Background

Last year the Commonwealth Secretariat commissioned PFMConnect Ltd to undertake an independent evaluation of its Africa Anti-Corruption Programme.

Stakeholders consulted

Views were obtained through discussions with officials from Commonwealth Africa countries, the Commonwealth Africa Anti-Corruption Centre in Botswana (http://www.thecaacc.org/) and at the Secretariat in London (http://thecommonwealth.org/). Online interviews were held with others that there was not time to visit. In addition, past participants of the Africa Anti-Corruption Centre capacity-building programmes were asked to complete an online survey giving their impressions of the training they had received, including its subsequent effectiveness back in the workplace.

Future programme development

Those interviewed produced an array of interesting ideas for the future development of the Commonwealth’s Africa Anti-Corruption Programme and attested to the value of the training offered. The evaluation report can be obtained here.

Amongst other things, the evaluation report suggests that anti-corruption agencies in Commonwealth Africa could be even more effective in their work if they formed a broader alliance with other national governance units possibly including auditors, procurement authorities, competition agencies and financial system administrators. Greater use of digital technology is advocated in support of regional collaboration and training. Proposals are also made for extending such support elsewhere within the Commonwealth with priority being given to smaller states.

The Commonwealth Secretariat is now considering the report with its various stakeholders before decisions are taken about the best way to develop the Commonwealth’s anti-corruption agenda.

Introduction

This note presents a series of charts which provide an overview of Timor-Leste’s recent public financial management (PFM) performance based on this country’s 2014 Public Expenditure and Financial Accountability (PEFA) assessment. Comparisons are made between Timor-Leste’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 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 Timor-Leste’s overall score was ranked fifteenth out of the twenty-four countries.

 Figure 1: Aggregate PEFA scores for 24 countries

Download a png version of Figure 1 here (Timor-Leste’s overall result) to review the overall scores of Timor-Leste and the twenty-three other countries in more detail.

Details of the distribution of overall country scores across PFM performance categories, as determined by PFMConnect, are presented in Table 2. Timor-Leste’s overall score was 36 points.

Table 2: Distribution of country PFM performance levels

Timor-Leste’s overall PFM performance is classified as “moderate”.

PI performance

The graph in Figure 2 below shows the scores for Timor-Leste’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 six indicators in Figure 2 as one indicator (PI-8) was not applicable, two indicators (PI-4 and PI-15) were not assessed and three other indicators (PI-1, PI-9 and PI-23) received D scores.

Figure 2: Timor-Leste PI score comparisons

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

Twenty-seven PIs were assessed. Fourteen PIs had scores above the country average, one PI had a score equal to the country average whilst twelve 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: Timor-Leste key PFM activity comparisons

Three key PFM activities recorded scores above the country average whilst three other key PFM activities recorded scores below the country average. Download a png version of Figure 3 here (Timor-Leste’s key PFM activities) to review these scores in more detail.

PEFA ASSESSMENT

You can download the 2014 PEFA assessment for Timor-Leste here.

Download pdf

Introduction

This note presents a series of charts which provide an overview of the Republic of Congo’s recent public financial management (PFM) performance based on this country’s 2014 Public Expenditure and Financial Accountability (PEFA) assessment. Comparisons are made between the Republic of Congo’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 the Republic of Congo’s overall score was ranked twenty-second out of the twenty-four countries.

 Figure 1: Aggregate PEFA scores for 24 countries

Download a png version of Figure 1 here (the Republic of Congo’s overall result) to review the overall scores of the Republic of Congo and the twenty-three other countries in more detail.

Details of the distribution of overall country scores across PFM performance categories, as determined by PFMConnect, are presented in Table 2. The Republic of Congo’s overall score was 21 points.

Table 2: Distribution of country PFM performance levels

The Republic of Congo’s overall PFM performance is classified as “weak”.

PI performance

The graph in Figure 2 below shows the scores for the Republic of Congo’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 seven indicators in Figure 2 as one indicator (PI-15) was not assessed and six other indicators (PI-4, PI-5, PI-9, PI-16, PI-21 and PI-23) received D scores.

Figure 2: Republic of Congo PI score comparisons

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

Twenty-seven PIs were assessed. Five PIs had scores above the country average, one PI had a score equal to the country average whilst twenty-one 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: Republic of Congo key PFM activity comparisons

All six key PFM activities recorded scores below the country average. Download a png version of Figure 3 here (the Republic of Congo’s key PFM activities) to review these scores in more detail.

PEFA ASSESSMENT

You can download the 2014 PEFA assessment for the Republic of Congo here.

Download pdf

Introduction

This note presents a series of charts which provide an overview of Guinea-Bissau’s recent public financial management (PFM) performance based on this country’s 2014 Public Expenditure and Financial Accountability (PEFA) assessment. Comparisons are made between Guinea-Bissau’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 Guinea-Bissau’s overall score was ranked twenty-fourth out of the twenty-four countries.

 Figure 1: Aggregate PEFA scores for 24 countries

Download a png version of Figure 1 here (Guinea-Bissau overall result) to review the overall scores of Guinea-Bissau and the twenty-three other countries in more detail.

Details of the distribution of overall country scores across PFM performance categories, as determined by PFMConnect, are presented in Table 2. Guinea-Bissau’s overall score was 14.5 points.

Table 2: Distribution of country PFM performance levels

Guinea-Bissau’s overall PFM performance is classified as “very weak”.

PI performance

The graph in Figure 2 below shows the scores for Guinea-Bissau 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 twelve indicators in Figure 2 as six indicators (PI-4, PI-7, PI-8, PI-11, PI-25, PI-27) were not assessed and six other indicators (PI-9, PI-10, PI-22, PI-23, PI-26 and PI-28) received D scores.

 Figure 2: Guinea-Bissau PI score comparisons

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

Twenty-two PIs were assessed. One PI had a score above the country average whilst twenty-one 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: Guinea-Bissau key PFM activity comparisons

All six key PFM activities recorded scores below the country average. Download a png version of Figure 3 here (Guinea-Bissau key PFM activities) to review these scores in more detail.

PEFA ASSESSMENT

You can download the 2014 PEFA assessment for Guinea-Bissau here.

Download pdf