Publication: Public Private Partnerships on Public Financial Management Reforms in Asia: Opportunities and Lessons
Loading...
Date
2017-05
ISSN
Published
2017-05
Author(s)
Editor(s)
Abstract
The growing investment needs in the South Asia Region (SAR) and East Asia and Pacific Region(EAP) necessitate high quality public financial management in order to sustain the growth momentumand achieve the desired development objectives. As these regions operate within limited fiscalspace for development, efficient public financial management is essential to achieve the best results for every dollar spent. However, challenges persist in implementing timely reforms in Public Financial Management (PFM), building ownership to drive reforms and strengthening capacity to implement, embed and sustain such reforms.This PFM retrospective study uses a two-pronged approach. It illustrates examples of good practices of partnerships in financial management reforms between the public and the private sector and draws lessons learned from effective financial management reforms in the private sector in SAR and EAP. The study cites country specific examples through case studies from the following countries (listed in alphabeticalorder) India, Indonesia, Malaysia, Pakistan and Sri Lanka, where collaboration between the public sector and private sector have contributed to successful public financial management reforms. While exploring these various forms of public-private collaboration, it also looks at additional types of partnerships such as with peer institutions in other countries, development partners and regional groups. The study identifies the enabling environment conducive to collaboration. Three significant factors pertinent to the cases are covered in detail, namely: (1) windows of opportunity; (2) leadership and change agents; and (3) the institutional environment. The development strategies of the governments covered in the cases, such as the New Economic Model of Malaysia, are considered as windows of opportunity for private sector involvement as they led to scaling up of PFM reforms and created the need to collaborate with the private sector to implement reforms. In particular, the following organizations and individuals stand out in the case studies as leaders and change agents that connect the public and private sectors to move the PFM reform agenda forward: Director, Department of Municipal Administration—state of Karnataka; a combination of high and working level champions of reforms from the Indonesian Ministry of Finance (MoF);the Institute of Chartered Accountants of Sri Lanka (CA Sri Lanka) and its public sector wing staff and council members; the Secretary General of the Treasury and the Accountant General in Malaysia; and the past and current Auditors General in Pakistan and Sri Lanka.
Link to Data Set
Citation
“World Bank Group. 2017. Public Private Partnerships on Public Financial Management Reforms in Asia: Opportunities and Lessons. © World Bank. http://hdl.handle.net/10986/26657 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 An Operational Framework for Managing Fiscal Commitments from Public-Private Partnerships(Washington, DC: World Bank, 2013-02-09)The National policy on public-private partnerships (PPP) recently approved by the Government of Ghana (GoG) sets out the government's intention to use PPPs to improve the quality, cost-effectiveness, and timely provision of public infrastructure in Ghana. The PPP policy highlights the role of the government's financial support to PPPs, as well as the importance of putting in place a system to manage the associated fiscal commitments (FCs). As noted in the policy, the government's contribution to a PPP may include remuneration to the private party from government budgets, which may be fixed or partially fixed, periodic payments (annuities) and contingent. This report proposes an operational framework for managing fiscal obligations arising from PPPs in Ghana. This framework aims to ensure that PPP FCs are consistently identified and assessed during PPP project preparation, and that these assessments are fed into project approval. The report outlines roles and responsibilities, concepts, and processes for managing PPP FCs, drawing on international standards and practices, bearing in mind existing institutions and capacities in Ghana. The report also suggests legislative additions and capacity building needed to establish this framework in practice. This report focuses primarily on managing long-term FCs to PPPs, including regular payments or contingent liabilities (CL) that typically last throughout a project's lifetime. This report is structured as follows: chapter 1 is introduction; chapter; 2 introduces the concept of FCs from PPPs: how and why PPPs create FCs, why managing them is important, and an overview of what it entails; chapter 3 presents institutional roles and responsibilities; chapter 4 describes how FC management should be incorporated in the PPP development and approval process; chapter 5 describes how FCs can be managed during PPP implementation by monitoring, reporting, and budgeting adequately; and chapter 6 sets out the steps needed to begin to implement this PPP framework-to build its core requirements into the forthcoming PPP Law, and to build capacity in the relevant entities to carry out those requirements in practice.Publication Public-Private Partnerships : Reference Guide, Version 2.0(World Bank, Washington, DC; Asian Development Bank, Mandaluyong City, Philippines; Inter-American Development Bank, Washington, DC, 2014)A growing number of developing country governments are interested in using public-private partnerships (PPPs) to provide public infrastructure assets and services. The PPP reference guide seeks to provide advice on what PPP practitioners should know, rather than provide advice on what to do. The guide sets out the main topics, looks at the key issues that must be addressed, and provides what one consider the most important references that PPP practitioners can turn to for answers and to enhance one knowledge and understanding. It is structured into separate sections that focus on three main areas, firstly what are PPPs, when may they be used and the advantages and disadvantages relative to public provision; secondly the policy, legal, and institutional frameworks that should