STRENGTHENING NATIONAL COMPREHENSIVE AGRICULTURAL PUBLIC EXPENDITURE IN SUB-SAHARAN

AFRICA

Agricultural Public Expenditure Training WorkshopAccra, Ghana

(April 13 -14, 2011)

MODULE 2: (Sessions 2 – 4) BASIC AGRICULTURAL PUBLIC EXPENDITURE DIAGNOSTIC

REVIEW

CONTENTS

I. BACKGROUND & OBJECTIVES OF MODULE 2

II. OBJECTIVES & SCOPE OF BASIC AgPER

III. METHODOLOGY

IV. SOURCES OF DATA & INFORMATION

V. PROCESSES

VI. REPORTS AND DATABASE

2

I) BACKGROUND & OBJECTIVES OF MODULE 2

• The commitment by SSA Governments and Donors to expand substantially funding for agric public expenditure, can be facilitated by sound AgPE analysis.

• Ensuring sound and consistent AgPER methodologies will contribute to better quality AgPE allocation and budget management decisions & results at country level.

• Objective of Module 2: To provide an overview of the main elements of carrying out Basic AgPE diagnostic reviews. TORs (see A2.1) need to be adapted to each country situation. Supporting documentation and examples will be shared to enhance capacity building and follow-up work (Annex 2).

3

II) OBJECTIVES & SCOPE OF BASIC AgPER A) Objectives:• To compile basic agric expenditure data and assess

extent to which expenditures reflect and contribute to national sectoral priorities.

• To draw evidenced-based lessons and strategic recommendations from analyses that will be used to enhance the efficiency and effectiveness of public expenditure in agric sector. Focuses on key outputs.

• To build capacity (primarily in MinAgs) to manage and carry out agric expenditure analysis through data base development and “hands-on” engagement, and thereby to enhance management, institutionalization and impacts of agric public expenditures.

4

II) OBJECTIVES & SCOPE OF BASIC AgPER

B) Scope of Ag. PER Analysis• Factors: time/resources available; state of national

accounts, enabling variable detail.• General principle: focus on important sub-sectors

or major areas of expenditure.• Basic Ag. PER is a “comprehensive” type of AgPE

analysis, where the scope is determined by the breadth, depth and specific requirements of analysis (see Figure 2.1)

5

B) Scope: Types of AgPERs (Fig. 2.1)

Greater scope for allocative efficiency analysis

Greater scope for technical efficiency analysis

6

B) Scope of AgPE Analysis & Key Factors (cont.)

1) Breadth: will have important implications……• Establish Thematic Coverage

– Decide which sub-sectors to include.– Define “agriculture sector”: to be guided by COFOG,

although may vary by country: to include crops, livestock, fishing, forestry, water-for-production, and issues related to ag. land. Use both COFOG and country level definitions (A.1.3; A.2.2).

– Exclude non-ag rural-based expenditures (health and education, but possibly include rural roads).

• Establish Institutional Coverage1) Decide which public entities will be included (central & local

levels, agencies, parastatals). Generally, MinAg will be the center of the exercise, together with Ministry of Finance (and Planning).

2) Determine inclusion of devt. partners, NGOs. private sect.7

(B) Scope of AgPE Analysis - Key Factors (cont)

2) Depth• Budget information - planning and execution:

– Includes usually 10 years of expenditure trends & composition, at central and sub-national levels;

– Includes economic (capital and recurrent) and functional (key subsectors) public budgets;

– Includes out-turn analysis (budgeted vs. actual), budget releases, flow of funds to end users;

– Should include Devel’t. Partner off-budget data.• Impact Evaluation: typically requires specialized

study (see Module 3) 8

(B) Scope and Key Factors (cont.)

3) Selectivity: Key factors will depend on:– Policy and strategy priorities for agric sector– Specific operational and timeframe requirements

(ex.: CAADP Compact Investment Plans)– Budget and data availability

4) Complementarities: To build on on-going work– Broader cross-sectoral efforts by Min. Finance– Fiscal decentralization and transfers to local govts.– Monitoring & Accountability processes

(A2.3, A2.4)9

III) METHODOLOGY FOR AgPE BASIC ANALYSIS

A) Overall Framework and Objectives• Formulate a sound descriptive overview of AgPE

budget, based on the budget cycle;• Compile and analyze synthetic set of budgets for

analytical purposes, in accordance with agreed scope, and based on appropriate tools (roadmap in Module 1);

• Provide guidelines to determine which tools can best be applied at key stages, depending on scope/focus, data and available resources.

