Agriculture Public Expenditure Workshop Module 2

STRENGTHENING NATIONAL COMPREHENSIVE
AGRICULTURAL PUBLIC EXPENDITURE IN SUB-SAHARAN
AFRICA
Agricultural Public Expenditure Training Workshop
Accra, Ghana
(April 13 -14, 2011)
MODULE 2: (Sessions 2 – 4)
BASIC AGRICULTURAL PUBLIC EXPENDITURE DIAGNOSTIC
REVIEW

CONTENTS
I. BACKGROUND & OBJECTIVES OF MODULE 2
II. OBJECTIVES & SCOPE OF BASIC AgPER
III. METHODOLOGY
IV. SOURCES OF DATA & INFORMATION
V. PROCESSES
VI. REPORTS AND DATABASE
2

I) BACKGROUND & OBJECTIVES OF MODULE 2
• The commitment by SSA Governments and Donors to
expand substantially funding for agric public expenditure,
can be facilitated by sound AgPE analysis.
• Ensuring sound and consistent AgPER methodologies
will contribute to better quality AgPE allocation and
budget management decisions & results at country level.
• Objective of Module 2: To provide an overview of the
main elements of carrying out Basic AgPE diagnostic
reviews. TORs (see A2.1) need to be adapted to each
country situation. Supporting documentation and
examples will be shared to enhance capacity building and
follow-up work (Annex 2).
3

II) OBJECTIVES & SCOPE OF BASIC AgPER
A) Objectives:
• To compile basic agric expenditure data and assess
extent to which expenditures reflect and contribute to
national sectoral priorities.
• To draw evidenced-based lessons and strategic
recommendations from analyses that will be used to
enhance the efficiency and effectiveness of public
expenditure in agric sector. Focuses on key outputs.
• To build capacity (primarily in MinAgs) to manage
and carry out agric expenditure analysis through data
base development and “hands-on” engagement, and
thereby to enhance management, institutionalization
and impacts of agric public expenditures.
4

II) OBJECTIVES & SCOPE OF BASIC AgPER
B) Scope of Ag. PER Analysis
• Factors: time/resources available; state of national
accounts, enabling variable detail.
• General principle: focus on important sub-sectors
or major areas of expenditure.
• Basic Ag. PER is a “comprehensive” type of AgPE
analysis, where the scope is determined by the
breadth, depth and specific requirements of
analysis (see Figure 2.1)
5

B) Scope: Types of AgPERs (Fig. 2.1)
Greater scope for allocative efficiency analysis
Greater
scope for
technical
efficiency
analysis
6

B) Scope of AgPE Analysis & Key Factors (cont.)
1) Breadth: will have important implications……
• Establish Thematic Coverage
– Decide which sub-sectors to include.
– Define “agriculture sector”: to be guided by COFOG,
although may vary by country: to include crops, livestock,
fishing, forestry, water-for-production, and issues related to
ag. land. Use both COFOG and country level definitions
(A.1.3; A.2.2).
– Exclude non-ag rural-based expenditures (health and
education, but possibly include rural roads).
• Establish Institutional Coverage
1) Decide which public entities will be included (central & local
levels, agencies, parastatals). Generally, MinAg will be the
center of the exercise, together with Ministry of Finance
(and Planning).
2) Determine inclusion of devt. partners, NGOs. private sect.
7

(B) Scope of AgPE Analysis - Key Factors (cont)
2) Depth
• Budget information - planning and execution:
– Includes usually 10 years of expenditure trends &
composition, at central and sub-national levels;
– Includes economic (capital and recurrent) and
functional (key subsectors) public budgets;
– Includes out-turn analysis (budgeted vs. actual),
budget releases, flow of funds to end users;
– Should include Devel’t. Partner off-budget data.
• Impact Evaluation: typically requires specialized
study (see Module 3) 8

(B) Scope and Key Factors (cont.)
3) Selectivity: Key factors will depend on:
– Policy and strategy priorities for agric sector
– Specific operational and timeframe requirements
(ex.: CAADP Compact Investment Plans)
– Budget and data availability
4) Complementarities: To build on on-going work
– Broader cross-sectoral efforts by Min. Finance
– Fiscal decentralization and transfers to local govts.
– Monitoring & Accountability processes
(A2.3, A2.4)
9

