Abstract
The key elements of a performance-based budgeting methodology have already become a part of the mechanism for public expenditure management in Ukraine. At the same time, there still remains the issue of linking budget expenditures to specific results achieved by specific budget programs which defines the necessity of applying modern approaches to carrying out M&E. This study presents an analysis of the current state of M&E in Ukrainian public expenditure program management and offers some solutions which could improve its functioning. The analysis has revealed the absence of rigorous selection of performance indicators to evaluate budget program implementation, a need to better institutionalize the monitoring and evaluation activities through functional differentiation of budget programs and changes in approaches to their assessment.
Highlights
As Ukraine gained independence, its national budget system was designed
Ukraine has made definite steps towards implementing core elements of performance-based budgeting (PBB) to managing public expenditures since 1998, when major spending units (MSU)[1] at the national level became for the first time obliged to submit their budget requests complemented with basic goals to be achieved within this year
# This article is processed in course of the implementation of the project Development of Monitoring and Evaluation System for Program-Based Budgeting Methodology carried out by Ernst & Young LLC for the Ukrainian Ministry of Finance (2010-2011)
Summary
As Ukraine gained independence, its national budget system was designed. the traditional public expenditure management methods (such as institution-based budgeting) inherited from the Soviet past quickly came to contradiction with turbulent economic and social reality which demanded a much more effective and flexible usage of scarce public funds. Ukraine has made definite steps towards implementing core elements of performance-based budgeting (PBB) to managing public expenditures since 1998, when major spending units (MSU)[1] at the national level became for the first time obliged to submit their budget requests complemented with basic goals to be achieved within this year. The document for 15 years (adopted in 2006) was not intended to be passed by the Parliament and remained only a booklet to be presented to international organizations without big implications for BPs’ priority setting This creates a situation when goals and objectives of different BPs can not be linked to national priorities, and respective PIs might be vaguely defined – the latter fact corresponds to the well-known political vulnerability of setting clearly-defined and measurable indicators. Under conditions where the society is being alienated from the formulation of policy priorities and is deprived of information on performance of publicly appointed officials, the situation with M&E could hardly be changed despite the modest steps undertaken
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
