Public Investment Management (PIM) Indicator Framework for Capital Spending

Jay-Hyung Kim (jkim5@worldbank.org) World Bank

MOSF-KDI-IMF-WB Conference on Strengthening the Management ofPublic Investment: Korean and International Experiences

Seoul, Korea, October 30-31, 2014

Jay-Hyung Kim (jkim5@worldbank.org) World Bank

MOSF-KDI-IMF-WB Conference on Strengthening the Management ofPublic Investment: Korean and International Experiences

Seoul, Korea, October 30-31, 2014

Outline

I. Background and Context

II. PIM Eight Must-Have Features

III. PIM Indicator Framework for Capital Spending

IV. Findings and Lessons from Country Diagnoses

V. A New PIM-for-PPP (PIM4PPP) Indicator Framework

2

I. Background and Context

II. PIM Eight Must-Have Features

III. PIM Indicator Framework for Capital Spending

IV. Findings and Lessons from Country Diagnoses

V. A New PIM-for-PPP (PIM4PPP) Indicator Framework

I. Background and ContextA. Why Public Investment Management (PIM) Matters?

§ Public investment is justified by its expected positive effect on economic growth and social welfare.

§ But the efficiency of public investment depends on the effectiveness of Public Investment Management (PIM) which is often weak.

§ The global economic slowdown brought the spotlight on PIM policy as an instrument to revive economic activity: all countries need to continue efforts for better PIM to get the highest value for money and the greatest growth impact.Ø Fiscal stimulus plans and post-crisis environment: reliance on

public investmentØ Enhance value for money by creation and preservation of

economically and socially productive fixed capital assets

3

§ Public investment is justified by its expected positive effect on economic growth and social welfare.

§ But the efficiency of public investment depends on the effectiveness of Public Investment Management (PIM) which is often weak.

§ The global economic slowdown brought the spotlight on PIM policy as an instrument to revive economic activity: all countries need to continue efforts for better PIM to get the highest value for money and the greatest growth impact.Ø Fiscal stimulus plans and post-crisis environment: reliance on

public investmentØ Enhance value for money by creation and preservation of

economically and socially productive fixed capital assets

I. Background and ContextB. Complex Projects and Modalities Make PIM Difficult

Complex projects…

§ Lumpy investments: transparency§ Multi-year nature§ Multi-sector: technical capacities§ Cross-cutting nature: weak

ownership§ Localized and visible benefits:

politicization§ Potential corruption: weak

management§ Public and private sectors: regulatory

capacity

Complex modalities…

4

Complex projects…

§ Lumpy investments: transparency§ Multi-year nature§ Multi-sector: technical capacities§ Cross-cutting nature: weak

ownership§ Localized and visible benefits:

politicization§ Potential corruption: weak

management§ Public and private sectors: regulatory

capacity

I. Background and ContextC. Country Starting Points are Different

Angola

Albania

United Arab Emirates

Argentina

Armenia

Australia

Azerbaijan

Burundi

Belgium

BeninBurkina Faso

Bangladesh

Bulgaria

Bahrain

Bosnia and Herzegovina

Bolivia

Brazil

Barbados

Botswana

Central African Republic

Canada

Switzerland

Chile

Cote d'Ivoire

Cameroon

ColombiaCape Verde

Costa Rica

Czech Republic

Germany

Dominican Republic

Algeria

Ecuador

Egypt, Arab Rep.

Estonia

Ethiopia

Finland

France

United Kingdom

Georgia

Ghana

Gambia, TheGuatemala

Guyana

Hong Kong SAR, China

Honduras

Croatia

IndonesiaIndia

Iran, Islamic Rep.

Israel

Italy

Jordan

Japan

Kazakhstan

KenyaCambodia

Korea, Rep.

