Publication: Madagascar : Debt Management Performance Assessment
Loading...
Date
2013-03-01
ISSN
Published
2013-03-01
Author(s)
Editor(s)
Abstract
Madagascar's central government debt stood at around 30 percent of gross domestic product (GDP) in 2011. Due to political developments in 2008-2009, the Acting government of Madagascar has limited borrowing opportunities from both external and domestic lenders. This situation is expected to change after the upcoming general elections planned for mid-2013. The legal framework for government debt management is unclear in some parts and in general underdeveloped. Thus, for 2013 fiscal year, the Parliament has authorized the government to borrow internally and externally for the implementation of various development projects. There are no specific debt management objectives, no requirement to develop a debt management strategy, and no evaluation process reflected in the primary legislation. An important step has been taken by reorganizing the Public Debt Directorate (PDD) of the Ministry of Finance and Budget as the Principal DeM entity of the government. It manages both external and domestic debt, and takes part in all loan negotiations. Yet to be prepared is a debt statistical bulletin and a comprehensive DeM strategy. There was one external compliance audit prepared in 2011 for the period of 2006-2008, but no performance audits. The final audit report was developed in 2012, but is not made public. There is no formal or informal debt management strategy in Madagascar. There is also no evaluation and disclosure of information on public government debt management. The debt statistical bulletin, prepared during 2012, is still in a draft form.
Link to Data Set
Citation
“World Bank. 2013. Madagascar : Debt Management Performance Assessment. © http://hdl.handle.net/10986/21521 License: CC BY 3.0 IGO.”
Associated URLs
Associated content
Other publications in this report series
Journal
Journal Volume
Journal Issue
Collections
Related items
Showing items related by metadata.
Publication Debt Management Performance Assessment : Papua New Guinea(Washington, DC, 2010-12)At the request of the Government of Papua New Guinea (PNG), a mission comprised of Jeff Chelsky (PRMVP, mission lead), Tomas Magnusson (BDM, consultant), Greg Horman (BDM, consultant) and Tim Bulman (EAP, country economist), visited Port Moresby between November 22nd and December 3rd to undertake a DeMPA exercise. The team met with officials from the Department of Treasury, Bank of Papua New Guinea, Department of Finance, Department of National Planning and Monitoring, State Solicitor's Office, Auditor General's Office, Independent Public Business Corporation (IPBC), AUSAid, Asian Development Bank, ANZ Bank, Nambawan Super, and Bank South Pacific (BSP). This report reflects comments received from the PNG authorities in February 2011. The mission found that, in a number of areas, PNG meets or exceeds minimum DeMPA requirements. Strengths include the quality of the debt management strategy, the framework for domestic debt issuance, coordination with monetary policy, and the legal framework (except for the issuance of T-bills for which the law contains no explicit borrowing purposes). Looking ahead, the Government has expressed its intention, as part of the 2011 budget and its updated 2011 Medium-term Debt Management Strategy, to remove the nominal cap on external debt, replacing it with a cap of 30 percent of Gross Domestic Product, or GDP. The commitment to allocate a portion of excess government revenue to debt reduction will only apply when the debt-to-GDP ratio exceeds 30 percent of GDP. At the same time, the Government has reiterated its commitment to reducing the exchange rate risks to its debt portfolio by targeting 40 percent of total debt over the medium term for the external portion of the portfolio. Interest rate risk will be reduced through continued efforts to extend the maturity of domestic debt.Publication Debt Management Performance Assessment : Ethiopia(Washington, DC, 2013-06)The DeMPA is a methodology for assessing public debt management performance through a comprehensive set of indicators spanning the full range of government debt management functions. The DeMPA tool presents debt performance indicators along with a scoring methodology. This report pertains to a debt management performance assessment of Ethiopia in 2013, and provides an overview of strengths and weaknesses in government debt management. The following are the significant findings of this assessment: 1) no formal debt management strategy in place, although significant progress has been made over time; 2) there is good coordination and information sharing between the fiscal and monetary authorities and the debt managers; 3) There are documented procedures for external and domestic borrowings as well as for on-lending and loan guarantees; 4) an efficient single treasury account is not yet in place, and surplus cash is invested at low rates; 5) there is an understanding of operational risk but not yet a formal framework for operational risk management; and 6) there are complete and timely debt records for all central government debt and guarantees, with appropriate evaluation and disclosure of information on total central government debt management operations.Publication Debt Management Performance Assessment : Nigeria(Washington, DC, 2012-05)The DeMPA is a methodology for assessing public debt management performance through a comprehensive set of indicators spanning the full range of government debt management functions. The DeMPA tool presents debt performance indicators along with a scoring methodology. This report pertains to a debt management performance assessment of Nigeria in 2012. Areas with very high scores include the managerial set-up, evaluation of debt management operations, as well as domestic and external borrowing practices. There have been substantial improvements in management of operational risks, demonstrated by the availability of procedures manuals and data security and back-ups, and in debt reporting.Publication Guide to the Debt Management Performance Assessment Tool(Washington, DC, 2008-02-05)The purpose of this document is to provide guidance and supplemental information to assist with country assessments of debt management performance, using the Debt Management Performance Assessment (DeMPA) tool. The DeMPA is a methodology used for assessing public debt management performance through a comprehensive set of 15 performance indicators spanning the full range of government Debt Management (DeM) functions. It is based on the principles set out in the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and World Bank guidelines for public debt management, initially published in 2001 and updated in 2003. It is modeled after the Public Expenditure and Financial Accountability (PEFA) framework for performance measurement of public financial management. The DeMPA has been designed to be a user-friendly tool to undertake an assessment of the strengths and weaknesses in government DeM practices. This guide provides additional background and supporting information so that a no specialist in the area of debt management may undertake a country assessment effectively. The guide can be used by assessors in preparing for and undertaking an assessment. It is particularly useful for understanding the rationale for the inclusion of the indicators, the scoring methodology, and the list of supporting documents or evidence required, and the questions that could be asked for the assessment.Publication Debt Management Reform Plan : Madagascar(Washington, DC, 2014-02)The reform plan pillars outlined in this report build on the findings of the 2013 World Bank Debt Management Performance Assessment (DeMPA) for Madagascar and the discussions held during this mission with the central government representatives. Recent presidential elections and envisaged inauguration of the new government provides an enabling environment for engaging into broad economic and institutional reforms. Improvement of the governance practices and continuation of the public finance management reforms are among priorities stipulated in the President's reform agenda. It is important to mention that during the last two years MoFB's Treasury undertook a number of initiatives to improve government debt management. The Public Debt Directorate (DDP) was reorganized in 2012 and additional staff was hired during the last calendar year. Improvement of existing legal framework was initiated by the DDP in close cooperation with legal advisers of the Treasury. The main areas of reforms identified include: (i) improvement of the legal framework, (ii) formulation of a debt management strategy, (iii) improvement of central government borrowing policies, and (iv) operational risk management.
