GSDRC

Governance, social development, conflict and humanitarian knowledge services

  • Research
    • Governance
      • Democracy & elections
      • Public sector management
      • Security & justice
      • Service delivery
      • State-society relations
      • Supporting economic development
    • Social Development
      • Gender
      • Inequalities & exclusion
      • Poverty & wellbeing
      • Social protection
    • Conflict
      • Conflict analysis
      • Conflict prevention
      • Conflict response
      • Conflict sensitivity
      • Impacts of conflict
      • Peacebuilding
    • Humanitarian Issues
      • Humanitarian financing
      • Humanitarian response
      • Recovery & reconstruction
      • Refugees/IDPs
      • Risk & resilience
    • Development Pressures
      • Climate change
      • Food security
      • Fragility
      • Migration & diaspora
      • Population growth
      • Urbanisation
    • Approaches
      • Complexity & systems thinking
      • Institutions & social norms
      • Theories of change
      • Results-based approaches
      • Rights-based approaches
      • Thinking & working politically
    • Aid Instruments
      • Budget support & SWAps
      • Capacity building
      • Civil society partnerships
      • Multilateral aid
      • Private sector partnerships
      • Technical assistance
    • Monitoring and evaluation
      • Indicators
      • Learning
      • M&E approaches
  • Services
    • Research Helpdesk
    • Professional development
  • News & commentary
  • Publication types
    • Helpdesk reports
    • Topic guides
    • Conflict analyses
    • Literature reviews
    • Professional development packs
    • Working Papers
    • Webinars
    • Covid-19 evidence summaries
  • About us
    • Staff profiles
    • International partnerships
    • Privacy policy
    • Terms and conditions
    • Contact Us
Home»GSDRC Publications»Designing and monitoring PFM reform programmes

Designing and monitoring PFM reform programmes

Helpdesk Report
  • Elisa Lopez-Lucia
March 2015

Question

Map existing information sources for use in designing and monitoring public financial management (PFM) reform programmes.

Summary

The PEFA framework is the most comprehensive assessment instrument. It provides indicators to measure all dimensions of a PFM system. While PEFA assessments are now in wide usage, other diagnostic instruments and tools – like the IMF Fiscal Transparency Code and various World Bank and OECD tools – are used alongside them for more specific purposes. Alternatively, the CIPFA’s Whole System Approach aims to complement the PEFA and provide a broader approach. As an analytical framework, it does not seek to measure PFM practice but to inform design and evaluation of PFM systems.

However, criticisms have been made that these standardised instruments should not be used as PFM reform templates, as they do not take into account the functionality of PFM systems.

file type icon See Full Report [PDF]

Enquirer:

  • DFID

Related Content

Infrastructure Project Failures in Colombia
Helpdesk Report
2018
Local financing for infrastructure in Zambia
Helpdesk Report
2017
Effectiveness of tax reform interventions
Helpdesk Report
2017
Impacts of tax capacity on development outcomes 
Helpdesk Report
2017

University of Birmingham

Connect with us: Bluesky Linkedin X.com

Outputs supported by DFID are © DFID Crown Copyright 2025; outputs supported by the Australian Government are © Australian Government 2025; and outputs supported by the European Commission are © European Union 2025

We use cookies to remember settings and choices, and to count visitor numbers and usage trends. These cookies do not identify you personally. By using this site you indicate agreement with the use of cookies. For details, click "read more" and see "use of cookies".