III) METHODOLOGY FOR AgPE BASIC ANALYSIS
A) Overall Framework and Objectives
• Formulate a sound descriptive overview of AgPE
budget, based on the budget cycle;
• Compile and analyze synthetic set of budgets for
analytical purposes, in accordance with agreed
scope, and based on appropriate tools (roadmap
in Module 1);
• Provide guidelines to determine which tools can
best be applied at key stages, depending on
scope/focus, data and available resources.
10

(B) Budget Cycle and PE Analysis Framework:
Key Elements
Budget cycleBudget cycle Public spending
analysis
Public spending
analysis
11

Agriculture Public Expenditure Workshop Module 2

C) Key Elements and Tools of Basic
AgPER Assessment
(1) Assess Sectoral Context (Objectives and Strategy):
– Role of agriculture in national development
– Sector performance (e.g., CAADP “stocktaking”) See A.2.5 (Zbia ex.)
– Sector policies and strategies (e.g. CAADP country roundtable)
– Institutional mapping in the sector
– Public and private sector roles in agriculture
(2) Assess Budget Allocation (Scale and Characteristics)
(template TOR shows likely key sources of data, which will vary by country)
– Formulate AgPE budgets and analyze key features (A.2.6 for ex. of
Uganda guideline of sector budget framework paper; see summary)
– Follow conventions: exclude enterprises and financial institutions,
except for capital support/subsidy/transfer payments; include special
funds; include multi-sector projects in which over 70% of exp. is within
agriculture sector; assess expenditures on a “cash” basis rather than
“accrual” basis.
13

RECOMMENDATIONS TO IMPROVE THE GUIDELINES OF THE
SECTOR BUDGET FRAMEWORK PAPER (Case of Uganda)
To improve the analytical content and internal consistency of the SBFP
guidelines, the Ug. Ag. PER recommended the following improvements:
Section 1.3.1 Establish Budget Priorities
Section 2.2 Provide Overview of Past Year Performance.
Section 3. Provide Overview of FY Budget Allocations and Objectives.
Section 4. Provide Sector Budget Priorities for the Medium Term.
Section 5. Provide Expected Outputs, Performance Indicators and Planned
Activities for the Medium Term.
Section 6. Provide Proposed Budget Allocations for FY.
Section 7.1 Highlight Medium-Term Challenges with Implications for Additional
Funding for Sector MTEF.
Section 7.2 Highlight Challenges with Implications for Additional Funding
Outside the Sector MTEF Ceiling.
Section 8. Outline Non Tax Revenue.
Section 9. Provide Summary of Proposed Budget Allocations for Next FY.
Annex 1. Provide Details of Expected Outputs, Performance Indicators, and14

(2) Budget Allocation – (a) Expenditure Level and Trends
• Budget information over past 10 years;
• Share and trend of approved budgets and actual expenditures in
agriculture with respect to: total government expenditure; and agriculture
GDP (A2.7: Table 8 provides a good cross-country/region comparison)
• Share of expenditure by level of government, and when available,
disaggregated budgets at lower administrative levels (A2.8); impact of changes
in fiscal decentralisation on sector budget
• Per capita expenditures and trends; rural-urban comparisons;
comparisons with other countries (i.e., “benchmarking”; see example 1)
• Alignment of budgets with stated policies and priorities to illustrate
degree of under-investment and/or mis-investment
• A data set of off-budget expenditures by donors should be constructed,
focusing on public good-type activities and excluding any private sector-
type support, identifying main types of expenditure and sub-sectors;
alignment with national priorities; steps to bring “on budget” (A2.9)
• Private sector investment (including small farmers, traders, small-
medium- and large-scale agribusiness) and foreign direct investment (FDI) in
the sector, so as to determine leverage impact of public expenditure;
judgment on extent to which public expenditure “crowds out” private
investment (A2.10); impact analysis can provide another perspective 15

(2) Budget Allocation: (b) Review Composition
• Functional allocations expenditure (by main subsectors)
(A2.11)
• Capital (development) vs recurrent (revenue) budget
balance; recurrent budget items in development budget;
trends (over 10 years) (A2.12);
• Composition of recurrent budget in particular wage vs non-
wage; international comparisons;
• Allocation to SOEs;
• Comparison of expenditures on public as opposed to
private goods and services; trends (over 10 years); implicit
trade-offs; (see example of classification into 3 categories of
exp.)
• Expenditure composition at lower administrative levels;
• Alignment of policies and expenditures focusing on major
expenditures or key areas; identification of any obvious
discrepancies (refer to the Uganda example/Table 5).
17