Kuwait

Lebanon

Sri Lanka

Lesotho

Lithuania

Morocco

MoldovaMadagascar

Mexico

Mali

Montenegro

Mongolia

Mozambique

Mauritania

Mauritius

Malawi

MalaysiaNamibia

Nigeria

Nicaragua

Netherlands

Norway

Nepal

New Zealand

Oman

Pakistan

Panama

Philippines

Portugal

Paraguay

Qatar

Romania

Russian Federation

Rwanda

Saudi Arabia

Senegal

Singapore

El Salvador

Serbia

Slovak RepublicSwaziland

Syrian Arab Republic

Thailand

Tajikistan

Trinidad and Tobago

Tunisia

Turkey

Tanzania

Uganda

Ukraine

Uruguay

United States

Venezuela, RBVietnam

South Africa

Zambia

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0Gov Investment / GDP (%) (WEO)

Quality of Overall Infrastructure (WEF 2010) Fitted values

Source: World Economic Forum (2010) & IMF WEO (2011)

Government Investment & Infrastructure Quality

§ Public investments ranging from an average of 1%-36% GDP (2005-2010)§ Natural resource countries/Aid-dependent settings/Advanced economies

5

Angola

Albania

United Arab Emirates

Argentina

Armenia

Australia

Azerbaijan

Burundi

Belgium

BeninBurkina Faso

Bangladesh

Bulgaria

Bahrain

Bosnia and Herzegovina

Bolivia

Brazil

Barbados

Botswana

Central African Republic

Canada

Switzerland

Chile

Cote d'Ivoire

Cameroon

ColombiaCape Verde

Costa Rica

Czech Republic

Germany

Dominican Republic

Algeria

Ecuador

Egypt, Arab Rep.

Estonia

Ethiopia

Finland

France

United Kingdom

Georgia

Ghana

Gambia, TheGuatemala

Guyana

Hong Kong SAR, China

Honduras

Croatia

IndonesiaIndia

Iran, Islamic Rep.

Israel

Italy

Jordan

Japan

Kazakhstan

KenyaCambodia

Korea, Rep.

Kuwait

Lebanon

Sri Lanka

Lesotho

Lithuania

Morocco

MoldovaMadagascar

Mexico

Mali

Montenegro

Mongolia

Mozambique

Mauritania

Mauritius

Malawi

MalaysiaNamibia

Nigeria

Nicaragua

Netherlands

Norway

Nepal

New Zealand

Oman

Pakistan

Panama

Philippines

Portugal

Paraguay

Qatar

Romania

Russian Federation

Rwanda

Saudi Arabia

Senegal

Singapore

El Salvador

Serbia

Slovak RepublicSwaziland

Syrian Arab Republic

Thailand

Tajikistan

Trinidad and Tobago

Tunisia

Turkey

Tanzania

Uganda

Ukraine

Uruguay

United States

Venezuela, RBVietnam

South Africa

Zambia

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0Gov Investment / GDP (%) (WEO)

Quality of Overall Infrastructure (WEF 2010) Fitted values

Source: World Economic Forum (2010) & IMF WEO (2011)

Government Investment & Infrastructure Quality

Footnote: The horizontal axis presents the ratio of government investment to GDP averaged during 5 years (2005-2010). Vertical axis shows the World Economic Forum (WEF) index that broadly measures the quality of the capital stock.

II. PIM Eight Must-Have FeaturesA. Eight Stages/Features of PIM§ Eight specific features provide a degree of assurance that there are no systemic

loopholes that would enable wasteful or corrupt decisions. They are considered to be must-have features, not with the intention of establishing a gold standard but to provide a logical and internally consistent system that even a low-capacity country should try to follow to establish basic disciplines for project selection and management

Project development

Detailed project design

6

1Guidance

& Screening

2Formal

Project Appraisal

3Appraisal Review

4Project Selection

& Budgeting

7ServiceDelivery

6Project

Changes

5Implementation

8Project

Evaluation

Pre-feasibility

Feasibility

CEA

CBA

Regulatory requirements

Basic completion

review

Evaluation

Source: Rajaram, Anand, et al. (2010), 'Framework for Reviewing Public Investment Efficiency', (Washington, DC: World Bank Policy Working Paper, No. 5397 (August)), 17.

