Summary Matrix of PEFA Impact by Country Country Impact on government behaviour Impact on behaviour Factors for government Factors for behaviour behaviour Government refusal to (note that is on 2005 Impact of original (2005) PEFA assessment Limited from earlier (2005) PEFA exercise engage seen as external PEFA exercise) In the recent – was referred to as a Note” as part relatively little effective donor “Policy – exercise (was done as past, there has been of PER) on government was minimal not – Policy Note for PER) relatively little effective referred to by government, not acknowledged by PEFA assessment doesn’t seem to have had donor co-ordination (only those senior government officials who were an impact on reducing general PFM Methodology was not that occurring through responsible at the time. Brief (unofficial) assessments open, there was a lack of FMRP), lacking an effective comments were provided on text of early draft Update of PEFA indicators (2007) confidence in the team mechanism to do so. Now, version, but comments were not provided on the incorporated in joint-CAS. Different WB is trying to change that scores. methodology used to that in 2005 version with the Multi-Donor Trust Very little awareness of this PEFA assessment => difficult to compare two versions. Fund, centred on the PIM Covering note to MoF Finance Secretary (SF) Updated PEFA assessment was part of project (successor to suggested that would like to work with you analytical background to development the “we FMRP). Too early to see on establishing a baseline” CAS, the multi-donor Trust Fund and the impact. PIM Multi-donor trust fund being prepared to support PFM project (PIM) as successor to the Financial Management Reform Programme CAS and PFM reform project: part of on-going Government-donor dialogue on PFM. Not linked to previous PEFA exercise
Summary Matrix of PEFA Impact by Country Country Impact on government behaviour Impact on behaviour Factors for government behaviour Factors for behaviour Impact of original (2005) PEFA assessment was referred to as a “Policy Note” as part of PER) on government was minimal – not referred to by government, not acknowledged by those senior government officials who were responsible at the time. Brief (unofficial) comments were provided on text of early draft version, but comments were not provided on the scores. Very little awareness of this PEFA assessment Covering note to MoF Finance Secretary (SF) suggested that “we would like to work with you on establishing a baseline” Limited from earlier (2005) PEFA exercise – relatively little effective donor PEFA assessment doesn’t seem to have had an impact on reducing general PFM assessments Update of PEFA indicators (2007) incorporated in joint-CAS. Different methodology used to that in 2005 version => difficult to compare two versions. Updated PEFA assessment was part of analytical background to development the CAS, the multi-donor Trust Fund and the PIM Multi-donor trust fund being prepared to support PFM project (PIM) as successor to the Financial Management Reform Programme CAS and PFM reform project: part of on-going Government-donor dialogue on PFM. Not linked to previous PEFA exercise Government refusal to engage – seen as external exercise (was done as Policy Note for PER) Methodology was not open, there was a lack of confidence in the team (note that is on 2005 PEFA exercise) In the recent past, there has been relatively little effective donor co-ordination (only that occurring through FMRP), lacking an effective mechanism to do so. Now, WB is trying to change that with the Multi-Donor Trust Fund, centred on the PIM project (successor to FMRP). Too early to see impact.