lessons learned on costing, prioritization and operationalisation : prsps and mdgs raj nallari,...
Post on 06-Jan-2018
219 Views
Preview:
DESCRIPTION
TRANSCRIPT
Lessons Learned on Costing, Prioritization and Operationalisation :PRSPs and MDGs
Raj Nallari, World Bank Institute, PREMAntoine Heuty, UNDP New York
Vientiane, October 20th, 2004
Outline
I/ Rationale for costing and Prioritization
II/Approaches to Costing
III/ The PRSP Experience
IV/ Costing the MDGs
I/ Rationale for costing and Prioritization
Rationale for cost estimates Strategic choice for achieving NGPES-MDG goals may be helpful
in answering two kinds of questions:
Should an end be pursued ? The feasibility of achieving NGPES-MDG goals, given a sufficient
application of resources and adequate policy and institutional reform , is not generally in doubt.
However , the discussion implicitly supposes that the commitment to achieving the objectives is not unconditional.
An implicit rationale: In the MDGs context, convincing developing countries and donors that the goals can be achieved without undue sacrifice of other objectives.
How should an end best be pursued? Budgetary Planning: needs, gaps, “stickiness” (irreversibilities, cost of
planning). What is the most cost efficient approach to achieving the development
objectives?
Objectives of NGPES Costing
To estimate the needed financial resources to implement the planned interventions of NGPES.
To inform budget preparation and lay out tradeoffs for policy-makers.
To present alternative scenarios to Laos Government in order to identify policy and financing options to identify the appropriate strategy to reach NGPES-MDG goals
Why costing & prioritization matters?
Lack of prioritization= wish list Wish lists are not credible, not likely to be implemented, and are likely to disappoint
domestic stakeholders Wish lists are also less likely to attract external financing in the form of budget support Uncosted programs will not receive adequate or predictable budgetary allocations,
overall or appropriate capital/ recurrent mix. And if no costing, prioritization is impossible.
Prioritization depends on: Comprehensive analysis of policy options Good costing Knowledge of aggregate resource envelope Feedback from participatory processes
While costing is technical in nature, prioritization is a political process which needs to be owned and driven by government and decision-makers
II/Approaches to Costing
Which approach for costing NGPES? Costing of NGPES should be done
on short and medium term but consistent with Laos PDR long term development vision
This approach needs to balance the focus on ambitious development goals and the constraints imposed by the macroeconomic framework
OBJECTIVE: An iterative approach reconciling resource requirements assessments based on sector or program analysis and resource availability based on econometric estimation of growth and resource envelope (2) PRIORITIZATION
(3)
OPERATIONALIZATION
(1) COSTING- Resource
requirement- Resource
availability
What does prioritization mean? Prioritization is needed in both the choices of policy measures and
budget allocations consistent with the achievement of NGPES goals.
Prioritization implies: Analyzing all available policy options in order to achieve NGPES goals Limiting—and sequencing—the set of policy measures to those which can
most likely be achieved, given human resource and political constraints, over the time horizon of the strategy.
Prioritization leads to:
Identifying resource gap and assessing of potential adaptation of macroeconomic framework (foreign assistance, tax reform, borrowing)
Recognizing budget constraints, understanding of costs and a willingness to reallocate budgets from lower priority to higher priority sectors and sub‑sectors.
Prioritization in practice
Compare resource needs with resource availability to identify resource gap
Assess budget constraints based on the aggregate resource envelope, including both domestic and external funds
Information from donors by sector Scope for increasing resource mobilization (ODA, taxation,
borrowing)
Base case should be that considered most likely
Alternative scenarios needed in cases of higher or lower than expected growth, external flows, etc.