10

(B) Budget Cycle and PE Analysis Framework: Key Elements

Budget cycle Budget cycle Public spending analysis

Public spending analysis

11

C) Key Elements and Tools of Basic AgPER Assessment

(1) Assess Sectoral Context (Objectives and Strategy):– Role of agriculture in national development– Sector performance (e.g., CAADP “stocktaking”) See A.2.5 (Zbia ex.) – Sector policies and strategies (e.g. CAADP country roundtable)– Institutional mapping in the sector– Public and private sector roles in agriculture

(2) Assess Budget Allocation (Scale and Characteristics) (template TOR shows likely key sources of data, which will vary by country)

– Formulate AgPE budgets and analyze key features (A.2.6 for ex. of Uganda guideline of sector budget framework paper; see summary)

– Follow conventions: exclude enterprises and financial institutions, except for capital support/subsidy/transfer payments; include special funds; include multi-sector projects in which over 70% of exp. is within agriculture sector; assess expenditures on a “cash” basis rather than “accrual” basis.

13

RECOMMENDATIONS TO IMPROVE THE GUIDELINES OF THE SECTOR BUDGET FRAMEWORK PAPER (Case of Uganda)

To improve the analytical content and internal consistency of the SBFP guidelines, the Ug. Ag. PER recommended the following improvements:

Section 1.3.1 Establish Budget Priorities

Section 2.2 Provide Overview of Past Year Performance.

Section 3. Provide Overview of FY Budget Allocations and Objectives.

Section 4. Provide Sector Budget Priorities for the Medium Term.

Section 5. Provide Expected Outputs, Performance Indicators and Planned Activities for the Medium Term.

Section 6. Provide Proposed Budget Allocations for FY.

Section 7.1 Highlight Medium-Term Challenges with Implications for Additional Funding for Sector MTEF.

Section 7.2 Highlight Challenges with Implications for Additional Funding Outside the Sector MTEF Ceiling.

Section 8. Outline Non Tax Revenue.

Section 9. Provide Summary of Proposed Budget Allocations for Next FY.

Annex 1. Provide Details of Expected Outputs, Performance Indicators, and Planned Activities (Sectoral MTEF).

14

(2) Budget Allocation – (a) Expenditure Level and Trends

• Budget information over past 10 years; • Share and trend of approved budgets and actual expenditures in

agriculture with respect to: total government expenditure; and agriculture GDP (A2.7: Table 8 provides a good cross-country/region comparison)

• Share of expenditure by level of government, and when available, disaggregated budgets at lower administrative levels (A2.8); impact of changes in fiscal decentralisation on sector budget

• Per capita expenditures and trends; rural-urban comparisons; comparisons with other countries (i.e., “benchmarking”; see example 1)

• Alignment of budgets with stated policies and priorities to illustrate degree of under-investment and/or mis-investment

• A data set of off-budget expenditures by donors should be constructed, focusing on public good-type activities and excluding any private sector-type support, identifying main types of expenditure and sub-sectors; alignment with national priorities; steps to bring “on budget” (A2.9)

• Private sector investment (including small farmers, traders, small- medium- and large-scale agribusiness) and foreign direct investment (FDI) in the sector, so as to determine leverage impact of public expenditure; judgment on extent to which public expenditure “crowds out” private investment (A2.10); impact analysis can provide another perspective 15

16

(2) Budget Allocation: (b) Review Composition • Functional allocations expenditure (by main subsectors)

(A2.11)• Capital (development) vs recurrent (revenue) budget

balance; recurrent budget items in development budget; trends (over 10 years) (A2.12);

• Composition of recurrent budget in particular wage vs non-wage; international comparisons;

• Allocation to SOEs; • Comparison of expenditures on public as opposed to

private goods and services; trends (over 10 years); implicit trade-offs; (see example of classification into 3 categories of exp.)

• Expenditure composition at lower administrative levels; • Alignment of policies and expenditures focusing on major

expenditures or key areas; identification of any obvious discrepancies (refer to the Uganda example/Table 5).

