1 session 1. sequencing and pacing of performance budgeting reforms: observations and lessons from...
TRANSCRIPT
1
Session 1. Sequencing and Pacing of Performance
Budgeting Reforms:Observations and Lessons
from Korea
Nowook Park
Center for Performance Evaluation & Management
Korea Institute of Public Finance (KIPF)
2
Contents
1. Sequencing and Pacing of PB Reforms in Korea
2. Issues and Lessons
3
1. Sequencing and Pacing of PB Reforms in Korea
4
Building Blocks of PB Program budgeting
Restructure budget structure to accommodate program goals Accounting System
Appropriate distribution of overhead to each program is necessary to have relevant cost information
Accrual Accounting Medium term expenditure framework Performance Information and IT investment Managerial & Financial Flexibility
Top down budgeting Multiyear budgeting Discretionary room for carry-over
5
Characteristics of the Korean Approach (1)
Gradual Approach at the initial stage Experimenting with pilot project between 2000-
2002 Selected departments within selected ministries
are subject to the pilot project Annual performance plan and report are
developed by selected departments
6
Characteristics of the Korean Approach (2)
Big bang approach with other fiscal reforms since 2003 Medium term fiscal plan (2003*, 2005**) Top down budgeting (2003*, 2004**) Performance budgeting (2000*, 2005**) Digital budget and accounting system
Program budgeting (2006**) Accrual accounting (planned in 2009*) IT system (2007**)
(Note) *: pilot project, **: comprehensive implementation
7
Performance Budgeting
(Pilot Project)
Performance Goal Management
Self-Assessment of Budgetary Program
In-DepthEvaluation
•Developed Strategic
Goals, Performance
Objectives and
Performance
Indicators•Designed after
GPRA
•1/3 of major
budgetary programs
are evaluated every
year•Designed after PART
•Selected programs
are subject to
program evaluation
•Expanded
“Performance
Budgeting” to 26
Ministries/agencies •Annual performance
plan and report are
required
’00~’02
’00~’02
’03~’03~ ’05~’05~ ’06~ ’06~
Introduction of Performance Budgeting
8
“National Finance Act” was enacted in December, 2006 To provide a legal basis for 4 major fiscal reforms
Contains articles on performance-based budgeting Annual Performance Plan and Report become legal
requirements for line ministries/agencies. SABP and In-depth Evaluation are stipulated.
It gives stability and continuity which may be a problem of performance management system. Government has less incentives to maintain and
improve performance management system than to introduce it, because efforts to improve the system are less visible to the public.
Enactment of National Finance Act
9
Performance Monitoring “Management of Performance Objectives” Monitoring based on the performance indicators
Program Review “Self-Assessment of Budgetary Program” Review based on the checklist
Program Evaluation “Budgetary Program Evaluation” In-depth evaluation for selected programs
Framework for Performance-Based Budgeting In Korea
10
The central budget authority reviews self-assessment of programs done by line ministries/agencies
The budgetary authority provides a standardized checklist for reporting self-assessment
The checklist contains questions on design, performance management system, implementation, and actual performance
About 1/3 programs are reviewed each year
Description of “Self-Assessment of Budgetary Program”
11
•Program purpose•Rationale for government spending•Duplication with other programs•Efficiency of program design•Relevance of performance objectives and indicators•Relevance of performance targets
Design and Planning
•Independent program evaluation•Results•Satisfaction of citizens•Utilization of evaluation results
Results and accountability
•Monitoring efforts•Obstacles of program implementation•Implementation as planned•Efficiency improvement or budget saving
Management
Contents of Checklist
12
Evaluation results Quality of performance information has not improved much Programs are showing better results
Link between evaluation results and budget Evaluation results are utilized at every stage of budget
process
Moving away from incremental budgeting Evaluated programs are subject to bigger budget change
compared to other programs
Report on 2005-2007 Self Assessment of Budgetary Program
13
Total EffectiveModerately
EffectiveAdequate Ineffective
2005Number 555 28 100 340 87
(%) (100.0) (5.0) (18.0) (61.3) (15.7)
2006Number 577 30 94 388 65
(%) (100.0) (5.2) (16.3) (67.2) (11.3)
2007Number 584 66 139 348 31
(%) (100.0) (11.3) (23.8) (59.6) (5.3)
Evaluation Results by Rating
14
TotalScore(100)
Planning(30)
Management(20)
Results(50)
Sub total(30)
Design(15)
Performance Planning
(15)
2005 60.1 23.1 13.8 9.3 15.1 21.9
2006 59.9 22.9 14.3 8.6 14.7 22.3
2007 66.0 23.4 14.2 9.2 15.5 27.1
Evaluation Results by Section
15
The central budget authority encouraged ministries/agencies to use the results in reshuffling budget allocation
The central budget authority announced at least 10% budget-cut would be done to “ineffective” programs, in principle
The central budget authority submitted evaluation results to the National Assembly upon their request
Evaluation results have been open to public since 2006
Utilization of Evaluation Results
16
-20
24
695%
CI/F
itte
d v
alu
es/a
gencyuse
0 20 40 60 80 100perf
95% CI Fitted values
agencyuse
Use of Performance Information by Agencies (2005)
17
-20
24
695%
CI/F
itte
d v
alu
es/m
pbuse
0 20 40 60 80 100perf
95% CI Fitted values
mpbuse
Use of Performance Information by the Central Budget Authority (2005)
18
Use of Performance Information by Legislature (2005)
19
Moving Away from Incremental Budgeting
Programs have been subject to larger budget change after evaluation
Coefficient of Variation in Funding Change (Excluding Programs of which funding change is greater than 200%)
CVYear (B04-B03)/B03 (B05-B04)/B04 (B06-B05)/B05 (B07-B06)/B06 (B08-B07)/B07
2005 3.1 2.7 9.2
2006 2.7 2.7 -14.3
2007 2.5 3.1 3.9
20
2. Issues and Lessons
21
Issues and Lessons –Sequencing and pacing of PB (1)
Program budgeting needs to be in place before performance budgeting There are some inconsistencies between program
structure and annual performance plan because different units are responsible for each task
If program structure had been in place before performance budgeting, costs of trial and error would have been avoided.
Top down budgeting was introduced to give more autonomy to line ministries but, in reality, it has not been realized
22
Issues and Lessons –Sequencing and pacing of PB (2)
Sound cost accounting needs to be in place before performance budgeting Overhead costs have not been properly
distributed to each program, yet Efficiency indicator has not been widely utilized
but its use is encouraged from 2008 Medium term fiscal plan and performance
budgeting need to be linked to enhance decision making at macro-level budget allocation
23
Change of evaluation process is in consideration Give more autonomy to line ministries to relieve the
burden of evaluation from central budget authority For example, instead of central budget authority’s evaluating
every program, line ministries will have more autonomy in producing evaluation results.
Use of efficiency information is encouraged even though sound cost accounting is not in place yet
Changes in Consideration
24
Thank You!