of this investigation, ATEP MED proposes a simple project accountability framework.
Question 1 — How much money was allocated?
Identify the original budget and financing source.
Question 2 — How much money was actually spent?
Compare allocated credits with executed expenditure.
Question 3 — What was supposed to be delivered?
Identify the project's measurable targets.
Question 4 — What was actually delivered?
Verify physical outputs through official records and field evidence.
Question 5 — What changed for beneficiaries?
Measure the project's real social, economic or environmental outcomes.
The fifth question is often the most difficult.
It is also the question that transforms financial reporting into investigative development journalism.
10. Building a Public Project Scorecard
A practical investigative tool could be developed for selected Tunisian projects.
For every project, the investigation could record:
| Indicator | Evidence to collect |
|---|---|
| Project name | Official project document |
| Sector | Government classification |
| Region | Official location |
| Original budget | Budget / financing agreement |
| Revised budget | Updated documents |
| Financing source | State / external financing / other |
| Contractor | Procurement documentation |
| Contract value | Contract / tender result |
| Planned completion | Contract |
| Actual completion | Monitoring / field verification |
| Financial execution | Official expenditure data |
| Physical execution | Project reports |
| Beneficiaries | Official indicators |
| Current status | Field verification |
| Impact | Outcome indicators |
| Delays | Documentary evidence |
| Explanations | Responsible institutions |
| Independent verification | Interviews / site visit |
This methodology makes the investigation reproducible.
It also allows journalists, researchers, civil-society organisations and institutions to compare projects using the same documentary framework.
11. Following the Money Across Several Years
A major investigative question is whether projects disappear from public attention after their announcement.
A project announced in 2022 may still appear in later budget documents.
A project initially planned for completion in 2024 may be delayed until 2026.
A project may receive additional allocations.
A project may change scope.
These changes should be documented rather than treated as isolated annual events.
The investigation therefore proposes creating a multi-year project timeline.
For each selected project:
Year 1: announcement and initial allocation
Year 2: procurement and contracting
Year 3: implementation
Year 4: revised budget / delay / completion
Year 5: operation and impact
This approach can reveal patterns that are invisible when each year's budget is examined separately.
12. The Human Impact
Behind every budget line there are people.
An investment in water affects households.
A road affects farmers and businesses.
A health project affects patients.
A school project affects children and teachers.
An agricultural programme affects farmers.
An employment programme affects young people.
Therefore, the final stage of the investigation should return to the people who were supposed to benefit.
The journalist should ask:
What changed?
What did not change?
What improved?
What remains unresolved?
What was promised?
What was delivered?
What do beneficiaries say today?
These questions connect financial data to human experience.
13. Documentary Evidence Before Conclusions
This investigation adopts a strict documentary approach.
Claims should be supported, whenever possible, by:
- budget laws;
- official budget tables;
- project documents;
- financing agreements;
- procurement notices;
- contracts;
- implementation reports;
- monitoring documents;
- evaluation reports;
- official statistics;
- open-budget datasets;
- field observations;
- interviews;
- photographs and video evidence;
- beneficiary testimony.
The Ministry of Finance's official resources include the 2026 Finance Law and budget information, while the Open Budget platform provides development expenditure data for analysis.
This evidence-based approach is particularly important when reporting on public money.
The purpose is not to accuse institutions or contractors without evidence.
The purpose is to establish what the documents show, what the data indicate, what remains unclear and what can be independently verified.
14. The Central Investigative Questions
The investigation will therefore focus on a series of interconnected questions:
Where is public development money allocated?
Which sectors and regions receive the largest investments?
Which projects receive significant public financing?
Who implements these projects?
How much was originally budgeted?
How much was actually spent?
Were projects completed on time?
Were their costs modified?
What outputs were delivered?
Are completed projects operational?
How many people benefit from them?
Can the claimed results be independently verified?
And ultimately:
Does public expenditure translate into measurable public value?
15. The Investigation's Proposed Fieldwork
The documentary phase should be followed by field reporting.
Selected projects could be investigated through:
Site visits
Interviews with beneficiaries
Interviews with local officials
Interviews with project managers
Interviews with contractors where relevant
Independent technical observations
Photographic documentation
Comparison of official claims with conditions on the ground
This combination of data journalism and field reporting can reveal discrepancies that neither approach would necessarily identify alone.
Conclusion: From Spending to Accountability
Tunisia's public budget is more than a collection of numbers.
Every allocation represents a public decision.
Every development project represents a commitment.
Every contract represents the use of public resources.
And every completed project should ultimately be assessed according to what it delivers to society.
The central objective of this investigation is therefore not to ask only:
How much did Tunisia spend?
It is to ask:
What did Tunisia receive for that expenditure?
The answer requires following public money from the budget to the project, from the project to the contract, from the contract to implementation, and from implementation to the people who were supposed to benefit.
The investigation will distinguish clearly between:
allocated money,
committed money,
spent money,
completed outputs,
operational services,
and
measurable impact.
This distinction is essential.
Because a budget is a promise.
A contract is an obligation.
A completed project is an output.
But measurable improvement in people's lives is the ultimate question of development impact.
Investigative Methodology
This reporting project combines:
Document-based investigation
Public-budget analysis
Open-data analysis
Public procurement research
Financial tracking
Project monitoring
Regional comparison
Field reporting
Interviews
Beneficiary-level verification
Source cross-checking
The investigation will rely primarily on official documentation and publicly available data, while distinguishing verified facts from reported claims and identifying areas requiring additional field verification.
The Ministry of Finance's Open Budget platform provides downloadable development expenditure data and allows comparison of allocated and executed credits across programmes and project groupings.
The investigation is designed as an ongoing reporting framework rather than a one-time examination of a single budget.
Its purpose is to follow selected projects over time and determine whether public financial commitments become completed projects, functioning services and measurable development outcomes.
A document- and data-based investigative report
Prepared and published by: Mohamed Chaieb Barhoumi
ATEP MED – Arabic Digital Center for Media & Development
No comments:
Post a Comment