Introduction

This note presents a series of charts which provide an overview of Ghana’s recent public financial management (PFM) performance based on this country’s 2013 Public Expenditure and Financial Accountability (PEFA) assessment. Comparisons are made between Ghana’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 Ghana’s overall score was ranked 18th 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. Ghana’s overall score was 27.5 points.

Table 2: Distribution of country PFM performance levels

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

PI performance

The graph in Figure 2 below shows the scores for Ghana’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 due to a D score being given for two PIs whilst it was not possible to score another PI (PI-2).

 Figure 2: Ghana PI score comparisons

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

Twenty-five of the twenty-eight PIs were assessed. Seven PIs had scores above the country average whilst eighteen 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: Ghana key PFM activity comparisons

One key PFM activity recorded a score marginally above the country average whilst the remaining five key PFM activities recorded scores below the country average.

PEFA ASSESSMENT

You can download the 2013 PEFA assessment for Ghana here.

Introduction

This note presents a series of charts which provide an overview of Samoa’s recent public financial management (PFM) performance based on this country’s 2014 Public Expenditure and Financial Accountability (PEFA) assessment. Comparisons are made between Samoa’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 Samoa’s overall score was ranked 11th 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. Samoa’s overall score was 47.5 points.

Table 2: Distribution of country PFM performance levels

Samoa’s overall PFM performance is classified as “moderate”.

PI performance

The graph in Figure 2 below shows the scores for Samoa’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 due to a D score being given for one PI whilst it was not appropriate to score another PI (PI-8).

 Figure 2: Samoa PI score comparisons

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

Twenty-six of the twenty-eight PIs were assessed. Twelve PIs had scores above the country average, one PI was in line with the country PI average whilst thirteen 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: Samoa key PFM activity comparisons

Four key PFM activities recorded scores above the country average whilst the remaining two key PFM activities recorded scores below the country average.

PEFA ASSESSMENT

You can download the 2014 PEFA assessment for Samoa here.

Introduction

This note presents a series of charts which provide an overview of Anguilla’s recent public financial management (PFM) performance based on this country’s 2014 Public Expenditure and Financial Accountability (PEFA) assessment. Comparisons are made between Anguilla’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 Anguilla’s overall score was ranked 14th 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. Anguilla’s overall score was 38 points.

Table 2: Distribution of country PFM performance levels

Anguilla’s overall PFM performance is classified as “moderate”.

PI performance

The graph in Figure 2 below shows the scores for Anguilla’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 due to D scores being given for six PIs whilst it was not appropriate to score another PI (PI-8).

 Figure 2: Anguilla PI score comparisons

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

Twenty-one of the twenty-eight PIs were assessed. Ten PIs had scores above the country average, one PI was in line with the country PI average whilst ten 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: Anguilla key PFM activity comparisons

Three key PFM activities recorded scores above the country average whilst the remaining three key PFM activities recorded scores below the country average.

PEFA Assessment

You can download the 2014 PEFA assessment for Anguilla here.

SlideShare presentation

We have prepared a SlideShare presentation that discusses the desperate state of Papua New Guinea’s public financial management (PFM). The presentation highlights a deteriorating trend in the country’s PFM over recent years and its very poor recent performance compared with most other countries based on Public Expenditure and Financial Accountability (PEFA) assessment methodology. The presentation recommends the government publishes its recently prepared PFM reform road map to facilitate an open evaluation of the root causes of Papua New Guinea’s poor PFM performance and reform options by a full range of stakeholders.  We end the presentation by reiterating our view that in its current form PEFA methodology is unsuited to play a really constructive role in the reform of PFM practice in fragile states.