II. PIM Eight Must-Have Features

— Step 1: Strategic Guidance and Preliminary Screening: National and/or sector strategy documents are specific enough, and have sufficient coherence and authority to actually guide public investment, and are used systematically to screen new projects (with at least some projects dropped at the preliminary screening stage). Sector strategies are fully costed, and are closely integrated and consistent with medium term budgets.

— Step 2: Project Appraisal: Project development follows a standard and well-defined set of procedures, and projects are appraised using the full range of techniques as appropriate. There are comprehensive central guidelines on project appraisal, including specific detailed guidance on the appraisal of PPPs.

— Step 3: Independent Appraisal Review: The risk of line ministries “cooking the numbers” to ensure that a project passes appraisal is limited by an independent review of the project. This is a key feature of all four of these countries. In Korea, upon request from the Ministry of Strategy and Finance, the Public and Private Infrastructure Investment Management Center (PIMAC), a semiautonomous agency, undertakes prefeasibility studies of large projects independent of the sponsoring ministry.

— Step 4: Project Selection and Budgeting: In general, only projects that have been subject to thorough appraisal, and have been independently reviewed, are selected for funding in the budget. Multi-year budget authority supports effective project implementation.

B. How to Ensure Eight Must-Have Features

7

— Step 1: Strategic Guidance and Preliminary Screening: National and/or sector strategy documents are specific enough, and have sufficient coherence and authority to actually guide public investment, and are used systematically to screen new projects (with at least some projects dropped at the preliminary screening stage). Sector strategies are fully costed, and are closely integrated and consistent with medium term budgets.

— Step 2: Project Appraisal: Project development follows a standard and well-defined set of procedures, and projects are appraised using the full range of techniques as appropriate. There are comprehensive central guidelines on project appraisal, including specific detailed guidance on the appraisal of PPPs.

— Step 3: Independent Appraisal Review: The risk of line ministries “cooking the numbers” to ensure that a project passes appraisal is limited by an independent review of the project. This is a key feature of all four of these countries. In Korea, upon request from the Ministry of Strategy and Finance, the Public and Private Infrastructure Investment Management Center (PIMAC), a semiautonomous agency, undertakes prefeasibility studies of large projects independent of the sponsoring ministry.

— Step 4: Project Selection and Budgeting: In general, only projects that have been subject to thorough appraisal, and have been independently reviewed, are selected for funding in the budget. Multi-year budget authority supports effective project implementation.

II. PIM Eight Must-Have Features

— Step 5: Project Implementation: There is a strong focus on managing the total project costs over the life of each project. Clear roles and responsibilities are in place for project implementation, with regular reporting on financial and non-financial progress and close monitoring by the CFA. Sound procurement systems are in place and are consistently implemented, with advanced techniques for allocating risks between government and contractor

— Step 6: Project Adjustment: A distinctive feature of these advanced PIM systems is thatspecific mechanisms are in place to trigger a review of a project’s continued justification if there are material changes to project costs, schedule, or expected benefits.

— Step 7: Facility Operation and Maintenance: Comprehensive and reliable asset registers are maintained and are subject to external audit. In the UK, full accrual balance sheets are in place across the central government, and the Gateway process focuses specifically on readiness for service (Gateway 4). In Chile, there is systematic recording and checking of completed capital assets, and a register records the name of the responsible official for each asset.

— Step 8: Basic Completion Review and Evaluation: All advanced countries put significant effort into ex post review. Investment projects are subject to audit by the supreme audit institution, including value-for-money audits.

