The next big international meeting on climate change – COP 21 – is underway in Paris. Negotiations are complex and countries’ emissions targets – found in their Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDC) – are not always comparable. Might there be simple benchmarks against which costs and required financing can be compared? One such estimate and its potential fiscal implications are presented here.
The International Budget Partnership recently published the 2015 Open Budget Survey (OBS) which is the go-to measure of fiscal transparency. But while donors might be tempted to use the results from the OBS as policy conditions for the disbursement of aid, it is far from clear how transparency, participation and oversight actually impact development outcomes.
July saw the public launch of the IMF’s new Public Investment Management Assessment (PIMA) at the Third Financing for Development conference in Addis Ababa. But given the way that the PEFA assessments has been used and abused as a tool in many countries, it is difficult to feel optimistic that PIMA assessments will not fall into the same trap.
Growing pressure for reform suggests that development needs to be done differently. Members of the Doing Development Differently (DDD) movement have come up with some key common-sense principles in this regard: starting with problems, not solutions; taking account of politics; risk-taking; being `entrepreneurial’, learning from mistakes; and supporting locally-led changes that are appropriate to context. But isn’t this just being good at your job? If that’s the case, what’s new or different about DDD?
On 7 August, consultations opened for the revised Public Expenditure and Financial Accountability (PEFA) framework. Launched in 2005, PEFA has become the ‘go-to’ measure of quality in public finance systems. Now, nearly ten years on, sweeping changes are being proposed. But the PEFA members should tread carefully: it will take a lot more effort to make sure the new indicators are used appropriately.