6 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
7.1 The comprehensive evaluation framework for budget support
Term Definition
General budget support “GBS is a modality to finance a partner country’s budget through a transfer
of resources from an external financing agency to the partner government’s national treasury. The funds thus transferred are managed in accordance with the recipient’s budgetary procedures. “ (OECD DAC, 2006a, p. 26) GBS is provided as a non-earmarked contribution and is subject to specific disbursement conditions (OECD DAC, 2006a).
Multi-Donor Budget Support (MDBS) Several donors jointly provide budget support disbursements and agree on
common conditionality (Koeberle et al., 2006, p. 69).
Sector budget support (SBS) Modality supporting the implementation of a sector development pro-
gramme. The preconditions for payment and capacity development target sector specific policy subject and budget allocation priorities (OECD DAC, 2012).
Compared to GBS, the funds are earmarked for the utilisation in a specific sector (Williamson and Dom, 2010).
Underlying principles Principles such as macroeconomic stability, commitment of the govern-
ment to implement national development plans and reforms in PFM, and adherence to democratic principles and human rights that need to be ful- filled to introduce or continue a BS programme in a country, while the breach of one or more principles can lead to the termination of BS (Faust et al., 2011).
Technical Assistance (TA) / Capacity Development (CD) TA is provided to facilitate the implementation of development projects. It
is applied in both bilateral projects and complex programmes. CD means building the ability of countries to manage their own development. The aim is to increase individual and institutional abilities to perform functions, solve problems and achieve objectives (OECD, 2018b).
As part of the BS package, TA/CD is being employed to strengthen the ca- pacities of the government and other institutions in the partner country and thereby increase the effectiveness and efficiency of the funds used (OECD DAC, 2006b).
Performance assessment framework (PAF) Negotiated set of indicators measuring government performance in areas
such as the implementation of sector strategies and PFM reforms. Donors link their disbursements in different ways to these indicators (as either fixed tranche based on overall PAF-performance or as floating or perfor- mance tranches linked to individual PAF indicators) (OECD DAC, 2006b).
High Level Political Dialogue Strategic issues are discussed in high-level political dialogue between high-
level representatives of the partner government and representatives of em- bassies. The aim is to create a joint debate between donors and the partner government on policy reforms and other strategic issues (Molenaers et al., 2010).
Level Detailed questions Assessment criteria/ indicators Sources Data collection tools
Inputs How does ending GBS change donors’ aid portfolios?
Total aid volume: programme vs project-type in- terventions
Sector allocation
Continuation of former aid modalities to BS?
From GBS to SBS?
New financing instruments?
Germany: BMZ
EC: Directorate-General for International Cooperation and Development (DG DEVCO)?
Other important bilateral do- nors: UK
Quantitative analysis
Direct out- puts
How does the partner demand for and utilization of TA/CD related to the ob- jectives of BS develop?
TA/CD relating to supply-side of PFM (e.g. MoF, Auditor General, tax authorities)
Demand-side of PFM line ministries and institu- tions that received SBS
Interviews with Donor representatives Implementing agencies Partner representatives Interview guideline Standardized ques- tions to be rated Direct out- puts
To what extent are dialogue forums of BS still functional?
Different levels of policy dialogue (technical/ sectoral, multi-donor budget support (MDBS) group, higher level political dialogue) still ex- isting
Participants (donor/ partner side)
Frequency of meetings Topics discussed Interviews with Donor representatives Implementing agencies Partner representatives Interview guideline
Mini focus groups (for- mer and current rep- resentatives)
Direct out- puts
Have other dialogue forums replaced BS dialogue?
Other dialogue forums
Participants (donor/ partner side)
Frequency of meetings Topics discussed Interviews with Donor representatives Implementing agencies Partner representatives Interview guideline
Mini focus groups (for- mer and current rep- resentatives)
Direct out- puts
How has donor access to decision makers on partner side changed?
Number and content of meetings with:
Politicians at central, sectoral and decentral level
Officials at central, sectoral and decentral level
Interviews with Donor representatives Implementing agencies Partner representatives Interview guideline Standardized ques- tions to be rated Direct out- puts
To what extent are programmes/ pro- jects harmonized among donors?
Comparison during/ after ending BS
Overview about portfolio of other donors
(joint) needs assessment
(joint) programming Interviews with Donor representatives Implementing agencies Partner representatives Interview guideline Standardized ques- tions to be rated Direct out- puts
How has conditionality developed? Comparison during/ after ending BS
Number of (PAF) indicators
Specification
Harmonization among donors
Interviews with
Donor representatives
Implementing agencies
Partner representatives
Interview guideline
Mini focus groups
Standardized ques- tions to be rated
Direct out- puts
Have transaction costs changed? Comparison during/ after ending BS
No. of staff working on BS/ programme admin- istration
Banking and other costs
Interviews with
Donor representatives
Implementing agencies
Partner representatives
Interview guideline
Mini focus groups
Standardized ques- tions to be rated
Induced out- puts
Has the commitment of the partner government to implement reforms changed?
Number and quality of reform plans
Pace of implementation
Reform plans and implemen- tation reports
Interviews with donor and partner representatives Interview guideline Standardized ques- tions to be rated Induced out- puts
Has the budget allocation for social sectors changed?
Comparison during/ after ending BS, e.g.
Education
Health
Agriculture/ rural development
MDBS evaluations Information on government websites Others? (To be subcontracted to national expert) Induced out- puts
Have BS effects related to improved budget transparency (BT), budget management and overall PFM been sustained?
Comparison during/ after ending BS, e.g.
Budget transparency
Supply of budget information
Revenue generation
Procurement
MDBS evaluations
Information on government websites
Open Budget Index
Interviews
(To be subcontracted to national expert)
Induced out- puts
Have BS effects related to improved domestic accountability been sus- tained?
Comparison during/ after ending BS, e.g.
Number of stakeholders (supreme audit institu- tions, parliament, media, civil society) demand- ing and using budget information
Quality of public discourse
Number of corruption cases being exposed and disciplinary measures taken
Interviews with
Donor representatives
Implementing agencies
Partner representatives
Interview guideline
Outcome Have BS outcomes related to im- proved public administration and public service delivery been sus- tained?
Comparison during/ after ending BS, e.g.
access to public services
Government and interna- tional statistics
Interviews
(To be subcontracted to national expert)
Outcome Have BS outcomes related to reduc- tion of non-income poverty been sus- tained?
Comparison during/ after ending BS, e.g.
Utilization of public services
Government and interna- tional statistics
Interviews
(To be subcontracted to national expert)
Outcome Have BS outcomes related to im- proved macroeconomic performance been sustained?
Comparison during/ after ending BS Macroeco- nomic indicators, e.g.
debt
Government and interna- tional statistics
Interviews
(To be subcontracted to national expert)