Users also downloaded
Showing related downloaded files
Publication Breaking the Conflict Trap : Civil War and Development Policy(Washington, DC: World Bank and Oxford University Press, 2003)Most wars are now civil wars. Even though international wars attract enormous global attention, they have become infrequent and brief. Civil wars usually attract less attention, but they have become increasingly common and typically go on for years. This report argues that civil war is now an important issue for development. War retards development, but conversely, development retards war. This double causation gives rise to virtuous and vicious circles. Where development succeeds, countries become progressively safer from violent conflict, making subsequent development easier. Where development fails, countries are at high risk of becoming caught in a conflict trap in which war wrecks the economy and increases the risk of further war. The global incidence of civil war is high because the international community has done little to avert it. Inertia is rooted in two beliefs: that we can safely 'let them fight it out among themselves' and that 'nothing can be done' because civil war is driven by ancestral ethnic and religious hatreds. The purpose of this report is to challenge these beliefs.Publication Government Matters III : Governance Indicators for 1996-2002(World Bank, Washington, DC, 2003-08)The authors present estimates of six dimensions of governance covering 199 countries and territories for four time periods: 1996, 1998, 2000, and 2002. These indicators are based on several hundred individual variables measuring perceptions of governance, drawn from 25 separate data sources constructed by 18 different organizations. The authors assign these individual measures of governance to categories capturing key dimensions of governance and use an unobserved components model to construct six aggregate governance indicators in each of the four periods. They present the point estimates of the dimensions of governance as well as the margins of errors for each country for the four periods. The governance indicators reported here are an update and expansion of previous research work on indicators initiated in 1998 (Kaufmann, Kraay, and Zoido-Lobat 1999a,b and 2002). The authors also address various methodological issues, including the interpretation and use of the data given the estimated margins of errors.Publication Governance Matters IV : Governance Indicators for 1996-2004(World Bank, Washington, DC, 2005-06)The authors present the latest update of their aggregate governance indicators, together with new analysis of several issues related to the use of these measures. The governance indicators measure the following six dimensions of governance: (1) voice and accountability; (2) political instability and violence; (3) government effectiveness; (4) regulatory quality; (5) rule of law, and (6) control of corruption. They cover 209 countries and territories for 1996, 1998, 2000, 2002, and 2004. They are based on several hundred individual variables measuring perceptions of governance, drawn from 37 separate data sources constructed by 31 organizations. The authors present estimates of the six dimensions of governance for each period, as well as margins of error capturing the range of likely values for each country. These margins of error are not unique to perceptions-based measures of governance, but are an important feature of all efforts to measure governance, including objective indicators. In fact, the authors give examples of how individual objective measures provide an incomplete picture of even the quite particular dimensions of governance that they are intended to measure. The authors also analyze in detail changes over time in their estimates of governance; provide a framework for assessing the statistical significance of changes in governance; and suggest a simple rule of thumb for identifying statistically significant changes in country governance over time. The ability to identify significant changes in governance over time is much higher for aggregate indicators than for any individual indicator. While the authors find that the quality of governance in a number of countries has changed significantly (in both directions), they also provide evidence suggesting that there are no trends, for better or worse, in global averages of governance. Finally, they interpret the strong observed correlation between income and governance, and argue against recent efforts to apply a discount to governance performance in low-income countries.Publication Governance Matters VIII : Aggregate and Individual Governance Indicators 1996–2008(2009-06-01)This paper reports on the 2009 update of the Worldwide Governance Indicators (WGI) research project, covering 212 countries and territories and measuring six dimensions of governance between 1996 and 2008: Voice and Accountability, Political Stability and Absence of Violence/Terrorism, Government Effectiveness, Regulatory Quality, Rule of Law, and Control of Corruption. These aggregate indicators are based on hundreds of specific and disaggregated individual variables measuring various dimensions of governance, taken from 35 data sources provided by 33 different organizations. The data reflect the views on governance of public sector, private sector and NGO experts, as well as thousands of citizen and firm survey respondents worldwide. The authors also explicitly report the margins of error accompanying each country estimate. These reflect the inherent difficulties in measuring governance using any kind of data. They find that even after taking margins of error into account, the WGI permit meaningful cross-country comparisons as well as monitoring progress over time. The aggregate indicators, together with the disaggregated underlying indicators, are available at www.govindicators.org.Publication Design Thinking for Social Innovation(2010-07)Designers have traditionally focused on enchancing the look and functionality of products.