This presentation was made by Ronnie Downes, OECD Secretariat, at the 12th Annual Meeting of OECD-CESEE Senior Budget Officials held in Ljubljana, Slovenia, on 28-29 June 2016

1. Update on
OECD Performance Budgeting Survey
2016
Ronnie Downes
Deputy Head, Budgeting and Public Expenditures
OECD
CESEE SBO meeting
Ljubljana, 28-29 June 2016

2. Performance Budgeting – Simple in Theory…
€ ₩ $
   

3. …Difficult in Practice
1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5
Pay cut for head of programme/organisation
Programme transferred to other…
Negative consequences for leaders' evaluations
Programme eliminated
More staff assigned to programme/organisation
New leadership brought in
Budget freezes
Budget increases
More training provided to staff assigned
Budget decreases
More intense monitoring in the future
Poor performance made public
No consequences
2007 2011
What happens when performance objectives are not met?

4. OECD Performance Budgeting Survey 2016
Objectives
• Explores the ‘state of the art’ in three categories:
i. Performance budgeting
ii. Evaluation
iii. Spending Review
• Build upon past surveys (2007, 2011)
– Construct time series data to examine trends
– Drill deeper on key issues raised in past surveys
• Identify key issues for principles in performance
budgeting

5. OECD Performance Budgeting Survey 2016
Summary
• High response rate
• Strong governance procedures in place
• Spending reviews are the emerging trend
• Budget impacts remain elusive

6. Part II
Initial findings among OECD countries

7. The management of Performance Budgeting
is well-developed
Centralised performance frameworks are widespread
17 6 2
3 4 2
Yes (25)
No (9)
Compulsory: line ministries & agencies Compulsory: line ministries only Optional
Decentralised None N/A

8. The management of Performance Budgeting
is well-developed
More countries have specialised performance units
2016
2011
Yes - oversight & developing procedures
Yes - analysing performance information
Yes - analysing performance information, oversight & developing procedures
No
N/A

9. Line ministries are involved
Line ministries are involved in key aspects of
performance budgeting in nearly all OECD countries
CBA
Line Ministries
0
25
50
75
100
Establishing
framework/guidelines
ICT system for
performance
Allocating funds based on
perf. info
Setting performance
targets
Generating performance
information
Conducting evaluations

10. More countries than ever conduct spending reviews
Periodic, comprehensive reviews are the model of choice
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Frequency
Comprehensive
Broad
Narrow

11. Yet, impacts on budget outcomes lag
Few countries can claim measurable achievement of fiscal and
performance objectives following spending reviews
% of fiscal
objectives met
% of
output/outcome
objectives met
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22
%ofobjectivesmet
Number of countries

12. Part III
What’s next?

13. Project schedule
OECD Performance & Results Network
Phase 1
OECD survey design
Phase 2
Survey administration
Phase 3
Data verification
Phase 4
Analysis
Phase 5
Draft report to network
Phase 6
Publish report
January 2016 March 2016 Spring 2016
Complete Complete Near completion
Summer 2016 Fall 2016 2017
Ongoing

14. Related projects
• Review of EU “Budget Focused on Results”
– Interesting aspects of EU practice on performance
• other country-specific Budget Reviews
– Sweden
– Chile
– non-OECD countries

15. Will this work help us move towards “Guiding
Principles of Performance Budgeting”?
a) use ready-made performance data from policy cycle
b) clear programme logic linking inputs, outputs, outcomes
c) seamless link to government-wide strategy and goals
d) avoid information overload – the “vital few” indicators
e) Include national and international benchmarks
f) organisational, managerial accountability for results
– Establish routines of behaviour within organisations
g) audited and auditable performance targets
h) citizen- and CSO-accessible data