III/ The PRSP Experience
PRSP-Sector Programs-Budget
Budget as a key development tool andgovernance issueWhy is budget process important?In formulation phase - determines resource envelope - allocates to priority policy areasIn execution phase - releases funds to the service
delivery agencies, predictablyIn reporting phase - accounts for how the funds
have been used
Short-term measures to improve public financial management
In selected Ministries that are ready to move ahead: adoption of an integrated Financial Management System, or improved manual procedures for recording spending, and/or Public Expenditure Tracking Surveys
Improved budget classification systems Several PRSPs have proposed revising the budget
classification system in order to allow more meaningful targeting and monitoring of public expenditure
Strengthening Treasury operations to ensure more timely release of funds and better reporting of expenditure Publication of quarterly or semi-annual budget execution
reports Placing programming and execution of foreign-financed capital
expenditure on budget ensuring full recording of externally financed project
expenditures in the government’s accounts Strengthening control institutions such as Comptroller General
MTEFSTAGE CHARACTERISTICS
I. Development of Macroeconomic Framework
•Macroeconomic model that projects revenues and expenditure in medium term
II. Development of Sectoral Programs
•Agreement on sector objectives, outputs, and activities•Review and development of programs and sub-programs•Program cost estimation
III. Development of Strategic Expenditure Framework
•Analysis of inter- and intra-sectoral trade-offs•Consensus-building on strategic resource allocation
IV. Definition of Sector Resource Allocations
•Setting medium term sector budget ceilings
V. Preparation of Sectoral Budgets
•Medium term sectoral programs based on budget ceilings
VI. Political Approval •Presentation of budget estimates to cabinet and parliament for approval
A good country case1. Consensus on priorities built through the
participatory process, built on ongoing programs. Lower priority activities dropped/scaled down
2. Comprehensive“Critical to the success of the PRSP is the need to implement only the PRSP”
3. PRSP-budget link is central: Budget preparation & scrutiny by MOF to ensure that line agency budget submissions are consistent with the PRSP
4. Transition phase for donor activities:• Existing projects “grand fathered”• All new projects must fit within PRSP priorities
5. Annual review vehicles, envisaged as country’s central policy review process
• PER – expenditures & impacts• PRSP review (annual progress report) complemented
by a comprehensive review every three years
Need for patience and perseverance: Prioritisation and costing will likely need continuing
improvement in the context of implementation and monitoring of the first PRSP
Prioritization and costing will only be possible if the PRSP is linked to the budget process
MTEF can be valuable: The MTEF should not be a parallel exercise, but
integrated with existing budget processes the institutional arrangements for the MTEF & PRSP
should be consistent in both exercises, and recognize the central role of Ministry of Finance
Phasing-in of MTEF, by sector and functions, needed
IV/ Costing the MDGs
Global estimates Zedillo Report: “The cost of achieving the 2015 goals would
probably be on the order of an extra $50 billion a year”.
The Bank’s initial estimates of the cost (to donors) of achieving Goal 1 range between US $ 54 billion and $ 62 billion a year. Its estimates of the cost of achieving the goal depend on ad hoc assumptions concerning, ‘poverty elasticities of income’, capital-output ratios, national savings rates, and ‘absorption constraints’.
The Bank estimates the total cost of achieving the other goals (by adding existing sectoral estimates, as does the Zedillo commission) as ranging between US $ 35 and $ 76 billion per year.
MDG needs assessment at the country level
UNDP country offices have participated in a pilot project which has attempted to estimate the cost of attaining the MDGs in six countries. The reports focused on six MDG targets: income poverty, primary education, child mortality, maternal health, HIV/AIDS and water.
The Millennium Project is also preparing a number of country case studies to map out the major policies and investments required to achieve the MDGs in the countries concerned.
The World Bank approach gives priority to the Poverty Reduction Strategy (PRS) previously defined by each country, and asks how, giving priority to the objectives and strategy of the PRS, the MDGs can best be achieved. PRSPs often prominently feature macroeconomic policy objectives that are not directly referred to among the MDGs.
NEPAL MDG COSTING Projection of resource requirement
Relevant population forecast (e.g. 6 to 10 year old in he education sector) Identification of required inputs and norms based on National plan (NGPES
in the case of Laos) Calculation of per unit norms of different activities
Projection of resource availability Revenue Projection based on revenue/GDP ratio Projection of internal borrowing and foreign assistance Resource availability at the sub-sectoral level is done independently from
domestic and external sources Different growth scenarios are taken into consideration
Projection of resource gap Resource gap = resource requirement - Resource availability Resource gap is presented at two levels:
Resource gap from internal resource availability (revenue + borrowing) Total resource gap includes foreign assistance
Millennium Project: MDG Based Poverty reduction Strategies (PRS) Pilot countries: Cambodia, Ethiopia, Kenya, Ghana,
Dominican Republic, Yemen, Tajikistan Developing MDG-based Poverty Reduction
Strategies requires to: Set tailored targets for 2015 and beyond (MDGR) Express them in intermediate targets and actionable
propositions for the short- and medium-term (NGPES) Estimate the cost of the intermediate targets so they can
drive the macro-economic and sectoral policy frameworks as well as the national budget.
The limits of existing MDG Needs Assessments Models Costing the MDGs is undermined by five
main weaknesses: The impossibility to define the optimal policy
framework ex ante (what is a good policy, a good institution?)
Fixed absorptive capacity constraints The limits of the “unit cost” approach The interconnectedness between the goals Unpredictable future shocks
Making sense of MDG Costing… Domestic vs. external funding
Financing vs. costing
Short- and medium-term vs. long-term costing
Ownership vs. donorship
top related