Public Sector Governance and Accountability Series: Budgeting and ...

Strengthening Public Expenditure Management in Africa 425
Finally, a word of caution about formal, detailed “contracts” within the
budget process (or, indeed, the public sector as a whole): in brief, while an
explicit (therefore written) understanding of the key results expected for the
money provided is useful for accountability, such understanding must not be
allowed to expand into a detailed fine-print contract. Experience shows that if
the budget system gets straitjacketed into such detailed contracts—cascading
from the ministry of finance to the line ministries to the directorates to the
division chiefs to the office managers to the district chiefs to the heads of deconcentrated
services, and so on—the chance for genuine accountability is gone,
and all that is left is a monumental and time-consuming paper chase. The exercise
of judgment is essential, and the guiding rule for performance monitoring
in the budget system remains the “KISS” principle: keep it simple, sir.
Introducing Monitoring and Evaluation
As external audit closes the legitimacy loop, so good evaluation closes the
programming loop—by feeding into the preparation of the next budget
relevant information concerning the execution of the previous budget. 16
Timing
The timing of monitoring and evaluation (M&E) introduction should be
carefully tailored to the scope and time frame of the systemic institutional
improvements under way in the public sector. In African developing countries,
where processes are generally more fluid, M&E should be brought to
bear at an early stage—even if in a partial manner and only focusing on
some of the key issues. Although no substitute exists for allowing sufficient
time for the evaluation of long-ripening outcomes, the habits of M&E
should be built as soon as possible in the reform process—and preferably as
an integral part of the reforms themselves (as, for example, in Uganda and,
to a lesser extent, Ghana and Mozambique). Evaluation of effectiveness (that
is, of the ultimate outcomes) can come only long after the completion of the
activities themselves, but evaluation of process and outputs can take place at
a very early stage. Early M&E are most applicable at both ends of the public
service continuum. At the bottom end—the interface with the citizens—the
connection between physical outputs and accountability is clearest and most
immediate (for example, trash collection, pest control, water purification).
But at the top end of policy review and program formulation, process indicators
are most relevant—and performance can be assessed by judicious
assessment of the views of the main participants in the process. 17