2013年-世界发展银行全球_Ukraine_Public_Investment_Management_Performance_Assessment_2012_52页_2mb

Summary of Ukraine's Public Investment Management Performance Assessment (2012)

Core Content

This document presents an assessment of Ukraine's Public Investment Management (PIM) system, highlighting its current state, challenges, and opportunities for reform. The assessment was conducted in 2012 by the World Bank, with the aim of evaluating the PIM cycle and identifying key constraints to its efficient functioning. The findings are based on a comprehensive review of the system, benchmarking against international standards, and analyzing data from various sources, including government reports, statistical data, and interviews with stakeholders.

Main Points

Country Context

• Growth Performance: Between 2000 and 2008, Ukraine was an average growth performer in a fast-growing region, with GDP growth averaging 7%. This growth significantly reduced poverty, which fell from 46.9% in 2002 to 12.3% in 2007.
• Economic Challenges: The global financial crisis in 2009 caused a 15% contraction in GDP, exposing macroeconomic and structural vulnerabilities. These include a weak private sector maturity structure, banking sector risks, volatile trade terms, and a burdensome regulatory environment.
• Fiscal Pressures: Ukraine faces substantial fiscal pressures, including large infrastructure investment needs and a high tax burden, which threaten economic stability and growth.
• Political Instability: Frequent changes in government between 2005 and 2010 complicated reform efforts. However, the situation stabilized after the 2010 presidential election.

Assessment Background and Objectives

• Investment Needs: Ukraine has vast investment needs, with the 2011 Public Finance Review estimating public investment required for sustained economic growth at over USD 100 billion over the next 10 years.
• PIM Reforms: Capital budgeting reform is a key focus of the presidential Economic Reform Program for 2010-2015. PIM is a priority for policymakers.
• Methodology: The assessment was based on the methodology developed by Rajaram et al. (2010), Jacobs (2008), and the PEFA PIM drill down tool. It included interviews with government agencies and private sector representatives, as well as statistical data from the State Statistics Service, State Treasury, and Ministry of Finance.

PIM Assessment Highlights

• Overall Assessment Score: C
• Key Indicators and Scores:
  • PIM 1: Aggregate capital expenditure out-turn compared to original budget – D
  • PIM 2: Composition of capital expenditure out-turn compared to original budget – D
  • PIM 3: Aggregate revenue out-turn compared to original budget – A
  • PIM 4: Stock and monitoring of capital expenditure payment arrears – A
  • PIM 5: Classification of the budget – C+
  • PIM 6: Comprehensiveness of information in budget documentation – C
  • PIM 7: Extent of unreported capital spending – C+
  • PIM 8: PIM-related inter-governmental fiscal relations – C+
  • PIM 9: Management of fiscal risks from capital spending outside central government – C+
  • PIM 10: Public access to key information on capital spending – A
  • PIM 11: Investment guidance, project development, and preliminary screening – D+
  • PIM 12: Formal project appraisal – D+
  • PIM 13: Independent review of appraisal – D
  • PIM 14: Orderliness and participation in the annual budget process – B
  • PIM 15: Multi-year perspective in fiscal policy and management – D+
  • PIM 16: Project selection and budgeting – D+
  • PIM 17: Project Implementation – C+
  • PIM 18: Predictability in fund availability for expenditures – B
  • PIM 19: Value for money in procurement – B
  • PIM 20: Effectiveness of internal controls and audit – C+
  • PIM 21: Project Adjustment – D+
  • PIM 22: Facility Operation – C+
  • PIM 23: Basic completion review and evaluation – D+
  • PIM 24: Quality and timeliness of in-year budget reports – A
  • PIM 25: Quality and timeliness of annual financial statements – B+
  • PIM 26: Scope, nature, and follow-up of external audit – D+
  • PIM 27: Legislative scrutiny of capital spending in the annual budget law – B
  • PIM 28: Legislative scrutiny of external audit reports on capital spending – D+

Key Challenges

• Lack of Clear Definition: There is no clear legal definition of a public investment project, leading to arbitrary classification and lack of economic appraisal for many projects.
• Fragmented Responsibilities: Responsibilities for project selection and monitoring are often fragmented across the public administration, reducing efficiency.
• Low Economic Appraisal: Due to limited human resources and lack of technical standards, economic appraisal is not widely applied, with over 90% of projects avoiding formal economic justification.
• Procurement Inefficiencies: Procurement processes are not fully trusted, with construction costs in Ukraine estimated to be 23% higher than in Germany and 22% higher than the EU average for similar projects, without corresponding value added.
• Weak Implementation: Despite some progress in PFM reforms, such as the establishment of a Treasury system and new Budget Code, the implementation of these reforms remains weak.

Opportunities for Reform

• Strategic Framework: A clear strategic framework for PIM is needed to guide reform and improve efficiency.
• Capacity Building: Improving capacity in project preparation and appraisal is essential to enhance the quality and effectiveness of public investments.
• Legal and Institutional Reforms: Clear legal definitions and institutional changes are required to streamline the PIM process and ensure transparency and accountability.
• Enhanced Transparency: Increasing public access to information on capital spending is crucial for accountability and better decision-making.

Conclusion

The assessment underscores the need for a comprehensive reform of Ukraine's PIM system. While some progress has been made in PFM reforms, the PIM system remains weak due to lack of definition, limited capacity, and fragmented responsibilities. Addressing these issues through a strategic framework, capacity building, and institutional reforms is essential to ensure that public investments contribute effectively to national development and economic stability.