Classification of Public and Private Goods/Services
(ex. From Honduras Ag. PER)
18

19
Table 5: Proportion of MAAIF budget allocated to DSIP priority areas, compared
with DSIP projections, 2005/06 to 2007/08 (percent) (source: Ug. Ag. PER, 2010)

(2) Budget Allocation: (c) Financing Sources
• Government
– Central and local government financing volume and share of
total
– Revenue-generation sources within the sector; mechanisms for
reporting and utilization of revenue (ear-marking etc); stability of
revenue collection
– Public sector borrowing generated by the sector
– Seasonal revenue generation variations and impact on expenditure
patterns (e.g., forestry revenues)
– Public financing of private goods and services
– Fiscal decentralization mechanisms in terms of revenue generation
and central government grants
• Donors
– Loans and grants volume (both commitments and disbursements)
and share of total
– Share of total expenditure financed by donors(Ug. ex./Table 11)
– Scale of off-budget financing (A2.9) (see Ug. example/Table 20)
– Extent of harmonization and alignment of donor funding
20

Table 11: Sources of funding for the development budget,
2005/06–2008/09 (UShs billions) (source: Ug. Ag. PER, 2010)
21

(2) Budget Allocation: (c) Financing Sources (cont.)
• Trends in financing (over past 10 yrs);
• Extent to which expenditures form part of a
programme-based approach (PBA) or SWAp with
donors (A2.13);
• Extent of public-private partnerships
(PPP) identifying different types, financing and
cost recovery mechanisms, including matching
grants, assessing their cost effectiveness and
strategic role (A.2.14).
23

(2) Budget Allocation:
(d) Subsidies and Cost Recovery
Identifying the main subsidies and sources of cost
recovery, their incidence and impact including
(A2.15):
– Levels and trends in major subsidies
– Policies and mechanisms to manage, monitor and
evaluate subsidies
– Political and economic justification for subsidies
(example: fertilizer subsidies, A2.16) (see Framework)
– Main areas where cost recovery is operated; level,
adequacy and incidence
– Role of donors in subsidized programs/activities
24

Framework for Assessing Fertilizer
Subsidies (A.2.16)
• Arguments in favor of fertilizer subsidies:
– Innovation
– Imperfect markets
– Compensate farmers for positive externalities
– Level playing field for farmers to compete in distorted
global markets
• Common problems with fertilizer subsidy
programs:
• High administrative and fiscal costs:
• When subsidies may be justified:
• Guiding principles for design of “market-smart”
subsidies
25

(3) Budget Execution
Synthetic budgets assembled and descriptive
framework will be used to assess key indicators
of budget performance and key
recommendations
(a) Flow of Funds: Qualitative assessment of
ways and efficiency of budget resources are
channeled to executing units (at different
admin. levels) to determine if flows constitute a
serious obstacle to budget performance
26

(3) Budget Execution: (a) Flow of Funds (cont.)
Key Aspects to be reviewed include: (Ug. Ag. PER provides ex.)
• MoF rules and procedures for the release of funds
• Timing of fund release through the year, related to
seasonal patterns of expenditure by different units;
impact of delayed release and end-- of-- year effects;‐ ‐
(A2.17)
• Procedures for modifying budgets during the year,
including moving resources from one budget line to
another and its impact on overall expenditure
• Procedures for delegating budget responsibility (authority to
incurr expenditures/AIEs) to different operating units
• Procedures for delegating budget responsibility to lower
administrative levels and impact of fiscal
decentralisation
• Assessment of the quality of outputs and outcomes at
27

(3) Budget Execution:
(b) Public Financial Management
An assessment will be made of the basic public
financial management capacity in agriculture sector
entities, within the context of the overall status of
Public Fin’al Mgt./PFM in the country. Assess:
– Gap between planned budgets, approved budgets & actual
budget out-turn; changes over time and reasons
– Value for money, indicators of unit costs of delivering
specific services and scope for cost-cutting measures
(A2.18; Ug. & Ghana Ag. PERs provide partial assessments)
– Accountability of budget holders and sanctions
– Adequacy of audit processes, especially at decentralized
levels
– Procurement, financial management and audit
– Processes for monitoring budget expenditures and use of
funds
28

