Already reforms in Strong Government-DP In the context of the G-19, specific attribution of Donors were seen to be the main PEFA assessment added dialogue and DP-DP the PEFA assessment to PFM reforms is constituency for the PEFA assessment. to the pool of analyses on PFM in the difficult Impact has been greatest on DPs. Appears highlighting weaknesses form of the G-19 to have contributed to joint information pool Part of overall Government-donor pressure for Separate exercise setting common reference point – undertaking PFM reforms out where to go after Agreement to use PEFA Strong PFM donor group in the form of the Indirect impact (“difficult to say direct result”) – PEFA assessment was assessment as common G-19 group of countries. Basis of strong as part of the overall (donor and elsewhere) seen to be useful reference point government-donor co-operation, which pressure on government. Served to confirm preceded the PEFA assessment (e.g. PAP, weaknesses that were familiar. information on donor disbursements – PEFA assessment was one of a number of ODAMoz, etc). Supported by extensive impetuses (broad pressure) on PFM reforms. network of sector-level working groups, Reminded government of what it said it would several taskforces set up to address specific do. Led to joint PFM Action Plan (in response issues, project management units or SWAp to DP requirement) [status in guiding PFM arrangements. reforms in practice is unclear] but make – “don’t Results shown in Annual Joint Review too much of the Action Plan”, as it is not a mechanism PEFA Action Plan. PEFA assessment used for DP own Separate activity/workshop reviewing was seen appraisals, e.g. FRA as valuable G-19 intended PEFA framework to replace PFM-PR report available on EC website and on multiple assessment tools (e.g. PERs) – joint DP website some have questioned to whether or not it PEFA update currently being undertaken. has done so. Seems that other analytical products are still valued.
In the context of the G-19, specific attribution of the PEFA assessment to PFM reforms is difficult Part of overall Government-donor pressure for undertaking PFM reforms Indirect impact (“difficult to say direct result”) – as part of the overall (donor and elsewhere) pressure on government. Served to confirm weaknesses that were familiar. PEFA assessment was one of a number of impetuses (broad pressure) on PFM reforms. Reminded government of what it said it would do. Led to joint PFM Action Plan (in response to DP requirement) [status in guiding PFM reforms in practice is unclear] – but “don’t make too much of the Action Plan”, as it is not a PEFA Action Plan. Separate activity/workshop reviewing was seen as valuable PFM-PR report available on EC website and on joint DP website PEFA update currently being undertaken. Donors were seen to be the main constituency for the PEFA assessment. Impact has been greatest on DPs. Appears to have contributed to joint information pool – common reference point Strong PFM donor group in the form of the G-19 group of countries. Basis of strong government-donor co-operation, which preceded the PEFA assessment (e.g. PAP, information on donor disbursements – ODAMoz, etc). Supported by extensive network of sector-level working groups, several taskforces set up to address specific issues, project management units or SWAp arrangements. Results shown in Annual Joint Review mechanism PEFA assessment used for DP own appraisals, e.g. FRA G-19 intended PEFA framework to replace multiple assessment tools (e.g. PERs) – some have questioned to whether or not it has done so. Seems that other analytical products are still valued. Already reforms in PEFA assessment added to the pool of analyses highlighting weaknesses Separate exercise setting out where to go after PEFA assessment was seen to be useful Strong Government-DP dialogue and DP-DP on PFM in the form of the G-19 Agreement to use PEFA assessment as common reference point
PEFAImpactStudyFinalReportVolumeISynthesis.docx