17

Classification of Public and Private Goods/Services (ex. From Honduras Ag. PER)

18

19

Table 5: Proportion of MAAIF budget allocated to DSIP priority areas, compared with DSIP projections, 2005/06 to 2007/08 (percent) (source: Ug. Ag. PER, 2010)

(2) Budget Allocation: (c) Financing Sources

• Government– Central and local government financing volume and share of

total– Revenue-generation sources within the sector; mechanisms for

reporting and utilization of revenue (ear-marking etc); stability of revenue collection

– Public sector borrowing generated by the sector – Seasonal revenue generation variations and impact on expenditure

patterns (e.g., forestry revenues)– Public financing of private goods and services– Fiscal decentralization mechanisms in terms of revenue generation

and central government grants • Donors

– Loans and grants volume (both commitments and disbursements) and share of total

– Share of total expenditure financed by donors(Ug. ex./Table 11) – Scale of off-budget financing (A2.9) (see Ug. example/Table 20)– Extent of harmonization and alignment of donor funding

20

Table 11: Sources of funding for the development budget, 2005/06–2008/09 (UShs billions) (source: Ug. Ag. PER, 2010)

21

22

(2) Budget Allocation: (c) Financing Sources (cont.)

• Trends in financing (over past 10 yrs); • Extent to which expenditures form part of a

programme-based approach (PBA) or SWAp with donors (A2.13);

• Extent of public-private partnerships (PPP) identifying different types, financing and cost recovery mechanisms, including matching grants, assessing their cost effectiveness and strategic role (A.2.14).

23

(2) Budget Allocation: (d) Subsidies and Cost Recovery

Identifying the main subsidies and sources of cost recovery, their incidence and impact including (A2.15): – Levels and trends in major subsidies – Policies and mechanisms to manage, monitor and

evaluate subsidies– Political and economic justification for subsidies

(example: fertilizer subsidies, A2.16) (see Framework)– Main areas where cost recovery is operated; level,

adequacy and incidence– Role of donors in subsidized programs/activities

24

Framework for Assessing Fertilizer Subsidies (A.2.16)

• Arguments in favor of fertilizer subsidies: – Innovation– Imperfect markets– Compensate farmers for positive externalities

– Level playing field for farmers to compete in distorted global markets

• Common problems with fertilizer subsidy programs:

• High administrative and fiscal costs:

• When subsidies may be justified: • Guiding principles for design of “market-smart”

subsidies25

(3) Budget Execution

Synthetic budgets assembled and descriptive framework will be used to assess key indicators of budget performance and key recommendations

(a) Flow of Funds: Qualitative assessment of ways and efficiency of budget resources are channeled to executing units (at different admin. levels) to determine if flows constitute a serious obstacle to budget performance

26

(3) Budget Execution: (a) Flow of Funds (cont.)

Key Aspects to be reviewed include: (Ug. Ag. PER provides ex.)• MoF rules and procedures for the release of funds• Timing of fund release through the year, related to

seasonal patterns of expenditure by different units; impact of delayed release and end-- of-- year effects; ‐ ‐ (A2.17)

• Procedures for modifying budgets during the year, including moving resources from one budget line to another and its impact on overall expenditure

• Procedures for delegating budget responsibility (authority to incurr expenditures/AIEs) to different operating units

• Procedures for delegating budget responsibility to lower administrative levels and impact of fiscal decentralisation

• Assessment of the quality of outputs and outcomes at decentralised levels vs. central level

27

(3) Budget Execution: (b) Public Financial Management

  An assessment will be made of the basic public financial management capacity in agriculture sector entities, within the context of the overall status of Public Fin’al Mgt./PFM in the country. Assess:– Gap between planned budgets, approved budgets & actual

budget out-turn; changes over time and reasons– Value for money, indicators of unit costs of delivering

specific services and scope for cost-cutting measures (A2.18; Ug. & Ghana Ag. PERs provide partial assessments)

– Accountability of budget holders and sanctions– Adequacy of audit processes, especially at decentralized

levels– Procurement, financial management and audit– Processes for monitoring budget expenditures and use of

funds 28

29

(3) Budget Execution: (c) Institutional Processes and Mechanisms

Assess extent they are in place to ensure consistency between stated policies, strategies, budgets, and implementation, including (see Uganda, A.2.6):

– Extent to which a results-based budget system has been implemented overall and specifically within the agriculture sector;

– MoF procedures within the budget cycle from planning, through budget implementation, to budget management; description of the processes and qualitative assessment of extent to which they constitute an impediment to effective budget processes;

– MoF budget preparation guidelines, effectiveness of prioritization criteria and process of issuing and orienting budget ceilings (A2.19, A.2.20). 30

(3) Budget Execution: (c) Institutional processes and mechanisms (cont.)