(c) Institutional Processes and Mechanisms
Assess extent they are in place to ensure consistency between
stated policies, strategies, budgets, and
implementation, including (see Uganda, A.2.6):
– Extent to which a results-based budget system has been
implemented overall and specifically within the agriculture
sector;
– MoF procedures within the budget cycle from planning,
through budget implementation, to budget management;
description of the processes and qualitative assessment of
extent to which they constitute an impediment to effective
budget processes;
– MoF budget preparation guidelines, effectiveness of
prioritization criteria and process of issuing and orienting
budget ceilings (A2.19, A.2.20). 30

(c) Institutional processes and mechanisms (cont.)
• Decentralised budget processes, allocation of
conditional and unconditional block grants, and clarity
of allocation criteria (A.2.21)
• Assessment of effectiveness of Monitoring and
Evaluation Systems (sectoral and MOA levels,
focusing on key indicators) (see Chart for schematic
overview, A.2.22)
• Systems and indicators for evaluating absorptive
capacity and effectiveness of outputs at sector level
• Mechanisms for coordinating inter/intra agency
programmes and budgets (A.2.23)
• Role of the legislature/parliament in approving
budgets, reviewing performance; forms of
accountability 31

(4) Overview of Methodology for M&E
Key question Tools Data
Delivering on
commitments
• Trends
• Simple correlations
• National surveys
• Expert opinion surveys
Effectiveness of
interventions
• Econometric methods
• General equilibrium
models
• National surveys
• Targeted surveys
Consistency
with initial
targets
• Simulation models
• Participatory
approaches
• Assessment of effectiveness
Exploring
better
interventions
• Simulation models
• Participatory
approaches
• Assessment of effectiveness
and consistency
Details in (www.resakss.org/publications/DiscussionP4&7.pdf)
32

(4) M&E Systems: Expenditure Outputs and Outcomes
• In the Basic AgPER it will not be possible to carry out a detailed
examination of sector outputs and outcomes across the sector (topic to
be covered under Component 3 of the Strengthening Ag PER in SSA
Programme/Special Studies --- the focus of Sessions 5 and 6)
• Attention needs to be devoted to assessing key outputs (see Chart) and
effectiveness of overall M&E system
• However, for major expenditures and strategic programmes in the sector
(agreed with counterparts in MoA) limited analytical and case studies (1
or more) should be carried out, including: ( ref. Module 3)
– Agricultural research programme
– Agricultural extension services
– Soil and water conservation activities
– Fertilizer subsidy (A.2.16)
• When the studies are carried out, identify major problems in terms of
efficiency and/or effectiveness involving outputs and outcomes. The
results could form the starting point for a subsequent special study to
track public expenditure, and/ or to assess expenditure impact in greater
depth (ref. Module 3/Sessions 5 and 6). 33

(4) M&E: Output indicators -
Coverage and Utilization of Ag. Services
Investment /
Intervention
Outputs:
Provision /
Coverage (e.g.)
Outcomes:
Utilization (e.g.)
Disaggregation
Research Number of
technologies dev’d
Area under
technology
Commodity, gender, space
Extension Extension-farmer
ratio
Number of visits
received per year
Gender, space
Irrigation Capacity of irrigation
(irrigable area)
Area under irrigation Commodity, gender, space
Farm support Quantity of support Area under input Commodity, gender, space
Feeder roads Length or density of
roads
Space
Market Distance to nearest
market
Share of output sold Commodity, gender, space
Post harvest Capacity of storage Capacity utilized Commodity, gender, space
…
34

Orientation Frameworks:
(National and Sectoral policies,
strategies and plans)
Frameworks of Priority
Criteria: (Established by Min. Of
Finance/Planning, MOA)
Framework Procedures:
(financial mgt., procurement, audits,
in line with strengthened national and
sectoral legislation and related
procedures)
Sectoral Plans: Programs/Projects
“PBIG”Cycle:
(Planning,Budgeting,
Implementationand
Governance)
PULLING IT TOGETHER -- PBIG Cycle: KEY
ELEMENTS/PROCESSES(to ensure coherence and impacts of Ag PEs)
Project
Cycle
35

(5) Formulation of Strategic Conclusions
and Recommendations
• Ensure recommendations emerge from solid analysis
• Summarize major conclusions, especially:
major mis-alignments, inefficiencies and/or
implementation issues in agric public expenditure
• Present main recommendations. Likely key themes:
– Expenditure Levels
– Expenditure Composition
– Financing
– Subsidies
– Budget Performance and Management (PPIG Cycle)
– Priority topics/issues where additional analysis
might be required to better assess exp. priorities
(including recommendations for enhanced data)
36