B. How to Ensure Eight Must-Have Features (cont’d)

8

— Step 5: Project Implementation: There is a strong focus on managing the total project costs over the life of each project. Clear roles and responsibilities are in place for project implementation, with regular reporting on financial and non-financial progress and close monitoring by the CFA. Sound procurement systems are in place and are consistently implemented, with advanced techniques for allocating risks between government and contractor

— Step 6: Project Adjustment: A distinctive feature of these advanced PIM systems is thatspecific mechanisms are in place to trigger a review of a project’s continued justification if there are material changes to project costs, schedule, or expected benefits.

— Step 7: Facility Operation and Maintenance: Comprehensive and reliable asset registers are maintained and are subject to external audit. In the UK, full accrual balance sheets are in place across the central government, and the Gateway process focuses specifically on readiness for service (Gateway 4). In Chile, there is systematic recording and checking of completed capital assets, and a register records the name of the responsible official for each asset.

— Step 8: Basic Completion Review and Evaluation: All advanced countries put significant effort into ex post review. Investment projects are subject to audit by the supreme audit institution, including value-for-money audits.

III. PIM Indicator Framework for Capital SpendingA. What and How?

§ What: PIM Indicator Framework is a WBG product that analyzes and provides a platform for country dialogue on how public investment management can contribute to policy objectives and development outcomes by:Ø Identify key aspects of eight must-have features to a well functioning

PIM system

§ How: PIM Indicator Framework can:Ø Measure the performance of PIM functioning regarding key elements of

PIM systems, processes, and institutionsØ Identify key factors constraining PIM performanceØ Address the most promising entry points for country-specific reforms

9

§ What: PIM Indicator Framework is a WBG product that analyzes and provides a platform for country dialogue on how public investment management can contribute to policy objectives and development outcomes by:Ø Identify key aspects of eight must-have features to a well functioning

PIM system

§ How: PIM Indicator Framework can:Ø Measure the performance of PIM functioning regarding key elements of

PIM systems, processes, and institutionsØ Identify key factors constraining PIM performanceØ Address the most promising entry points for country-specific reforms

III. PIM Indicator Framework for Capital SpendingB. Qualitative Assessments

§ Rajaram, et al (WBG 2010): Develop diagnostic questions which provide the basis for a diagnostic assessment of the efficiency of a PIM system, presented in order of the system’s eight must-have features

§ Country case studies at WBG (2009-2013): Brazil, Chile, China, East Timor, Equatorial Guinea, Ireland, Korea, Latin America, Lesotho, Mongolia, Nigeria, Peru, Sierra Leone, Uganda, USA, Vietnam, West Balkans, Zambia, Zimbabwe, Others

Institutional Features Chile Ireland Korea Brazil Belarus China Vietnam Nigeria

Investment guidance & preliminary screeningFormal project appraisal

Independent review of appraisalProject selection and budgetingImplementation

Adjustment for changes in project circumstancesFacility operation

Evaluation

10

§ Rajaram, et al (WBG 2010): Develop diagnostic questions which provide the basis for a diagnostic assessment of the efficiency of a PIM system, presented in order of the system’s eight must-have features

§ Country case studies at WBG (2009-2013): Brazil, Chile, China, East Timor, Equatorial Guinea, Ireland, Korea, Latin America, Lesotho, Mongolia, Nigeria, Peru, Sierra Leone, Uganda, USA, Vietnam, West Balkans, Zambia, Zimbabwe, Others

Institutional Features Chile Ireland Korea Brazil Belarus China Vietnam Nigeria

Investment guidance & preliminary screeningFormal project appraisal

Independent review of appraisalProject selection and budgetingImplementation

Adjustment for changes in project circumstancesFacility operation

Evaluation

Footnote: Red (bad), Green (good)Source: World Bank Country Case Studies

III. PIM Indicator Framework for Capital SpendingC. Quantitative Assessments

§ PIMI (IMF/WBG 2011): to assess the institutional capacity of countries to manage PIM index on 17 dimensions in 4 categories (appraisal, selection, implementation, evaluation). Measured in 71 middle and low income countries

