One for Reg .... in my experience, one of the great sources of confusion in PEM/PFM is the use and meaning of the many labels in common parlance. What do we as individual practitioners mean when we say 'PFM', 'PEM', 'programme', 'output', 'outcome', 'medium term', 'MTEF', 'objective' (you get the picture) .... and what does Reg (or any of us) understand when we hear each of these terms. Not quite a dialogue of the deaf of course, but often a dialogue of the different.
Anyway I was musing on this when I was reading Napodano and others discussing the meaning of PFM in the 'Find quick answers here' section.
It made me reflect on my own difficulty with the concepts of 'economy, efficiency and effectiveness'. Now, we all, of course, understand what each of these concepts mean (... don't we?), but how does one explain what they mean to a non-specialist audience in particular. When faced with the task of explaining the concepts some years ago in Albania during training linked to the introduction of new PB procedures there I got a bit stuck ... until I found inspiration in a certain Mr Scholes.
In the company of my good friend Saimir, I happened to be watching a Champion's League match involving Manchester United (being a devotee of a more exotic brand of the game emanating from a small town in the North East of England, I don't recall the particular match). Anyway, with the score at nil - nil, Paul Scholes was introduced as a substitute towards the end of the game. No sooner had he come on when he had his one and only shot on goal which went in. The match ended not long after. This gave me my eureka moment (or perhaps my Scholes moment) ...
Economic - he used the minimum number of non-zero shots on goal possible (one)
Efficient - the cost in terms of shots used per goal scored were the lowest possible (one shot, one goal, none wasted or unnecessarily used)
Effective - Manchester United won the game 1 - 0
If only life, PEM/PFM and other things were so simple
