PEFA, Public Financial Management, and Good Governance
The research is based on the PEFA framework and methodology for assessing public financial management performance and the data set that is generated from the PEFA assessments. The research quantified PEFA scores and aggregated them into overall sco...
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Report |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
World Bank, Washington, DC
2019
|
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | http://hdl.handle.net/10986/31347 |
| id |
okr-10986-31347 |
|---|---|
| recordtype |
oai_dc |
| spelling |
okr-10986-313472019-03-07T05:10:33Z PEFA, Public Financial Management, and Good Governance World Bank Group PUBLIC FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT FINANCIAL ACCOUNTABILITY PUBLIC EXPENDITURE CORRUPTION GOVERNANCE BUDGET EXECUTION SERVICE DELIVERY REVENUE MOBILIZATION The research is based on the PEFA framework and methodology for assessing public financial management performance and the data set that is generated from the PEFA assessments. The research quantified PEFA scores and aggregated them into overall scores which required developing assumptions on weighting scores, measures, and assessments. The research acknowledges methodological limitations of using the PEFA data set, including the assumptions. In general, the research follows the approach taken by previous researchers who have used PEFA data for quantitative analysis, but this does not eliminate the challenges that persist in transforming grades to numerical values and aggregating them. The time inconsistency issues and the limited number of observations also influenced the regression analysis using the PEFA data set. The team acknowledges that the PEFA data set was not designed for statistical analysis and that using it in quantitative regressions presents a series of econometric issues that cannot be fully resolved in this book, or in other papers which apply a similar approach. The research report builds on general recognition that PFM is important for development and recognizes that there is limited evidence based on the nontechnical determinants of PFM performance, as well as the outcomes of a good PFM system. The report therefore aims to bridge some of this gap between theory and practice using data on PFM performance from PEFA assessments. The report undertakes a closer examination of the key debates on what constitutes a good PFM system by providing an overview of the PEFA framework, and the data set that is generated through PEFA assessments, including its strengths and weaknesses. This was done to enable the research team to undertake quantitative analysis of the relationship between PFM performance and other governance indicators and outcomes. 2019-03-06T16:44:24Z 2019-03-06T16:44:24Z 2019-03-02 Report http://hdl.handle.net/10986/31347 English CC BY 3.0 IGO http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/igo World Bank World Bank, Washington, DC Economic & Sector Work Economic & Sector Work :: Country Financial Accountability Assessment |
| repository_type |
Digital Repository |
| institution_category |
Foreign Institution |
| institution |
Digital Repositories |
| building |
World Bank Open Knowledge Repository |
| collection |
World Bank |
| language |
English |
| topic |
PUBLIC FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT FINANCIAL ACCOUNTABILITY PUBLIC EXPENDITURE CORRUPTION GOVERNANCE BUDGET EXECUTION SERVICE DELIVERY REVENUE MOBILIZATION |
| spellingShingle |
PUBLIC FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT FINANCIAL ACCOUNTABILITY PUBLIC EXPENDITURE CORRUPTION GOVERNANCE BUDGET EXECUTION SERVICE DELIVERY REVENUE MOBILIZATION World Bank Group PEFA, Public Financial Management, and Good Governance |
| description |
The research is based on the PEFA
framework and methodology for assessing public financial
management performance and the data set that is generated
from the PEFA assessments. The research quantified PEFA
scores and aggregated them into overall scores which
required developing assumptions on weighting scores,
measures, and assessments. The research acknowledges
methodological limitations of using the PEFA data set,
including the assumptions. In general, the research follows
the approach taken by previous researchers who have used
PEFA data for quantitative analysis, but this does not
eliminate the challenges that persist in transforming grades
to numerical values and aggregating them. The time
inconsistency issues and the limited number of observations
also influenced the regression analysis using the PEFA data
set. The team acknowledges that the PEFA data set was not
designed for statistical analysis and that using it in
quantitative regressions presents a series of econometric
issues that cannot be fully resolved in this book, or in
other papers which apply a similar approach. The research
report builds on general recognition that PFM is important
for development and recognizes that there is limited
evidence based on the nontechnical determinants of PFM
performance, as well as the outcomes of a good PFM system.
The report therefore aims to bridge some of this gap between
theory and practice using data on PFM performance from PEFA
assessments. The report undertakes a closer examination of
the key debates on what constitutes a good PFM system by
providing an overview of the PEFA framework, and the data
set that is generated through PEFA assessments, including
its strengths and weaknesses. This was done to enable the
research team to undertake quantitative analysis of the
relationship between PFM performance and other governance
indicators and outcomes. |
| format |
Report |
| author |
World Bank Group |
| author_facet |
World Bank Group |
| author_sort |
World Bank Group |
| title |
PEFA, Public Financial Management, and Good Governance |
| title_short |
PEFA, Public Financial Management, and Good Governance |
| title_full |
PEFA, Public Financial Management, and Good Governance |
| title_fullStr |
PEFA, Public Financial Management, and Good Governance |
| title_full_unstemmed |
PEFA, Public Financial Management, and Good Governance |
| title_sort |
pefa, public financial management, and good governance |
| publisher |
World Bank, Washington, DC |
| publishDate |
2019 |
| url |
http://hdl.handle.net/10986/31347 |
| _version_ |
1764474119855800320 |