§ PEFA-PIM Drilldown (WBG 2011): 30 indicators broken into the same groupings as the PEFA indicators. A mix of the PEFA and PIM indicators with a number of PEFA indicators adapted to assess the PIM system. Assessed in Cape Verde, Georgia, Ukraine, Others

11

§ PIMI (IMF/WBG 2011): to assess the institutional capacity of countries to manage PIM index on 17 dimensions in 4 categories (appraisal, selection, implementation, evaluation). Measured in 71 middle and low income countries

§ PEFA-PIM Drilldown (WBG 2011): 30 indicators broken into the same groupings as the PEFA indicators. A mix of the PEFA and PIM indicators with a number of PEFA indicators adapted to assess the PIM system. Assessed in Cape Verde, Georgia, Ukraine, Others

Source: Dabla-Norris, Era, Jim Brumby, Annette Kyobe, Zac Mills, and Chris Papageorgiou, (2011), Investing in Public Investment: An Index of Public Investment Efficiency, Washington, DC: IMF Working Paper, WP 11/37.

III. PIM Indicator Framework for Capital SpendingD. Towards an Enhanced PIM Indicator Framework

§ Develop a new set of PIM Indicators that focuses the PIM functions with a greater emphasis on:Ø Highlighted aspects of eight must-have featuresØ Where feasible quantitative performance indicators

§ The new PIM Indicator approach can:Ø Elaborate the full detail of all functions and capacities in the causal chain

of project identification, preparation, appraisal, selection and budgeting, implementation, operation and evaluation to assist with the diagnosis or explanation of poor or good project implementation and service delivery and its economic impacts

Ø Focus on a limited set of key intermediate and final outputs of PIM functions with an emphasis on quantitative scoring measures for PIM performance

Ø Present a ‘balanced scorecard’ approach which compromises a limited, but efficient set of measures of inputs, capacities, functions, outputs and impacts of the PIM system

12

§ Develop a new set of PIM Indicators that focuses the PIM functions with a greater emphasis on:Ø Highlighted aspects of eight must-have featuresØ Where feasible quantitative performance indicators

§ The new PIM Indicator approach can:Ø Elaborate the full detail of all functions and capacities in the causal chain

of project identification, preparation, appraisal, selection and budgeting, implementation, operation and evaluation to assist with the diagnosis or explanation of poor or good project implementation and service delivery and its economic impacts

Ø Focus on a limited set of key intermediate and final outputs of PIM functions with an emphasis on quantitative scoring measures for PIM performance

Ø Present a ‘balanced scorecard’ approach which compromises a limited, but efficient set of measures of inputs, capacities, functions, outputs and impacts of the PIM system

IV. Findings and Lessons from Country DiagnosesA. Pitfalls of Things Going Wrong

§ Absence or poor quality of strategic documentsØ Ineffective project appraisal, investment prioritization and screening

§ In many country settings, Ministry of Finance/central agencies do not function as an effective ‘gate keeper’Ø Line ministries and agencies are separately functioning with weak

coordination§ Moving away from a single year focus to MTEF shows determination

but process can be easily politicizedØ As a result, MTEF ceilings have little or no impact on actual appraisal and

selection of projects§ Procurement problems

Ø Non-transparent, non-competitive bidding. Emphasizing on lowest bid may compromise quality and provide coverage for corruption

§ Budgeting focuses more on annual cost control rather than on total cost control

13

§ Absence or poor quality of strategic documentsØ Ineffective project appraisal, investment prioritization and screening

§ In many country settings, Ministry of Finance/central agencies do not function as an effective ‘gate keeper’Ø Line ministries and agencies are separately functioning with weak

coordination§ Moving away from a single year focus to MTEF shows determination

but process can be easily politicizedØ As a result, MTEF ceilings have little or no impact on actual appraisal and

selection of projects§ Procurement problems

Ø Non-transparent, non-competitive bidding. Emphasizing on lowest bid may compromise quality and provide coverage for corruption

