Public Finance Management (PFM) is a cornerstone of development, influencing the efficacy of policy implementation across sectors such as education, healthcare, and infrastructure. Effective PFM ensures that resources are allocated efficiently, policies are implemented effectively, and public services are delivered equitably. However, the shift from project aid to budget support has heightened the focus on PFM performance in developing countries, raising concerns about the management of donor funds and the potential impact on local systems. This article delves into the complexities of PFM reform, the challenges faced by developing countries, and the influence of international donors on the reform agenda.
Public Finance Management (PFM) is a vital component of a country's economic and administrative framework, ensuring that public resources are collected and allocated responsibly to achieve development goals. The shift from project-based aid to direct budget support has placed PFM at the forefront of donor priorities, as it directly affects the management of funds provided to developing countries.
The Paris Declaration of 2005 and the Accra Agenda for Action of 2008 marked a significant change in the way donors provide aid to developing countries. These agreements emphasized the use of country systems for aid delivery, leading to an increase in budget support—a form of financial aid that is directly channeled into a recipient country's treasury. This approach is intended to strengthen local systems and increase ownership of development processes.
However, this shift has also led to heightened scrutiny of PFM systems by donors, who are concerned about the fiduciary risks associated with managing their taxpayers' contributions. According to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), the share of budget support in total official development assistance (ODA) has fluctuated over the years, with a peak of 13% in 2006 and a decline to around 5% in recent years (OECD, 2020).
While donor interests are important, the perspective of citizens in developing countries is equally crucial. PFM reforms, often driven by external pressures, can have unintended consequences on local systems. The risk is that reforms may not align with the country's capacity or context, potentially undermining existing processes and delaying progress.
PFM is not just about managing finances; it is intrinsically linked to the success of various sectors. A robust PFM system can lead to improved service delivery in areas such as agriculture, health, education, and infrastructure. Conversely, weak PFM systems can hinder policy implementation and ultimately affect the overall development of a country.
The agenda for PFM reform is often influenced by international financial institutions like the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank. These institutions may impose conditionalities or advocate for specific reform approaches, such as the adoption of Integrated Financial Management Information Systems (IFMIS) or Medium-Term Expenditure Frameworks (MTEF). However, these prescribed reforms may not always be suitable for the unique challenges faced by developing countries.
Developing countries face immense pressure to implement new public management approaches, which can include:
These reforms are often pushed without considering a country's readiness or capacity, leading to mixed results. For instance, the implementation of IFMIS has been challenging for many countries due to issues like staff retention and infrastructure limitations.
Despite the push for these reforms, evidence suggests that their success has been limited. A study by the World Bank found that only about one-third of low-income countries had reached a basic level of PFM performance after implementing reforms (World Bank, 2016).
The failure of PFM reforms is often attributed to political economy factors such as governance and corruption. However, this perspective overlooks the successes achieved in areas like debt management and revenue administration, even in countries with high levels of corruption. It raises the question of whether the donor community's influence on the reform agenda is a significant factor in the mixed success of PFM reforms.
Recognizing the need for a more nuanced approach to PFM reform, it is essential to engage in broader discussions that include the perspectives of developing country stakeholders. This could lead to more realistic and effective reform strategies that are tailored to the specific needs and capacities of individual countries.
Idilmat, a provider of PFM training courses, offers resources for those interested in learning more about PFM and its role in development. For further information, visit Idilmat's Public Finance Management Programmes.
Author: Ron Quist, CEO of IdilmatPosted by Debby Plokhaar, Idilmat Ltd.
Evidence from ME and Africa suggests a new approach to Public Finance Management
For the last dozen years or so, the World Bank and donors that support its approach have dominated the public financial management reform agenda in developing countries. However, this approach has been subject to increasing criticism in recent years.
A Framework to Think of Aid Delivery Methods
This article gives a framework for aid delivery. Over the past 50 years donors have not been very effective in how to deliver aid to developing countries. Jerome Dendura suggests a framework.
Ten easy steps to development! Then why is it so hard to do so?
10 Steps to development: A country’s success in meeting its development objectives is dependent upon it undertaking the following steps.
