GN-PBO Guide for Budget Analysis

...a work in progress

The 2015 Working Group on Budget Analysis has put together the following draft document titled "Initial Comments on GN-PBO Guide for Budget Analysis - June 6, 2016". You can download it in the file list below. 

The purpose of this page is to solicit your feedback and questions about the document in the comments section at the bottom of this page. Simply type in your comment or question and a member of the 2015 Working Group on Budget Analysis will take note.

Below you will find a list of people in the three groups who will be working together to provide input into this document.

Download the document below

Feedback groups

Group 1: Fiscal Discipline
  • Malika Chea (Cambodia)
  • Helaina Gaspard (Canada)
  • Sorangel Gonzalez (Dominican Republic)
  • Cheryl Gibson (Jamaica)
  • Phyllis  Makau (Kenya)
  • Seonjoo Lee (Korea)
  • Byron Bicenio (Philippines)
  • Aleksandra Brankovic (Serbia)
  • Angelic Appoo (Seychelles)
  • Liana Keiba Jacob (Trinidad and Tobago)
  • Prossy Busagwa (Uganda)
Group 2: Allocative Efficiency
  • Likanan Luch (Cambodia)
  • Patricia Baars (Cambodia)
  • Sahir Khan (Canada)
  • Jonathan Lemurt (Kenya)
  • Hyesun Kim (Korea)
  • Maryam Muhammad Yahuza (Nigeria)
  • William Lubowa (Uganda)
  • Volodymyr Bondarenko (Ukraine)
  • Halyna Shevchuk (Ukraine)
  • George Kunnath (United Kingdom)
  • Misael Fitzgerald Kateshi (Zambia )
Group 3: Delivery Efficiency
  • Darith Phat (Cambodia)
  • Kevin Page (Canada)
  • Trevor Shaw (Canada)
  • Cyril Kwabena Oteng Nsiah (Ghana)
  • Joseph Ndirangu (Kenya)
  • Nasir Mohammed Saidu (Nigeria)
  • Manuel Aquino (Philippines)
  • Nelia  Orlandi (South Africa)
  • Moses Bisase Tusuubira (Uganda)
  • Simon Wakefield (Scotland)
  • Simon  Mtambo (Zambia )

Let us know your feedback and questions below

To leave a comment or question, simply type into the comment box below and click 'Submit'
  • June 7, 2016 20:10
    Hi there

    I thought the PBO guide for budget analysis could be a really useful checklist for budget issues for PBOs. 

    As background in case you are interested Budget scrutiny in Scotland is looked at under four principles
    • Can we afford what we are committing to (especially in the long term, ie sustainability)?
    • Are we prioritising the right things, does the budget reflect the stated priorities of the government?
    • Are we getting value for money?
    • Is the budget process itself fit for purpose?

    the first three are covered by the working group - would the last one be?  I also wondered if there might be something in there about it being important to look at public assets and liabilities (including for example commitments to PFI contracts, pensions, etc).  Is that already covered?
    thanks, Simon
  • June 8, 2016 09:31
    Hi Simon,
    Thank you very much for your comments. The fourth principle you pointed out is very interesting. It's not yet covered in the framework, and we would be interested to learn more from you about this principle.
    As regards public assets and liabilities, I agree with you that it is important to consider them especially in relation to fiscal sustainability. The type of budget accounting system also matters. In accrual accounting public assets and liabilities are given due recognition, however in cash accounting they are sometimes overlooked.
  • June 8, 2016 11:10
    Thank you Simon for the comment, it is very useful. As Romulo indicated, the suggestion will be incorporated. Regarding Assets, it will be useful to consider it under fiscal sustainability as Romulo suggested. The challenge in most counteries however is valuation issues. The group will see how this challenge is addressed.
  • June 8, 2016 15:26
    Comment removed
  • June 9, 2016 10:02
    Members!, the Working Group still await your comments on the draft framework. Please note that your comments are critical for the completion of the draft.

  • June 10, 2016 00:04
    Dear colleagues,

    First of all, I must say that I really admire what you have done, this will really be useful.

    Unfortunately, I have no previous experience with this kind of analysis, so could not provide you with any practical suggestions that you might find useful. I only have two minor questions.

    Obviously the first two types of analysis have certain sequential order of steps. How about the third type of analysis, do you suggest that some steps should preferrably be done before the others? 

    Do you suggest that it makes sense to use proposed methodology for ex-post evaluation of government policies (e.g. operational efficiency analysis of the final account)?

    I would suggest that it might be useful to give (in footnotes perhaps) synonims for some of the terms that are used (e.g. operational/delivery efficiency).

  • June 10, 2016 11:22
    I suggest that the economic analysis should be seperated from the fiscal discipline section in the analytical framework. The economic section is really the backdrop to the fiscal framework. The forecasts inform the MTEF. the forecast of other institutions might be compared with those of the treasury that has been used to determine the MTEF. This could confirm the credibility of the treasury forecast or identify that the forecast is not realistic on which the MTEF is based

    Revenue and Expenditure could include:
    - Trend analysis
    - Changes between different MTEFs
    - Proportions of spending, etc.

    Allocative efficiency is also evaluating value for money and is difficult to evaluate in advance. I suggest that this might form part of a section that analyse implementation.

Leave a Comment: