Posted on the PEFA website over the last few days - an update of the 2007 PEFA Impact Study (Volumes I and II attached below).
A 2007 PEFA study analysed the impact of the PEFA PMF on governments and development partners, based on thirteen country cases. The 2010 Report presents updated Country Impact Notes for the same countries; covering the period from September 2007 to November 2010. Data was gathered through desk research and a series of structured telephone interviews with government and development partner (DP) officials. The broad findings of the present Study corroborate and in some cases enrich the conclusions of the 2007 Impact Study, which was conducted shortly after the completion of many of the countries’ initial baseline PEFA assessments. In addition to a detailed analysis of the impact of PEFA assessments the Study reaches the following broad conclusions:
The results of the 2010 Study indicate that the PEFA instrument has provided a stable platform for the Government/DP dialogue on PFM performance and increasingly on trends over time.
The 2010 Study provides evidence of increasing attention being paid to the design of PEFA assessments, including active government participation, joint participation by DPs, advance planning and stakeholder participation. In addition, assessments were generally completed in a timely fashion aided in part by a trend towards stand-alone rather than integrated assessments.
The 2010 Study supports the view that government participation/ownership is the most critical factor in the PEFA assessment being credible and being an integral part of the dialogue on PFM reforms. Compelling evidence is provided to suggest that there are different ways of securing greater government involvement, and how this is achieved is an important consideration which should be addressed during the design phase. The Study also noted that well designed assessment processes ensured that there was both sufficient government involvement and appropriate checks and balances which provided assurance as to the credibility of the final assessment. The Study also confirmed that when the assessment (and the process of preparing the assessment) is seen purely as an external exercise it is less likely to secure government involvement or to have a positive impact on PFM reforms.
A number of strategies may assist DPs to promote government engagement in PEFA exercises and the subsequent monitoring of PEFA indicators. The 2010 Study confirmed that strong existing DP-DP cooperation meant that PEFA was often readily integrated into the dialogue with government. In a number of countries with fewer DPs, improved processes in integrating donors and governments into PEFA process resulted in improved coordination and may have had a favourable impact on the credibility of the assessment as a whole. The Study also suggests that conducting a joint DP assessment is a less important factor in having the Report accepted as a common pool of information than ensuring that interested DPs are consulted throughout the process of designing, preparing and finalising assessments.
The Study provided little evidence of any impact of PEFA assessments beyond central finance/planning ministries (e.g. line ministries, SNGs, SAIs and Parliament). This preliminary finding, uncorroborated by a more comprehensive in-country mission also suggests that more effort needs to be made to address issues of communicating results, public disclosure and improving dissemination workshops which incorporate the media and NGOs.
Further action is needed to address the significant transaction costs resulting from duplicated and overlapping assessments: Governments should have a coherent, integrated medium term strategy of diagnostic instruments; supported by its DPs. These should indicate the expected time commitments required by donors and government officials, and incorporate fiduciary instruments required by individual donors. In addition there may be further scope for DPs to collaborate in the significant number of fiduciary reviews and risk assessments still being carried out through sharing findings, data gathering and the coordination of assessment missions. International organizations should develop a systematic way of monitoring DP performance on this area.
