Introduction
This note presents a series of charts which provide an overview of Belarus’s recent public financial management (PFM) performance based on this country’s 2014 Public Expenditure and Financial Accountability (PEFA) assessment. Comparisons are made between Belarus’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
|
PEFA PI score |
Points allocated |
|
A |
3 |
|
B+ |
2.5 |
|
B |
2 |
|
C+ |
1.5 |
|
C |
1 |
| D+ |
.5 |
| D |
0 |
The graph in Figure 1 below shows Belarus’s overall score was ranked tenth 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. Belarus’s overall score was 49 points.
Table 2: Distribution of country PFM performance levels
| PFM performance | Overall Scores | Number of countries |
| Very strong | 66.37-84 | 0 |
| Strong | 49.57-66.36 | 8 |
| Moderate | 32.77-49.56 | 7 |
| Weak | 15.97-32.76 | 8 |
| Very weak | 0-15.96 | 1 |
| Total | 24 |
Belarus’s overall PFM performance is classified as “moderate”.
PI performance
The graph in Figure 2 below shows the scores for Belarus individual PIs compared with the average score recorded for each PI across the twenty-four PEFA assessments we have studied. Please note that no score was recorded for the top two indicators in Figure 2 as these indicators (PI-19 and PI-21) were given D scores.
Figure 2: Belarus PI score comparisons
Download a pdf version of Figure 2 here (Belarus PIs) to review individual PI scores in more detail.
Twenty-eight PIs were assessed. Nineteen PIs had scores above the country average whilst nine 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: Belarus key PFM activity comparisons
Four key PFM activities recorded scores above the country average whilst two key PFM activities recorded scores below the country average.
PEFA ASSESSMENT
You can download the 2014 PEFA assessment for Belarus here.