(5) Conclusions: (a) Expenditure Levels -
Likely key areas
• Overall underinvestment in agriculture with
respect to its contribution to GDP
• Mis-investment in the sector, identifying
disconnects between stated priorities and actual
shares of sector allocations in the budget
• Present options for integrating “off-
budget” activities into the overall national budget
• Promote strategies for enhancing the recognition
by MoA (and MoF) of the important role played
by private sector investment, identifying areas
where public expenditure “crowds out” private
investment and proposals for “crowding in” (or
using public funds to catalyze private inv.) 37

(5) Conclusions:
(b) Expenditure Composition
• Focus recommendations where budget is unbalanced
• Balance between development and recurrent budgets
• Balance between wage and non-- wage expenditures‐
• Distortions to salary and incentive structures resulting from
incentive salary payments to staff on development projects
under project implementation units (PIUs) and regular
(recurrent budget) civil service pay scales
• Areas where private goods and services are being delivered
with public funds, proposing priorities for disengagement from
certain services
• Identification of mismatches between national priorities and
actual expenditures at decentralized levels; reasons for the
mismatches and proposals for rectifying them
38

(5) Conclusions:
(c) Financing…proposals should cover:
• Ways of enhancing the local level financing of the sector
budget
• Areas where revenue generation and cost recovery could
be enhanced (will be appreciated by the Ministry of Finance!)
• Ways of overcoming seasonal revenue generation
constraints on expenditures so as to provide greater
stability and predictability in the flow of funds
• Financing strategies, including: ways to stabilize coherent and
reduce over-reliance on donor funding: increased degree of
harmonization and alignment by donors; use code of
conduct
• Subsidies/Cost Recovery: Enhanced strategies for addressing
areas of concern and opportunity, and propose further research
and analysis (e.g., input subsidies)
39

(5) Conclusions: (d) Budget Performance
Identify key areas of inefficiency and related actions (A2.24):
• Ways of improving the budget cycle and flow of funds so as
to enhance the effectiveness of multi-year plans/budgets, and
annual work plan and budget processes
• Identify strategies for enhancing M&E System (formulating an
operational action plan will require a follow-up exercise)
• Identification of areas where public financial management
is weak, such as procurement, audit, monitoring and
accountability; however, many of the issues related to PFM
are likely to be economy-wide rather than sector specific.
Focus on key actions for better implementation of existing
procedures, especially if recently enhanced
• Institutional weaknesses and enhanced processes in terms of
intra- and inter-sectoral coordination, decentralized
budget, operations and systems for oversight.
40

41
Recommendations: Example of Summary
Matrix (source: Mexico Ag. PER, 2009)
Policy Options
(note: key outcome
actions to be outlined)
Implementation
(short, med./long)
Likely Impact
(H, M, L)
Technical
Difficulty
(H, M, L)
Fiscal Cost or
Savings
(H, M, L)
1. Improving the ARD
Planning
2. Rationalizing the
overall system for farmer
support
3. Improving the support
system to small producers
4. Improving the M&E
and the implementation
of programs
5. Increasing
environmental
externalities of ARD
programs and supporting
the national climate
change strategy

IV) SOURCES OF DATA AND INFORMATION
A) Importance: Data sources and availability can
condition scope and quality of analysis. Review some
of the data while defining obj./scope (especially as
part of consultant inception report).
B) Main sources:
– Official published budget-related documents
• Published budget estimates
• Published reports on budget outturn
• Electronic data from MoA and MoF
• Published reports and statistics from MoA and
associated agencies such as the Ministry of
Trade and/or Commerce 42

IV) SOURCES OF DATA AND
INFORMATION (cont.)
• Studies and “Grey” sources:
– Donor reports and interviews/surveys on “off-
budget” expenditures
– Sub-sector project appraisal documents for
more detailed information on focus areas and
expenditures
– Special surveys or evaluation reports
– CAADP Country Roundtable reports
– Sector project evaluations (mid-term reviews
and/or completion reports)
43

IV) SOURCES OF DATA AND
INFORMATION (cont.)
– Sources for sector outputs and outcomes:
• MoA studies and reports
• Project appraisal documents, mid-term reviews,
implementation completion reports
• Focus group discussions with project managers
and teams, especially from MOA and MOF
• Donor evaluation reports
• Beneficiary impact assessments
– Relevant unpublished materials (validate and
reference, where possible)
– Refer to Recent Report: A Strategy for Agric.’al
Statistics in Ghana (IFPRI/GSSP # 25, Jan. 2011)44