• Decentralised budget processes, allocation of conditional and unconditional block grants, and clarity of allocation criteria (A.2.21)

• Assessment of effectiveness of Monitoring and Evaluation Systems (sectoral and MOA levels, focusing on key indicators) (see Chart for schematic overview, A.2.22)

• Systems and indicators for evaluating absorptive capacity and effectiveness of outputs at sector level

• Mechanisms for coordinating inter/intra agency programmes and budgets (A.2.23)

• Role of the legislature/parliament in approving budgets, reviewing performance; forms of accountability

31

(4) Overview of Methodology for M&E

Key question Tools Data

Delivering on commitments

• Trends• Simple correlations

• National surveys• Expert opinion surveys

Effectiveness of interventions

• Econometric methods• General equilibrium models

• National surveys• Targeted surveys• Expert opinion surveys

Consistency with initial targets

• Simulation models• Participatory approaches

• Assessment of effectiveness• Expert opinion surveys

Exploring better interventions

• Simulation models• Participatory approaches

• Assessment of effectiveness and consistency• Expert opinion surveys

Details in (www.resakss.org/publications/DiscussionP4&7.pdf)

32

(4) M&E Systems: Expenditure Outputs and Outcomes

• In the Basic AgPER it will not be possible to carry out a detailed examination of sector outputs and outcomes across the sector (topic to be covered under Component 3 of the Strengthening Ag PER in SSA Programme/Special Studies --- the focus of Sessions 5 and 6)

• Attention needs to be devoted to assessing key outputs (see Chart) and effectiveness of overall M&E system

• However, for major expenditures and strategic programmes in the sector (agreed with counterparts in MoA) limited analytical and case studies (1 or more) should be carried out, including: ( ref. Module 3) – Agricultural research programme– Agricultural extension services– Soil and water conservation activities– Fertilizer subsidy (A.2.16)

• When the studies are carried out, identify major problems in terms of efficiency and/or effectiveness involving outputs and outcomes. The results could form the starting point for a subsequent special study to track public expenditure, and/ or to assess expenditure impact in greater depth (ref. Module 3/Sessions 5 and 6).

33

(4) M&E: Output indicators - Coverage and Utilization of Ag. Services

Investment /Intervention

Outputs:Provision /

Coverage (e.g.)

Outcomes:Utilization (e.g.)

Disaggregation

Research Number of technologies dev’d

Area under technology

Commodity, gender, space

Extension Extension-farmer ratio

Number of visits received per year

Gender, space

Irrigation Capacity of irrigation (irrigable area)

Area under irrigation Commodity, gender, space

Farm support Quantity of support Area under input Commodity, gender, space

Feeder roads Length or density of roads

Space

Market Distance to nearest market

Share of output sold Commodity, gender, space

Post harvest Capacity of storage Capacity utilized Commodity, gender, space

…34

Orientation Frameworks:

(National and Sectoral policies, strategies and plans)

Frameworks of Priority Criteria: (Established by Min. Of Finance/Planning, MOA)

Framework Procedures:

(financial mgt., procurement, audits, in line with strengthened national and sectoral legislation and related procedures)

Sectoral Plans: Programs/Projects

“PBIG”Cycle:(Planning,Budgeting, Implementationand Governance)

PULLING IT TOGETHER -- PBIG Cycle: KEY ELEMENTS/PROCESSES(to ensure coherence and impacts of Ag PEs)

Project Cycle

35

(5) Formulation of Strategic Conclusions and Recommendations

• Ensure recommendations emerge from solid analysis• Summarize major conclusions, especially:

major mis-alignments, inefficiencies and/or implementation issues in agric public expenditure

• Present main recommendations. Likely key themes:– Expenditure Levels– Expenditure Composition– Financing– Subsidies– Budget Performance and Management (PPIG Cycle)– Priority topics/issues where additional analysis

might be required to better assess exp. priorities (including recommendations for enhanced data)36

