Framework for Analyzing Public Investment Management
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5

Framework for Analyzing Public Investment Management



Tuan Minh Le

Tuan Minh Le



Total Views
Views on SlideShare
Embed Views



0 Embeds 0

No embeds



Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
Post Comment
Edit your comment

Framework for Analyzing Public Investment Management Framework for Analyzing Public Investment Management Presentation Transcript

  • Framework for Analyzing Public Investment Management Tuan Minh Le Presented at ICGFM Winter Conference Washington D.C. December 6, 2011 1
  • Performance benchmarking Source: CoST (2011b:3) 2
  • Pinpointing PIM problems Well Executed Poorly ExecutedGood Projects A CPoor Projects B D 3
  • A Framework for assessing PIM• Two pillars of the approach – Desirable features of well-functioning system in 8 cycles – Diagnostic Indicators to assess actual system• Focus on how to inform reform design to enhance efficiency by Gap-Analysis Desirable Institutional Gap Actual Functioning Features Analysis Diagnostic Indicators 4
  • The eight “must-have” core PIM features Project Detailed project development design 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 - Guidance Formal Appraisal Project Implement Project Service Project & Project Review Selection ation Changes Delivery Evaluation Screening Appraisal & Budgeting Basic completion review Pre-feasibility Evaluation Feasibility CE CBA Regulatory requirements 5
  • 1. Investment guidance & preliminary screening6 • Existence of credible strategic guidance to PI – National Plan, PRSP, Long-term Vision document – Supplemented by a sector or sub-sector level strategy  Realism of strategy relative to available resources? • Established process of first-level screening – Basic consistency with government policy and strategic guidance – Centralized or delegated approval justification  What portion of projects screened are rejected?
  • 2. Formal Project Appraisal7 • Existence of well publicized and transparent appraisal guideline – Larger projects requiring more rigorous tests of financial and economic feasibility and sustainability  Quality of guidance? Rate of rejection? • Capacity of staff with project evaluation skills – An established process for training staff in project evaluation technique  Number of staff with evaluation skills?
  • 3. Independent Review of Appraisal8 • Independent peer review might be necessary to check any subjective, self-serving bias • Clarity of specific responsibilities – A multiplicity of players with unclear accountabilities can overburden the appraisal system  A formal delegation allowing central appraisal system to review appraisal of relatively important projects
  • 4. Project Selection and Budgeting9 • Transparent criteria for selecting projects • Appraisal process is linked to the budget cycle – Maintaining an inventory of appraised projects – Clear requirements for consideration of O&M • Ensuring adequate financing for selected projects – Multi-year budget allocation system  Evidence of under-funding, large stock of uncompleted projects? • Effective gate-keeping – Only appraised and approved projects are selected for budget financing, except for emergency reason  Percentage of projects evaded established process?
  • 5. Project Implementation10 • Published guideline for project implementation • Clear organizational arrangements and a realistic timetable to ensure the capacity to implement  Sample of project delays in implementation? • Cost-effective procurement and contracting  Portion of competitive project tendering? • A system to prevent imprudent cost-increase in implementation  Estimates of cost overruns on major projects by specific sector? Percentage of cost overrun on major projects?
  • 6. Project Adjustment11 • Flexibility to allow changes in disbursement plan according to changed circumstances • Active monitoring and periodic progress reporting – Updated cost and benefit  Requirement for updating project documents during construction? • Mechanisms to stop projects with negative marginal benefits  Example of projects cancelled or closed on the account of changed net benefits?
  • 12 7,8. Facility Operation & Ex-post Evaluation • Asset registers need to be maintained, and asset values recorded  Evidence that complete asset registers maintained? • Ex-post Evaluation of completed projects – Focus on the comparison of the outputs and outcomes with the established objectives in project design – Feedback to improve future project design and implementation  Evidence of response to the evaluation findings?
  • Selected ReferencesRajaram, Anand, Tuan Minh Le, Nataliya Biletska, and JamesBrumby. 2010, A Diagnostic Framework for Assessing PublicInvestment Management, World Bank Working Paper 5397,August 2010.Construction Sector Transparency Initiative. 2011. Reporton baseline studies: International comparison. January2011. 13