NONIE BUDGET SUPPORT EVALUATION WOKRSHOP

1
NONIE BUDGET SUPPORT EVALUATION WOKRSHOP

• Rwandas Experience with Evaluating Budget
  Support
• Portugal, October 1, 2008

2
Overview of the presentation

• Background
• Objective of the evaluation
• Key findings
• Major gaps in relation to impact evaluation
• Conclusion Impact evaluation will be feasible if?

3
1. Background

• June 2002, first PRSP approved
• 2003 partnership agreement signed (5 donors)
• 2005 2006, first and only joint budget support
  evaluation. Annual joint budget support reviews
  institutionalized
• Caveat Evaluation findings have been overtaken
  by recent reform efforts focused on GBS and not
  other aid modalities

4
2. Purpose of the evaluation

• Evaluate to what extent, under what
  circumstances is GBS relevant, efficient and
  effective for achieving sustainable impact on
  poverty reduction and growth
• Forward looking evaluation (lessons learned,
  joint donor accountability at country level

5
3. Key findings

• Effect of General budget support
• Relevance
• Harmonization and alignment
• Performance of public expenditure
• Planning and budgeting systems
• Policies and processes
• Macroeconomic performance
• Public service delivery
• Poverty reduction
• Sustainability of Budget support

6
i. Key findings Relevance

• Relevant supporting stronger government
  leadership/ownership
• Links to decentralization strengthened
• Balance between social and growth sectors of the
  PRSP at issue
• Conditionality not consistent with the paradigm
  of partnership no mutual accountability

7
ii. Harmonization and Alignment

• Stronger alignment to PRSP and Vision 2020
• Policy and institutional framework for
  harmonization strengthened
• Improved aid coordination
• Predictability weaker (greatly improved recently)
• Potential to improve complementality between
  different aid modalities

8
iii. Performance of public expenditure

• Significant additionality of aid due to ease of
  disbursement
• Higher ratio of disbursement to commitment
• Stronger targeting of investment in direct
  service delivery (education, health, agric.)
• Increased share of priority spending

9
iv. Planning and budgeting

• PFM systems rebuilt
• PFM reforms have stronger linkage to budget
  support
• Capacity development needs for PFM continue

10
v. Policies and policy processes

• Pro-poor reform policies in place
• Government ownership
• Policy process and dialogue more inclusive
• Limitations on public/private sector linkages

11
vi. Macroeconomic performance

• More focus on macro-economic policy and processes
• Supported disciplined budget management
• Facilitates prudent fiscal management
• Rwanda registered strong macro-economic
  performance

12
vii. Delivery of public services

• Steady gains despite capacity challenges
• Increased access to public service
• Pro-poor spending in social sectors grew
• Within year predictability and timeliness
  challenged hampered service delivery
• Need to strength monitoring and evaluation systems

13
viii. Poverty reduction

• Baselines for service delivery not established
• Scarcity of data and statistics (greatly improved
  now)
• Rebound effect after 1994 effect makes it hard to
  demarcate the effect of public action
• This has changed with more reliable data. Ability
  to compare trends improved

14
ix. Sustainability of GBS

• Rwandan context favorable for sustainability
• Budget support volume has increased
• More donors have come on board

15
4. Major gaps in relation to impact evaluation

• Evaluation established effect on policy and
  process indicators, not impact on development
  outcomes
• Rationale for Budget support is to maximize
  impact on development indicators
• Impact evaluation should link budget support to
  development results/outcomes
• Approach not participatory, not inclusive

16
Major gaps contd

• Fungibility of money means tracking impact of
  each is difficult
• Impact on private sector difficult to establish
• Tendency for preferred sectors (social) crowds
  out growth sectors minimizing potential impact on
  overall development results
• Driven largely by policy and institutional
  reforms, less attention to implementation
  capacity gap

17
5. Impact evaluation will be feasible with

• Country owned strategy, government leadership
• Countries have a strong results framework, good
  statistics and sound monitoring and evaluation
  system
• Results-based budgeting reforms may be required,
  linking spending to results/outcome
• Incentive framework reward good performance
• Links to mutual accountability is important
• Harmonized indicator system for comparability
• Predictable, longterm commitment, timely
  disbursement impact takes time to happen

18

• Thank you for your attention