Managing for Development Results at ADB

Results Matter January 2009

Progress Reports from Developing Countries
Contributed by members of the Community of Practice on MfDR

Afghanistan: Moving toward Program Budgeting
by Wahidullah Waissi, Ministry of Finance

In developing Afghanistan’s 2007 budget, the Ministry of Finance selected three ministries (Education, Public Health, and Rural Rehabilitation and Development) to pilot program budgeting, i.e., integration of operating and development budgets. These ministries were required to present their budget information in a basic program format, linking their budgets to Afghanistan National Development Strategy priorities and objectives. A brief report with their program budget tables was presented, along with the 2007 budget, to the Cabinet and National Assembly.

For 2008 and 2009, program budget preparation has been extended to an additional 13 line ministries (four in 2008 and ten in 2009). These ministries have been requested to prepare their future annual budgets in the program format and present it as supplementary information with their regular budget submission.

Bangladesh: Toward a National Performance Framework
by M. A. Hye Talukder and Phillip Choudhury, Ministry of Planning

Work on a 5-year strategic plan for results-based monitoring and evaluation began in the middle of 2007 through a 2-year technical assistance project known as the Strengthening Results-Based Monitoring and Evaluation Project.

Bangladesh has put in place several bold and innovative results-based initiatives, including a 3-year poverty reduction strategy with results indicators for each sector, a medium-term budget framework specifying strategic outcomes and targets for key ministries, and several advisory projects attempting to establish results frameworks for specific sectors. However, each of these initiatives has several weaknesses, such as indicators that are not specific nor measurable, and strategic outcomes that do not specify actual results. In addition, there is a need to tie these initiatives together to form a single national performance framework.

Malaysia: Internalized Self-Evaluation
by Koshy Thomas, Ministry of Finance

Malaysia’s modified budgeting system (MBS) was based on results-based management philosophies while using an integrated performance management framework to drive results. It was implemented on the principle of “letting managers manage” through a top-down planning methodology in which managers are empowered to use resources and to generate outputs as cost effectively as possible, resulting in program effectiveness.

The focus of the MBS on results is clear due to the approach, strategic components, and links evident in its planning process, which is prepared in the form of an integrated performance management framework. The modified budgeting system requires considerable strategic planning and needs assessment before goals and objectives are set for each program and activity. Program managers are required to carry out detailed analysis and to use program logic in determining client needs, program goals, objectives, outputs, and specific activities to be carried out toward achieving these objectives and impact.

Nepal: Efforts and Issues in MfDR Institutionalization
by Teertha Raj Dhakal, National Planning Commission

As a part of the reform process, Nepal has already designed results frameworks for each development sector in the first Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper (2002/03–2006/07) and the current Three-Year Interim Plan (2007/08–2009/10) and has made efforts to establish links between sector results and poverty reduction goals.

In addition, as a tool of public expenditure management, the government has implemented a system to (i) develop a consistent and realistic resources framework for sustaining macroeconomic stability, (ii) improve budget allocation to priorities among and within sectors, (iii) increase incentives for efficient and effective use of resources by government agencies, and (iv) make the development budget more results-oriented.

Further, the government has designed the Poverty Monitoring and Analysis System for coordinating, consolidating, harmonizing, and facilitating analysis of data and communicating results in ways that provide effective feedback to the policy decision-making processes. This system includes results indicators, information sources for monitoring indicators, and sequencing of household surveys and institutional frameworks. Four annual progress reports have already been produced based on the system.

Viet Nam: Perspectives and Experiences on MfDR
by Cao Manh Cuong, Ministry of Planning and Investment

In Viet Nam, the results-based management system was first adopted in the Comprehensive Poverty Reduction and Growth Strategy (CPRGS) in 2002. The development of the CPRGS relied on strong analytical inputs and was based on piloting results-based management in 24 provinces. Annual progress reports assess achievements against a monitoring and evaluation framework. Since 2004, following the example of the CPRGS, Viet Nam has adopted best practice principles in MfDR by involving all stakeholders in formulating its Five-Year National Socio-Economic Development Plan for 2006–2010. All targets in the CPRGS and the Millennium Development Goals are also set for 2006–2010. By consulting with all development actors, the government has engaged them in the implementation process. Viet Nam’s donor community is committed to aligning its assistance strategies to the National Socio-Economic Development Plan and related national, provincial, and sector strategies.