(5) Conclusions: (a) Expenditure Levels - Likely key areas

• Overall underinvestment in agriculture with respect to its contribution to GDP

• Mis-investment in the sector, identifying disconnects between stated priorities and actual shares of sector allocations in the budget

• Present options for integrating “off-budget” activities into the overall national budget

• Promote strategies for enhancing the recognition by MoA (and MoF) of the important role played by private sector investment, identifying areas where public expenditure “crowds out” private investment and proposals for “crowding in” (or using public funds to catalyze private inv.) 37

(5) Conclusions: (b) Expenditure Composition

• Focus recommendations where budget is unbalanced• Balance between development and recurrent budgets• Balance between wage and non-- wage expenditures‐• Distortions to salary and incentive structures resulting from

incentive salary payments to staff on development projects under project implementation units (PIUs) and regular (recurrent budget) civil service pay scales

• Areas where private goods and services are being delivered with public funds, proposing priorities for disengagement from certain services

• Identification of mismatches between national priorities and actual expenditures at decentralized levels; reasons for the mismatches and proposals for rectifying them

38

(5) Conclusions: (c) Financing…proposals should cover:

• Ways of enhancing the local level financing of the sector budget

• Areas where revenue generation and cost recovery could be enhanced (will be appreciated by the Ministry of Finance!)

• Ways of overcoming seasonal revenue generation constraints on expenditures so as to provide greater stability and predictability in the flow of funds

• Financing strategies, including: ways to stabilize coherent and reduce over-reliance on donor funding: increased degree of harmonization and alignment by donors; use code of conduct

• Subsidies/Cost Recovery: Enhanced strategies for addressing areas of concern and opportunity, and propose further research and analysis (e.g., input subsidies)

39

(5) Conclusions: (d) Budget Performance

Identify key areas of inefficiency and related actions (A2.24):• Ways of improving the budget cycle and flow of funds so as

to enhance the effectiveness of multi-year plans/budgets, and annual work plan and budget processes

• Identify strategies for enhancing M&E System (formulating an operational action plan will require a follow-up exercise)

• Identification of areas where public financial management is weak, such as procurement, audit, monitoring and accountability; however, many of the issues related to PFM are likely to be economy-wide rather than sector specific. Focus on key actions for better implementation of existing procedures, especially if recently enhanced

• Institutional weaknesses and enhanced processes in terms of intra- and inter-sectoral coordination, decentralized budget, operations and systems for oversight.

40

41

Recommendations: Example of Summary Matrix (source: Mexico Ag. PER, 2009)

Policy Options(note: key outcome actions to be outlined)

Implementation(short, med./long)

Likely Impact(H, M, L)

Technical Difficulty(H, M, L)

Fiscal Cost or Savings(H, M, L)

1. Improving the ARD Planning

2. Rationalizing the overall system for farmer support

3. Improving the support system to small producers

4. Improving the M&E and the implementation of programs

5. Increasing environmental externalities of ARD programs and supporting the national climate change strategy

IV) SOURCES OF DATA AND INFORMATION

A) Importance: Data sources and availability can condition scope and quality of analysis. Review some of the data while defining obj./scope (especially as part of consultant inception report).

B) Main sources:– Official published budget-related documents

• Published budget estimates• Published reports on budget outturn• Electronic data from MoA and MoF• Published reports and statistics from MoA and

associated agencies such as the Ministry of Trade and/or Commerce 42

IV) SOURCES OF DATA AND INFORMATION (cont.)

• Studies and “Grey” sources:– Donor reports and interviews/surveys on “off-

budget” expenditures– Sub-sector project appraisal documents for

more detailed information on focus areas and expenditures

– Special surveys or evaluation reports– CAADP Country Roundtable reports– Sector project evaluations (mid-term reviews

and/or completion reports)

43

IV) SOURCES OF DATA AND INFORMATION (cont.)

– Sources for sector outputs and outcomes:• MoA studies and reports• Project appraisal documents, mid-term reviews,

implementation completion reports• Focus group discussions with project managers

and teams, especially from MOA and MOF• Donor evaluation reports• Beneficiary impact assessments

– Relevant unpublished materials (validate and reference, where possible)

– Refer to Recent Report: A Strategy for Agric.’al Statistics in Ghana (IFPRI/GSSP # 25, Jan. 2011)44

V) PROCESSES

A) Ensure participatory approach, especially with key stakeholders:– MOA (ensure clear counterpart arrangements)– MOF– CAADP Focal Point/Person– Donor Working Group for agriculture– Parliamentarians– Strategic Representatives from private sector– Strategic Representatives from civil society

organizations– Local think tanks (could play key role in

institutionalizing the AgPER processes45

V) Processes: B) Main Stages of AgPER Process

• Stakeholder briefing: All key stakeholders should be briefed on the purpose and proposed outputs of the study and reach consensus on: the main milestones; timeline; definition of agriculture to be adopted and the institutional scope of the study.

