Performance Indicators in Public
Sector Budgeting
Selected Latin-American Case Studies
Mario F. Sanginés
Inter-American Development Bank
Paris, October 27, 2008
Involvement of the IADB in
Performance Budgeting Reforms
•
•
•
•
Through investment and policy-based loans
Through technical assistance loans and grants
PRODEV
Strong focus on M&E systems (in this presentation we
will focus only on the “M”)
Quick Overview: Chile and Colombia
• Why these countries?
– Successful in their own way, but quite different from one
another
– Chile has a well-established performance indicator system
managed by the Budget Department and linked with the
budget preparation process
– Colombia has a performance information system mostly
geared toward political accountability and with no real
connection with budget formulation
Chile
• Manages around 1500 Indicators
• They reflect efficacy, efficiency, economy, and service
quality
• They are applied to processes, products, and results
(intermediate and final)
• Around 89% are related to products and results, while
11% related to processes
• Began to be rolled out in 1994
Dipres Website
Colombia
• SINERGIA M&E System; SIGOB
• Mostly output and outcome indicators derived from the
National Development Plan.
• Began to be rolled out in the early 1990’s, but became
relevant only since 2002
• As of 2006, it managed around 500 indicators related to
320 presidential goals.
Colombia SIGOB Website
Some key questions
• What types of performance indicators are developed?
– Depends on what they will be used for. If closely linked to
budget decisions and overall administrative efficiency, the
Chile model is useful. If for monitoring government
programs and promoting public accountability for results,
the Colombia model is useful
– Use common sense. Begin simply; ensure information
sources are available and reliable; ensure feasibility of a
baseline measurement; always keep in mind what use will be
made
• Should there be central requirements?
– If information is to be used for a “central” purpose (budget
discussions or monitoring a development plan), central
requirements are important to a certain level (below that,
institutions can detail further)
– Some of these relate to methodological principles for
constructing indicators, and in terms of evaluations,
reference TORs to carry them out
– Central data collection systems are also useful
– HOWEVER, institutional initiatives should never be
discouraged
• Should targets be set for programmes?
– YES, as long as:
• Programmes are DEFINED PROPERLY and not just as a
formality (see Mexico case)
• The targets are the product of a strategic planning process
• There is a baseline measurement and reliable information
sources for monitoring
• What types of information systems have been
developed to support PB?
– This is an area where good practices are scarce
– Can IFMS solutions “piggyback” performance
information? Not clear.
– Need to be clear who is “responsible” for producing (and
auditing?) the information
– Colombia SIGOB is robust but not connected to budget
process
– Chile MCS uses web-based application for transmitting
data from entities to DIPRES
• Some “not good” practices:
– Start with an unmanageable amount of indicators
– Be careless about baselines and formulas
– Not be sure where data will come from
– Fail to ensure that indicators are reliable (formal quality
control processes)
– Attempt to establish a “formula-type” relationship with
budget allocations
– Assign measurement responsibilities to people far from
service delivery points
Thank you!
mariosa@iadb.org