be put into place to help improve effectiveness; and finally the ways in which PPP projects can be developed and implemented. It introduces key topics on PPP, sets out options, and directs readers to examples, and key references where one can find out more. This guide provides new resources and updated examples.Publication Public-Private Partnerships in the New EU Member States(Washington, DC: World Bank, 2007)Public-private partnerships (PPPs) operate at the boundary of the public and private sectors, being neither fully public nor fully private. PPPs are defined in this paper as privately financed infrastructure projects in which a private firm either: (i) sells its services to the government; or (ii) sells its services to third parties with significant fiscal support in the form of guarantees. Despite these common elements of PPPs across sectors, there are differences in the type of arrangements that are typical in each sector. This study focuses on whether and when using PPPs can create fiscal space for additional infrastructure investments in the EU8. In doing so, the paper will examine the fiscal risks of PPPs and the role of fiscal institutions in this regard, including how these affect the use and design of PPPs and thus the potential for creating fiscal space while promoting investment in infrastructure. Chapter 2 distinguishes the illusory from the real fiscal effects of PPPs. Chapter 3 relates the extent to which PPPs reduce fiscal costs to the nature of fiscal institutions. Chapter 4 explains how fiscal institutions can be improved to encourage fiscal prudence in the use and design of PPPs. Chapter 5 concludes.Publication Implementing a Framework for Managing Fiscal Commitments from Public Private Partnerships(World Bank, Washington, DC, 2014)This note presents practical guidance on how to implement a framework for managing fiscal commitments from Public-Private Partnerships (PPPs). It draws on specific regional operational experience and on World Bank Institute (WBI)'s wider thematic engagement with different partners worldwide. The note provides practical advice on how to: consistently identify and assess fiscal commitments arising from PPPs during project preparation and implementation; incorporate these into the project approval process, including budgeting for these appropriately; and strengthen the monitoring and reporting of fiscal commitments over the lifetime of the project. It explains the fiscal commitments that can arise from PPP projects; why governments may find it difficult to assess and manage these fiscal commitments and incorporate them into project selection; and the key components of an institutional framework to manage fiscal commitments at both the development and implementation stages of a project, including the roles, responsibilities, and processes for managing PPP fiscal commitments.Publication How Do Countries Measure, Manage, and Monitor Fiscal Risks Generated by Public-Private Partnerships? Chile, Peru, South Africa, Turkey(World Bank Group, Washington, DC, 2014-09)The topic of managing fiscal risks arising from public-private partnerships is receiving increased attention as more governments turn toward this type of financing for large infrastructure projects. Governments can manage balance sheet exposure to public-private partnerships by quantifying and capturing direct obligations and provisions for potential calls on government guarantees associated with public-private partnership projects in the preparation of the medium term fiscal framework and annual budget. This working paper examines how four countries with active public-private partnership projects manage the costs and risks of financial obligations generated by these investments throughout the lifetime of the contracts. The paper seeks to complement the existing literature with a practitioner's point of view while exploring if and how these countries monitor and evaluate the fiscal risks generated by the portfolio of public-private partnerships (as well as individual projects). The countries covered are Chile, Peru, South Africa, and Turkey, all of which have experience implementing public-private partnership projects. The research finds that countries have tailored fiscal risk management and monitoring frameworks to fit their circumstances and respective budgeting, accounting, and reporting practices. All four countries assess the overall or partial credit exposure to monitor and manage their fiscal commitments from public-private partnerships in a consolidated way. All countries have developed evaluation models to help assess fiscal risks and assess project and portfolio level credit exposure. Further scrutiny could be focused on budgeting and accounting practices, which could be strengthened and brought in line with international standards. Similarly, sharing and standardizing information would improve transparency and accountability.
Users also downloaded
Showing related downloaded files
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 Measuring Financial Inclusion : The Global Findex Database(World Bank, Washington, DC, 2012-04)This paper provides the first analysis of the Global Financial Inclusion (Global Findex) Database, a new set of indicators that measure how adults in 148 economies save, borrow, make payments, and manage risk. The data show that 50 percent of adults worldwide have an account at a formal financial institution, though account penetration varies widely across regions, income groups and individual characteristics. In addition, 22 percent of adults report having saved at a formal financial institution in the past 12 months, and 9 percent report having taken out a new loan from a bank, credit union or microfinance institution in the past year. Although half of adults around the world remain unbanked, at least 35 percent of them report barriers to account use that might be addressed by public policy. Among the most commonly reported barriers are high cost, physical distance, and lack of proper documentation, though there are significant differences across regions and individual characteristics.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 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 Design Thinking for Social Innovation(2010-07)Designers have traditionally focused on enchancing the look and functionality of products.