cpia 2006
Download
Skip this Video
Download Presentation
CPIA 2006

Loading in 2 Seconds...

play fullscreen
1 / 19

CPIA 2006 - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 113 Views
  • Uploaded on

CPIA 2006. Q13: Quality of Budgetary and Financial Management BBL Ivor Beazley/Steve Knack, 6 December 2006. Objectives. Raise awareness of CPIA Q13 and FM’s role Improve the quality of Q13 ratings Provide information on process and resources Address issues and concerns. Context.

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about ' CPIA 2006' - hesper


An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
cpia 2006

CPIA 2006

Q13: Quality of Budgetary and Financial Management

BBL

Ivor Beazley/Steve Knack, 6 December 2006

objectives
Objectives
  • Raise awareness of CPIA Q13 and FM’s role
  • Improve the quality of Q13 ratings
  • Provide information on process and resources
  • Address issues and concerns
context
Context
  • Country Policy and Institutional Assessment (CPIA)
  • Overall CPIA scores help determine shares of IDA allocation given to each country
  • Annual scoring process
  • 16 indicators, No 13 and 16 cover financial management and accountability
  • Disclosure for IDA countries (scores only)
how to rate q13 principles
How to rate Q13 - principles
  • Ratings are based on actual policies and performance, not on promises or intentions
  • Improvement is measured against benchmark criteria,
  • Score will not change on the basis that Government has started a reform initiative
  • Objective criteria have been clearly set out for assessing performance on Q13
data requirements
Data Requirements
  • Substantial work is involved to collect data.
  • Q 13 assessment comprises:
  • 3 sub-questions. Each sub-questions is made up of a number of “dimensions” or lower level question
  • = total of 13 separate pieces of data
  • 3 Sub-questions deal with at the quality of:

a) Budget process

b) Control over expenditure

c) Accounting, reporting and auditing

scoring system
Scoring system
  • Countries are scored from 1- 6 on each sub-question. For Q13 there is a two stage aggregation process:
  • Stage 1
    • Rate each dimension on the 1-6 scale
    • Work out the average of the dimensions, rounding up or down to the nearest half point
  • Stage 2
    • Simple average of the 3 sub-questions (rounded to the nearest half point) gives overall Q13 score.
example sub question a budget link to policy priorities
Example:Sub-question a) “budget link to policy priorities”
  • This sub-question covers 5 issues/dimensions:
    • (i) budget-policy link;
    • (ii) forward look in budget;
    • (iii) consultation with spending ministries in budget formulation;
    • (iv) budget classification; and
    • (v) budget comprehensiveness
tools
Tools
  • A simple worksheet is available to help score each dimension on a consistent basis
  • A write up template is provided to set out the write up on each sub-question
timetable
Timetable
  • Benchmarking exercise

complete by end Nov

  • Mid-Jan deadline for regional submissions
  • Scores finalized by OPCS end March
issues to be aware of
Issues to be aware of
  • “Known unknowns”, for example on, extent of operations outside the budget and arrears :
  • PREM or FM, or both?
  • Upward pressure on ratings
    • Not a reward for good intentions
    • Need demonstrable progress
issues quality of write ups
Issues - Quality of write ups
  • Insufficient evidence in may write-ups
  • Not addressing the specific dimensions which are used to measure performance
  • 8 out of 20 benchmark countries initially rated “un-graded” on basis of poor write ups
  • Particular weakness on points b) and c)
information sources
Information sources
  • Not just CFAA
  • Internal sources
    • CFAA, IFA etc.
    • PE(I)R
    • Recent DPL and PRSC documents (updates)
  • External sources
    • PEFA Assessments (EC, DFID etc.)
    • IMF Fiscal Transparency ROSC (IMF Website)
    • IMF - PRSC Joint Staff Advisory Notes, Art IV
  • Direct from Government (MoF)
issues going forward
Issues going forward
  • Consistency with PEFA indicators (PEFA Secretariat will do a study)
  • Consistency over time – changes in basis of rating from year to year
    • Decentralization
    • Procurement?
anchor review role
Anchor Review Role
  • OPCFM and PRMPS review ratings for:
    • Quality of write up, including evidential support
    • Cross check with other available information
    • Carefully scrutiny of all changes in ratings
    • Do a comparison across countries
ad