"PI-12. Multi-year perspective" - my personal checklist of issues

[Napodano]

When analysing issues related to PEFA indicators I create my personal checklist of issues to consider before moving to score.

My checklist on some issues related to PI-12 - Multi-year perspective in fiscal planning, expenditures policy and budgeting

On the dimension (i) I first ensure that the multi-year forecast of expenditures is real. I have seen several cases in which the three-year forecasting was a simple mathematical projection across the majoirty of sectors. if this is the case I would score that dimension as D.

On the dimension (iiii) the key is that costing of sector strategies are consistent with aggregate fiscal forecasts (as said in the PEFA Blu Book). That may be difficult to assess but a quick way of verification is to go to a strategy document and check at the end. Normally in annex there are financial tables that project the costs of the strategy. If there is no such annex and no consolidated figures are presented in the excutive summary, then you can be pretty sured that the strategy is not properply costed, despite the odd numbers peppered in the text.

On the dimension (iv) I check which procedures, if any, are in place for the selection of new investment prior to their inclusion in the budget. This is called PIM, Public Investment Management that is an important evolution of the PIP, Public Investment Program, based on the old practie of dual budgeting, one for 'development', the other for recurrent expenditures. The insitutioinal set-up for managing public investment is also important. The fact that there ar two departments one for budget and one for investment in the same ministry is not always a guarantee that there is an harmonized process.
 

[John Short]

The best checklist is applying the PEFA Handbook guidance (as amended) to the letter- that way subjective scoring is eliminated and the defence of scores is a matter of demonstrating that the scoring methodology has been applied correctly to the information obtained in the field work.  Of course, the information has to be mined and that requires time and effort, and constructive cooperation and dialogue with the relevant providers.  Often, criticism of scores, particularly on procurement, can be deflected by pointing that the correct methodology has been applied to the information and data and the surprising score (to the reviewer) is the result of applying the scoring methodology correctly which often gives a result that confounds preconceived perceptions.

[Arjeta]

I just wanted to agree with Mauro, but I would like to see here some solutions.

It is often difficult to link budget with policies, especially when people work really hard and than comes 'a big cut of funds'.

How can we motivate them? It is easy to say to them that this is a specific year and that things will change next year.  Does it work? I am asking in general, because from what I have seen, people do not believe this.