§ Budgeting focuses more on annual cost control rather than on total cost control

IV. Findings and Lessons from Country DiagnosesB. Lessons for PIM Reforms

§ Ownership of PIM assessment is importantØ Often, but not always Ministry of finance at the center of processØ Develops the framework for the MOF to take lead investment decision

and has oversight control of public investment

§ Appraisal process should be linked to the budget cycleØ A multiplicity of players with unclear accountabilities can

overburden the appraisal systemØ Independent peer review might be necessary to check any

subjective, self-serving bias

§ Clarity of roles and responsibilities is crucial for effective PIM

§ Coordination across sectors and levels of government is in need

§ The role of central guidelines are a particularly critical aspect of a well functioning PIM

14

§ Ownership of PIM assessment is importantØ Often, but not always Ministry of finance at the center of processØ Develops the framework for the MOF to take lead investment decision

and has oversight control of public investment

§ Appraisal process should be linked to the budget cycleØ A multiplicity of players with unclear accountabilities can

overburden the appraisal systemØ Independent peer review might be necessary to check any

subjective, self-serving bias

§ Clarity of roles and responsibilities is crucial for effective PIM

§ Coordination across sectors and levels of government is in need

§ The role of central guidelines are a particularly critical aspect of a well functioning PIM

IV. Findings and Lessons from Country DiagnosesB. Lessons for PIM Reforms (cont’d)

§ Monitoring is important for early remedial actionØ Financial Management Information System (FMIS)Ø Public Transparency & Accountability

§ PIM reforms are incentive compatibleØ Based on a sound understanding of and tailored to fit individual

country trajectories, circumstances and practicesØ Technically feasible, relying on good enough practiceØ Carefully designed and sequenced

§ Building capacity: gradual approachØ PIM system do not operate in isolationØ Well functioning PEM and budgeting system, SOE governance and

debt management system are also important

15

§ Monitoring is important for early remedial actionØ Financial Management Information System (FMIS)Ø Public Transparency & Accountability

§ PIM reforms are incentive compatibleØ Based on a sound understanding of and tailored to fit individual

country trajectories, circumstances and practicesØ Technically feasible, relying on good enough practiceØ Carefully designed and sequenced

§ Building capacity: gradual approachØ PIM system do not operate in isolationØ Well functioning PEM and budgeting system, SOE governance and

debt management system are also important

V. A New PIM-for-PPP (PIM4PPP) Indicator FrameworkA. Why the Need for A Unified Framework?

§ Many countries have been managing public private partnership (PPP) projects separately from traditionally implemented projects (TIPs).

Ø PPPs have been mostly appraised, selected, budgeted, and monitored separately from TIPs.

§ This disparity has undermined adequate public financial management and created undue fiscal risks, causing fiscal concerns with respect to appropriate forms of accounting, reporting, budgeting, and other processes.

§ From a fiscal point of view, a principal key to initiating PPP projects is to establish whether a government can maintain the same level of fiscal efficiency and sustainability through PPP as through TIP.

Ø Important to establish the fact that there should not be such a thing a ‘PPP project’ intrinsically à PPP is a form of implementing a public investment project.

§ A unified framework for integrating both TIP and PPP is in need.

16

§ Many countries have been managing public private partnership (PPP) projects separately from traditionally implemented projects (TIPs).

Ø PPPs have been mostly appraised, selected, budgeted, and monitored separately from TIPs.

§ This disparity has undermined adequate public financial management and created undue fiscal risks, causing fiscal concerns with respect to appropriate forms of accounting, reporting, budgeting, and other processes.

§ From a fiscal point of view, a principal key to initiating PPP projects is to establish whether a government can maintain the same level of fiscal efficiency and sustainability through PPP as through TIP.

Ø Important to establish the fact that there should not be such a thing a ‘PPP project’ intrinsically à PPP is a form of implementing a public investment project.

