• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar

Publish What You FundPublish What You Fund

The Global Campaign for Aid and Development Transparency

  • RSS
  • Twitter
  • Vimeo
  • Youtube
  • LinkedIn
  • Facebook

NEWSLETTER

CONTACT

  • Why it matters
    • Why transparency matters
    • The Story of Aid Transparency
    • What you can do
    • Case studies
  • Aid Index
    • 2022 Index
    • Comparison Chart
    • Methodology
    • Index Archive
    • Tools
  • DFI Index
    • DFI Transparency Index 2023
    • DFI Research
    • DFI Transparency Tool
    • FAQs
    • Project Advisory Board
  • Our Work
    • Women’s Economic Empowerment
    • Localization
    • Gender Financing
    • Humanitarian Transparency
    • US Foreign Assistance
    • Data Use
    • IATI Decipher
    • Improving UK Aid Transparency
    • Webinars
    • Work Under Development
  • News
    • Reports
    • News
    • Events
    • Blog
  • About Us
    • Board
    • Team
    • Our transparency
    • Our Funders
    • Jobs
    • Annual Reports
    • Friends of…
    • FAQs
Show Search
Hide Search
Home / Blog / PEFA is changing and donors are being let off the hook.
blog

PEFA is changing and donors are being let off the hook.

By Shreya Basu | Nov 3, 2014 | Blog

PEFAConsultations on the revised framework for Public Expenditure and Financial Accountability (PEFA) ended last Friday. For those unfamiliar with PEFA, it’s a performance measurement framework for public financial management.

It assesses whether a country has the tools to deliver three main budgetary outcomes: aggregate fiscal discipline; strategic resource allocation; and efficient use of resources for service delivery.

So why are changes to the PEFA framework of interest to us? Two main reasons:

  1. There are intrinsic linkages between aid transparency and budgetary outcomes, particularly for aid dependent countries – it’s not possible to obtain a full picture of resources available in-country without information on what flows are provided by donors. This has obvious implications for budget planning and management.
  2. Donors use PEFA assessments to make allocation decisions and can have a profound impact on country systems through the activities they support.

Some significant changes have been proposed in the revised framework (more on this here), to which we have prepared a joint response with other civil society organisations. The most worrying change for us is the proposal to drop the three donor indicators which capture the impact of donor practices on country systems: 1) Predictability of direct budget support; 2) Financial information provided by donors for budgeting and reporting and programme aid; and 3) Proportion of aid that is managed by use of national procedures.

Dropping the donor indicators is problematic on many counts:

1) There is an inherent hypocrisy in donors using a framework to assess country performance (and sometimes to make allocation decisions), without being held accountable for their own role in it. For aid-dependent countries, the provision of information by donors has a significant impact on public financial management, planning and timely disbursements of financial resources. The completeness and timeliness of the budget is undermined if donors don’t provide this information to partner countries. Partner countries should not be held accountable for failings that are caused by donors.

2) The rationale behind this is simply not convincing. The rationale for dropping these three indicators is that “donor funding is not relevant in some countries, and in those where it represents a significant proportion of revenues, aid funds should be analyzed together with other funding sources. In addition, other processes have been established to monitor mutual accountability between donors and recipient governments following the Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness”.

While there is merit to the argument that aid funds should be analysed together with other flows, not analysing aid funds at all isn’t the solution to the problem. The findings of the first GPEDC Global Monitoring Report released in April this year emphasised the need for increased cooperation between donors and partner countries on the regular exchange of information at country level. By dropping the donor indicators, PEFA will not only send the wrong message on mutual accountability but it will also miss an opportunity to maintain the pressure on both providers and partner countries to reform processes and systems for better data collection and provision.

3) The evidence for interventions and reforms will be weakened. Dropping the donor indicators and conflating aid information in others (for example in PI-2, which measures the composition of expenditure outturn compared to original approved budget) will mean it’s not possible to separate out whether donors are responsible for providing poor information or whether partner countries do not have the required systems in place.

We hope the updated framework that’s released in January 2015 will reinstate the donor indicators, provide improved guidance on the construction and underlying data sources for these and take into account the feedback on improving public access to information and engagement in budgeting processes.

The full text of the joint civil society submission is available here.

Primary Sidebar

NEWS Topics

Africa Agriculture Aid transparency Aid Transparency Index Australia Budget ID Canada China Climate Change Data Revolution Data use Data Visualisation Development Finance institutions DFI Spotlight DFI Transparency Tool European Commission Financing for Development France Freedom of Information Gender Germany GPEDC Humanitarian Impact International Aid Transparency Initiative Japan Joined-up data Kenya Letters MDGs Newsletter OECD Open data Open government Press Releases Publish What You Fund Road to 2015 Sustainable Development Goals Sweden UK United Nations US Webinar Women's Economic Empowerment World Bank

Twitter

  • Our newsletter is out - featuring our striking research findings on USAID’s measurement of #localization, a review… https://t.co/F3gajILzKy
    Mar 21, 2023
  • We’re delighted that the 2024 Aid Transparency Index will go ahead with the support of @IATI_aid, and we can suppor… https://t.co/fvntLuPxM7
    Mar 16, 2023
  • We’re looking forward to the @IATI_aid Members’ Assembly next week. Ahead of his travels, @garyjforster reflects on… https://t.co/3SM0HNTGbi
    Mar 10, 2023
FOLLOW US
  • Contact Us
  • Copyright
  • Privacy Policy
  • RSS
  • Twitter
  • Vimeo
  • Youtube
  • LinkedIn
  • Facebook

Publish What You Fund. China Works, 100 Black Prince Road, London, SE1 7SJ
UK Company Registration Number 07676886 (England and Wales); Registered Charity Number 1158362 (England and Wales)