A government's capacity to manage its public finances is central to its ability to deliver services. Well-functioning accounting and financial management systems are among the basics that facilitate this, and significant resources and time have been invested for the procurement and implementation of such systems across the world. Implementation is, however, often associated with disappointing results and attribution to higher-level public financial management (PFM) objectives difficult to establish. On the basis of five in-depth project-level evaluations of World Bank investments, this paper proposes a diagnostic framework that can be used to assess the utility of a Financial Management Information System (FMIS) as a budget management tool. The paper develops a total system strength score and weighs various dimensions according to importance. The total system strength score is mapped to corresponding Public Expenditure and Financial Accountability assessment dimensions to assess any correlation between the two, and extensive sensitivity analysis suggests a positive correlation. This is interpreted as an indication that the framework is robust. A preliminary application of the methodology to a sample set of countries finds that in many cases further reforms would be most effective if, at this stage, they pertained to expanding treasury single account and FMIS coverage (and its associated controls) rather than additional technological investments.

This study assesses the extent to which public financial management (PFM) in Malawi supports health service provision at the local government level. Using a conceptual framework that links the budget cycle to health service provider management and service delivery goals, the study assesses how the various stages of the budget cycle affect service delivery at health centers and hospitals. Government and faith-based health providers, known as Christian Health Association Malawi (CHAM), are assessed separately. The study provides insights into provider autonomy and flexibility; financial management capacity; payment arrangements; and the performance orientation of budget provisions or purchasing. The results suggest that significant gaps exist, which undermine the service delivery goals of efficiency, quality, equity, and accountability of service provision. A summary of the findings is presented in the report. It provides complimentary guidance as to how PFM systems facilitate provider management and service delivery at district level health centers and hospitals. Findings and recommendations from the study are expected to support decision makers and practitioners with ongoing PFM reforms.

Reforming public-sector organizations--their structures, policies, processes and practices--is notoriously difficult, in rich and poor countries alike. Even in the most favorable of circumstances, the scale and complexity of the tasks to be undertaken are enormous, requiring levels of coordination and collaboration that may be without precedent for those involved. Entirely new skills may need to be acquired by tens of thousands of people. Compounding these logistical challenges is the pervasive reality that circumstances often are not favorable to large-scale reform. Whether a country is rich or poor, the choice is not whether, but how, to reform the public sector--how optimal design characteristics, robust political support, and enhanced organizational capability to implement and adapt will be forged over time. This edited volume helps address the “how†? question. It brings together reform experiences in public financial management and the public sector more broadly from eight country cases in East Asia: Cambodia, Indonesia, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Malaysia, Myanmar, Papua New Guinea, Thailand, and Vietnam. These countries are at different stages of reform; most of the reform efforts would qualify as successes, while some had mixed outcomes, and others could be considered failures. The focus of each chapter is less on formally demonstrating success (or not) of specific reform, but on documenting how reformers maneuvered within different country contexts to achieve specific outcomes. Despite the great difficulty in reforming the public sector, decision-makers can draw renewed energy and inspiration, learning from those countries, sectors, and subnational spaces where substantive (not merely cosmetic) change has been achieved, and they can identify what pitfalls to avoid.

At the request of the Government of Liberia (GoL), the IMF Fiscal Affairs Department (FAD) led an external assessment of the central government’s public financial management (PFM) systems based on the Public Expenditure and Financial Accountability (PEFA) methodology. The assessment was undertaken in close collaboration with the Ministry of Finance’s (MoF) PFM Reform Coordination Unit (RCU), with the participation of staff of the African Development Bank and the World Bank, and with financial support from the European Union and Sida. The assessment examines progress since the PEFA assessment of 2007 and provides a renewed baseline for monitoring progress in PFM reform and for supporting the GoL in refining, where necessary, the current PFM reform strategy. The assessment snapshot date was April 23, 2012. The report was reviewed by the GoL, the PEFA Secretariat, a donor reference group, and FAD, the latter being at the same time responsible for quality assurance.