§ A unified framework for integrating both TIP and PPP is in need.

V. A New PIM-for-PPP (PIM4PPP) Indicator FrameworkB. Benefits from a Unified Framework

§ Help ensuring consistent assessment and decision making

Ø The choice between a PPP and TIP is often skewed by factors other than value for money. Political preference for or against PPPs may play a role in skewing choices and affecting outcomes.

Ø A unified framework has the potential to minimize subjective decisions concerning TIP versus PPP implementation.

§ Help supporting optimal risk transfer

Ø If each project, whether TIP or PPP, is separately managed, the concept of optimal transfer from one to the other may not be ensured.

§ Help avoiding unmanaged fiscal risks while improving transparency

Ø The framework may discourage parallel budgeting by reporting the known and potential future fiscal costs of PPPs in traditional budget system.

Ø By strengthening procedural controls on PPP commitments, the framework helps to improve overall transparency in the PFM system.

17

§ Help ensuring consistent assessment and decision making

Ø The choice between a PPP and TIP is often skewed by factors other than value for money. Political preference for or against PPPs may play a role in skewing choices and affecting outcomes.

Ø A unified framework has the potential to minimize subjective decisions concerning TIP versus PPP implementation.

§ Help supporting optimal risk transfer

Ø If each project, whether TIP or PPP, is separately managed, the concept of optimal transfer from one to the other may not be ensured.

§ Help avoiding unmanaged fiscal risks while improving transparency

Ø The framework may discourage parallel budgeting by reporting the known and potential future fiscal costs of PPPs in traditional budget system.

Ø By strengthening procedural controls on PPP commitments, the framework helps to improve overall transparency in the PFM system.

V. A New PIM-for-PPP (PIM4PPP) Indicator FrameworkC. Challenges to Having a Unified Framework in Practice

§ Constraints and difficulties remain to swiftly apply such a unified framework.

§ Motivation and Approach: It is important therefore to identify commonalities and differences between TIP and PPP by running through the PIM stages which correspond to eight must-have features for PPP and to discuss entry points to move toward such a unified framework àDevelop PIM4PPP Indicator Framework: pilot tests in Jamaica, Sierra Leone, Others

18

§ Constraints and difficulties remain to swiftly apply such a unified framework.

§ Motivation and Approach: It is important therefore to identify commonalities and differences between TIP and PPP by running through the PIM stages which correspond to eight must-have features for PPP and to discuss entry points to move toward such a unified framework àDevelop PIM4PPP Indicator Framework: pilot tests in Jamaica, Sierra Leone, Others

V. A New PIM-for-PPP (PIM4PPP) Indicator FrameworkD. A PIM4PPP Indicator Framework

PIM4PPP Indicators Subject area

Policy1 Consistency in Project Identification and Initial Development2 Screening of Projects against Policy Priorities3 Effectiveness of the Relevant Legal Framework4 Effectiveness of the Relevant Institutional arrangements5 Stakeholder management / engagement and the Role of Advisers

Project Appraisal6 Appraisal rules, guidance and practice7 Public Sector Comparator (PSC) or value for money assessment8 Comprehensiveness of the appraisal process

Independent Review of Appraisal9 Quality and practices

Selection and Budgeting10 Fiscal Risk

19

10 Fiscal Risk11 Transparency and accounting treatment

The PPP Contract12 Quality and comprehensiveness of contracts based on standard pre-agreed positions

13 Comparison of key contractual terms with international good practiceProject Implementation

14 Implementation rules and practices15 Effectiveness of Procurement Process in PPP projects16 Timeliness of implementation

Project Adjustment17 Renegotiation and Adjustment Practices, Effectiveness and Efficiency18 Refinancing

Facility Operation19 Contract management practices20 Asset Registers

Completion Review and Evaluation21 Ex-post Evaluation

Thank You

Jay-Hyung Kim (jkim5@worldbank.org)

20