New fund to assist PPP preparation

On 25 January 2016 the ADB launched its fund to finance preparatory costs for creating partnerships with private sector counterparts for the development of essential infrastructure projects. Such arrangements are seen as attracting private sector expertise and financial backing to unlock national economic potential and provide much needed services.

Past experience highlights the need for a PPP preparation funding mechanism

Public private partnerships (PPPs) have had a chequered history in the west over the past two decades. Agreements are highly complex and extend over long periods during which public sector needs and priorities can change leaving heavy financial penalties for premature termination or variation to initial service concepts. The sharing of risk is part of the case for governments entering joint ventures of this kind but the private sector has proved highly adept at distancing itself from risk when contracts are written.

Clearly the right projects need to be selected and contracts written with foresight, fairness and flexibility if cash strapped nations are to avoid perfect solutions turning into perfect nightmares. This new investment fund is clearly designed to support sound projects that are captured in agreements that provide a fair deal for all.

See PFMConnect’s new PPP board posted yesterday on Pinterest.  It references numerous PPP projects and some cautionary expert comment.

Introduction

This note presents a series of charts which provide an overview of the Papua New Guinea’s recent public financial management (PFM) performance based on this country’s 2015 Public Expenditure and Financial Accountability (PEFA) assessment. Comparisons are made between Papua New Guinea’s performance and the performance of the other twenty-three countries that had PEFA assessments published in 2014-2015. All analyses have been prepared using results reported from using the 2011 PEFA methodology.

Overall PFM performance

Individual country PFM performance has been determined by applying the following points scale to reported individual performance indicator (PI) scores as presented in Table 1. No points were allocated to PIs that were not scored because either data was unavailable, a D score was given or the PI was not applicable.

Table 1: PI scoring methodology

The graph in Figure 1 below shows Papua New Guinea’s overall score was ranked 21st out of the twenty-four countries.

 Figure 1: Aggregate PEFA scores for 24 countries

Details of the distribution of overall country scores across PFM performance categories, as determined by PFMConnect, are presented in Table 2. Papua New Guinea’s overall score was 21.5 points.

Table 2: Distribution of country PFM performance levels

Papua New Guinea’s overall PFM performance is classified as “weak”.

PI performance

The graph in Figure 2 below shows the scores for Papua New Guinea’s individual PIs compared with the average score recorded for each PI across the twenty-four PEFA assessments we have studied. Please note that no scores were recorded for the top eight indicators in Figure 2 as seven PIs (PI-4, PI-9, PI-19, PI-22, PI-23, PI-24, PI-25) received D scores  whilst one PI could not be scored PI-7) because of insufficient information.

 Figure 2: Papua New Guinea PI score comparisons

Download a pdf version of Figure 2 here (Papua New Guinea PIs) to review individual PI scores in more detail.

Twenty PIs were assessed. Five PIs had scores above the country average, one PI had a score equal to the country average whilst fourteen PIs had scores below the country average.

Performance across key PFM activities

The graph in Figure 3 below shows the average scores for the six key PFM activities compared with the average score recorded for these activities across the twenty-four country PEFA assessments we have studied.

 Figure 3: Papua New Guinea key PFM activity comparisons

One key PFM activity recorded a score equal to the country average whilst five remaining key PFM activities recorded scores below the country average (one of the latter activities recorded a zero score).

PEFA ASSESSMENT

You can download the 2015 PEFA assessment for Papua New Guinea here.

Introduction

This note presents a series of charts which provide an overview of the Nepal’s recent public financial management (PFM) performance based on this country’s 2015 Public Expenditure and Financial Accountability (PEFA) assessment. Comparisons are made between Nepal’s performance and the performance of the other twenty-three countries that had PEFA assessments published in 2014-2015. All analyses have been prepared using results reported from using the 2011 PEFA methodology.

Overall PFM performance

Individual country PFM performance has been determined by applying the following points scale to reported individual performance indicator (PI) scores as presented in Table 1. No points were allocated to PIs that were not scored because either data was unavailable, a D score was given or the PI was not applicable.

Table 1: PI scoring methodology

The graph in Figure 1 below shows Nepal’s overall score was ranked 6th out of the twenty-four countries.

 Figure 1: Aggregate PEFA scores for 24 countries

Details of the distribution of overall country scores across PFM performance categories, as determined by PFMConnect, are presented in Table 2. Nepal’s overall score was 50.5 points.

Table 2: Distribution of country PFM performance levels

Nepal’s overall PFM performance is classified as “strong”.

PI performance

The graph in Figure 2 below shows the scores for Nepal’s individual PIs compared with the average score recorded for each PI across the twenty-four PEFA assessments we have studied. Please note that no scores were recorded for the top two indicators in Figure 2 as these PIs (PI-27, PI-28) received D scores (because Parliament did not meet during the period reviewed for the PEFA assessment).

 Figure 2: Nepal PI score comparisons

Download a pdf version of Figure 2 here (Nepal PIs) to review individual PI scores in more detail.

All twenty-eight PIs were assessed. Seventeen PIs had scores above the country average whilst eleven  PIs had scores below the country average.

Performance across key PFM activities

The graph in Figure 3 below shows the average scores for the six key PFM activities compared with the average score recorded for these activities across the twenty-four country PEFA assessments we have studied.

 Figure 3: Nepal key PFM activity comparisons

Five key PFM activities recorded scores above the country average whilst the remaining one key PFM activity recorded a score below the country average.

PEFA ASSESSMENT

You can download the 2015 PEFA assessment for Nepal here.

Introduction

This note presents a series of charts which provide an overview of the Gambia’s recent public financial management (PFM) performance based on this country’s 2015 Public Expenditure and Financial Accountability (PEFA) assessment. Comparisons are made between Gambia’s performance and the performance of the other twenty-three countries that had PEFA assessments published in 2014-2015. All analyses have been prepared using results reported from using the 2011 PEFA methodology.

Overall PFM performance

Individual country PFM performance has been determined by applying the following points scale to reported individual performance indicator (PI) scores as presented in Table 1. No points were allocated to PIs that were not scored because either data was unavailable, a D score was given or the PI was not applicable.

Table 1: PI scoring methodology

The graph in Figure 1 below shows Gambia’s overall score was ranked 17th out of the twenty-four countries.

 Figure 1: Aggregate PEFA scores for 24 countries

Details of the distribution of overall country scores across PFM performance categories, as determined by PFMConnect, are presented in Table 2. Gambia’s overall score was 27.5 points.

Table 2: Distribution of country PFM performance levels

Gambia’s overall PFM performance is classified as “weak”.

PI performance

The graph in Figure 2 below shows the scores for Gambia’s individual PIs compared with the average score recorded for each PI across the twenty-four PEFA assessments we have studied. Please note that no scores were recorded for the top three indicators in Figure 2 as it was not possible to score these PIs (PI-4, PI-7, PI-8).

 Figure 2: Gambia PI score comparisons

Download a pdf version of Figure 2 here (Gambia PIs) to review individual PI scores in more detail.

Twenty-five of the twenty-eight PIs were assessed. Nine PIs had scores above the country average, one PI had a score equal to the respective PI country average whilst fifteen PIs had scores below the country average.

Performance across key PFM activities

The graph in Figure 3 below shows the average scores for the six key PFM activities compared with the average score recorded for these activities across the twenty-four country PEFA assessments we have studied.

 Figure 3: Gambia key PFM activity comparisons

Two key PFM activities recorded scores above the country average whilst the remaining four key PFM activities recorded scores below the country average.

PEFA ASSESSMENT

You can download the 2015 PEFA assessment for Gambia here.