Indonesia : Repeat Public Expenditure and Financial Accountability Report and Performance Indicators
This public expenditure and financial accountability (PEFA) assessment for Indonesia was undertaken by a team of World Bank staff and development partners with close involvement of counterparts from the Government of Indonesia, including the minist...
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Public Expenditure Review |
| Language: | English en_US |
| Published: |
World Bank, Jakarta
2015
|
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/2012/12/23035595/indonesia-repeat-public-expenditure-financial-accountability-pefa-report-performance-indicators http://hdl.handle.net/10986/21127 |
| Summary: | This public expenditure and financial
accountability (PEFA) assessment for Indonesia was
undertaken by a team of World Bank staff and development
partners with close involvement of counterparts from the
Government of Indonesia, including the ministry of finance,
state ministry of development planning (Bappenas), and some
line ministries. The objective of the assessment is to
update the integrated, standardized, indicator-led
assessment of public financial management (PFM) systems,
processes, and institutions as a whole against good
international practices. This PEFA assessment has been
funded by the Bank and a multi-donor trust fund, supported
by contributions from the European Commission, the
Governments of the Netherlands and the Swiss Confederation,
and United States Agency for International Development
(USAID). This report focuses mainly on the changes in the
performance of the PFM system from 2007 to 2011. This report
focuses largely on the major changes since 2007, and also on
the ongoing reforms that should impact an assessment in the
future organizations. It provides an integrated,
standardized, and indicator-led methodology to measure and
monitor PFM performance over time. The objective is to help
assess the performance of PFM systems, processes, and
institutions relative to internationally recognized good
system characteristics. The rating methodology, covering a
set of 31 high level performance indicators, with over 70
dimensions, emphasizes empirical and observable facets for
each PFM area. |
|---|