• Inception workshop: aim to schedule within two weeks of the start of the study to present and discuss with key stakeholders an Inception Report.

• Technical workshop: Within one month, a technical workshop should be scheduled (with “core” stakeholders) to:– Present the framework for sector expenditures– Discuss the descriptive overview of PEs, agree priority focus areas and

identify key issues/constraints (data)– Discuss and schedule the technical working papers

• Draft report workshop: A formal workshop should be scheduled after about five months to discuss with key stakeholders the key conclusions and recommendations.

* Option: Combine Stakeholder briefing with Inception Workshop 46

VI) REPORTS, DATABASE & RESOURCES

A) Key Reports:• Inception report: within two weeks, which

presents the revised terms of reference for the study, raises issues and defines the institutional scope of the study

• Working papers: during the study, technical working papers will be produced on key elements in the analysis (and can serve as annexes to the final report)

• Draft report: within 5 months, which presents the sector public expenditure analysis, conclusions and recommendations

• Final report: within 6 months, incorporating the comments and discussion of the draft report

47

VI) REPORTS, DATABASE & RESOURCES

B) Database• During the assignment, the consultant team, in

collaboration with MoA and MoF, may need to establish a dual database for analysis:– the synthetic sector budget sets using COFOG

definition;

– a parallel data set using the existing government budget nomenclature and structure;

• Background documents and sources, and analytical working papers that will be accessible online by all stakeholders.

48

VI) REPORTS, DATABASE & RESOURCES

C) Timeframe and Resources• Timeframe: About 6 months, with draft report after 5

months. Preferable to be scheduled to provide input for the following budget cycle

• Basic AgPER to conducted by a consultant team: (each member to work about 12 weeks equivalent)– One senior international expert (with relevant cross-country

and methodological experience)– One national expert, with relevant analytical and institutional

experience• Key Counterparts to be provided by MOA and MOF

(full and/or part time). Emphasize learning-by-doing;• Think tanks, universities, other local participants not

remunerated, although other incentives relevant.49

Resources(See Annex 2 for Selected Notes and Excerpts)

A2.1: Template TOR for Basic Agriculture Public Expenditure Diagnostic Review (June, 2010)

A2.2: Sector Definition, Scope and Analysis of Ag. PERs

A2.3: Complementarities with Macro-Level PERs

A2.4: Fiscal Decentralization: Overview, Trends and Emerging Issues

A2.5: CAADP Implementation in Zambia under the 5th Nat’al Plan:Part 1: Review and Stocktaking Report on Ongoing Development Efforts and their Alignment with CAADP Targets and Principles (2007): Excerpt: Table of Contents and Executive Summary)

A2.6: Uganda Ag. PER: Annex 1: Recommendations to Improve Guidelines of Sector Budget Framework Paper (Feb. 2010)

A2.7: Agricultural Spending as a Share of Total Spending and of GDP

A2.8: Sampling Sub-National Governments

A2.9: Off-Budget Expenditures

A2.10: Private Sector Investment in Agriculture

A2.11: Functional Allocations

A2.12: Capital vs. Recurrent Expenditures 50

SUGGESTED KEY REFERENCES (cont.)

A2.13: Agricultural SWAps

A2.14 Public-Private Partnerships

A2.15: Cost Recovery

A2.16: Case for and Against Fertilizer Subsidy (Zambia)

A2.17: Timing of Budget Releases

A2.18: Cost Effectiveness

A2.19: Simple Congruence Analysis

A2.20: Specific Recommendations for Government Budget Guidelines

A2.21: Approach to Gathering District Level Data

A2.22: Overview of Monitoring and Evaluation (Ghana)

A2.23: Institutional Coordination Mechanisms

A2.24: Explaining Expenditure Inefficiencies

Relevant Website references include:

www.worldbank.org/afr/agperprogram

web.worldbank.org/apea51