V) PROCESSES
A) Ensure participatory approach, especially with key
stakeholders:
– MOA (ensure clear counterpart arrangements)
– MOF
– CAADP Focal Point/Person
– Donor Working Group for agriculture
– Parliamentarians
– Strategic Representatives from private sector
– Strategic Representatives from civil society
organizations
– Local think tanks (could play key role in
institutionalizing the AgPER processes
45

V) Processes:
B) Main Stages of AgPER Process
• Stakeholder briefing: All key stakeholders should be briefed on the
purpose and proposed outputs of the study and reach consensus on:
the main milestones; timeline; definition of agriculture to be adopted and
the institutional scope of the study.
• Inception workshop: aim to schedule within two weeks of the start of the
study to present and discuss with key stakeholders an Inception Report.
• Technical workshop: Within one month, a technical workshop should be
scheduled (with “core” stakeholders) to:
– Present the framework for sector expenditures
– Discuss the descriptive overview of PEs, agree priority focus areas and
identify key issues/constraints (data)
– Discuss and schedule the technical working papers
• Draft report workshop: A formal workshop should be scheduled after about
five months to discuss with key stakeholders the key conclusions and
recommendations.
* Option: Combine Stakeholder briefing with Inception Workshop
46

VI) REPORTS, DATABASE & RESOURCES
A) Key Reports:
• Inception report: within two weeks, which
presents the revised terms of reference for the study,
raises issues and defines the institutional scope of the study
• Working papers: during the study, technical working
papers will be produced on key elements in the
analysis (and can serve as annexes to the final report)
• Draft report: within 5 months, which presents the sector
public expenditure analysis, conclusions and
recommendations
• Final report: within 6 months, incorporating the comments
and discussion of the draft report
47

B) Database
• During the assignment, the consultant team, in
collaboration with MoA and MoF, may need to
establish a dual database for analysis:
– the synthetic sector budget sets using COFOG
definition;
– a parallel data set using the existing government budget
nomenclature and structure;
• Background documents and sources, and
analytical working papers that will be accessible
online by all stakeholders.
48

C) Timeframe and Resources
• Timeframe: About 6 months, with draft report after 5
months. Preferable to be scheduled to provide input
for the following budget cycle
• Basic AgPER to conducted by a consultant team:
(each member to work about 12 weeks equivalent)
– One senior international expert (with relevant cross-country
and methodological experience)
– One national expert, with relevant analytical and institutional
experience
• Key Counterparts to be provided by MOA and MOF
(full and/or part time). Emphasize learning-by-doing;
• Think tanks, universities, other local participants not
remunerated, although other incentives relevant.
49

Resources
(See Annex 2 for Selected Notes and Excerpts)
A2.1: Template TOR for Basic Agriculture Public Expenditure Diagnostic Review
(June, 2010)
A2.2: Sector Definition, Scope and Analysis of Ag. PERs
A2.3: Complementarities with Macro-Level PERs
A2.4: Fiscal Decentralization: Overview, Trends and Emerging Issues
A2.5: CAADP Implementation in Zambia under the 5th
Nat’al Plan:Part 1: Review and
Stocktaking Report on Ongoing Development Efforts and their Alignment with
CAADP Targets and Principles (2007): Excerpt: Table of Contents and Executive
Summary)
A2.6: Uganda Ag. PER: Annex 1: Recommendations to Improve Guidelines of
Sector Budget Framework Paper (Feb. 2010)
A2.7: Agricultural Spending as a Share of Total Spending and of GDP
A2.8: Sampling Sub-National Governments
A2.9: Off-Budget Expenditures
A2.10: Private Sector Investment in Agriculture
A2.11: Functional Allocations
A2.12: Capital vs. Recurrent Expenditures 50

SUGGESTED KEY REFERENCES
(cont.)
A2.13: Agricultural SWAps
A2.14 Public-Private Partnerships
A2.15: Cost Recovery
A2.16: Case for and Against Fertilizer Subsidy (Zambia)
A2.17: Timing of Budget Releases
A2.18: Cost Effectiveness
A2.19: Simple Congruence Analysis
A2.20: Specific Recommendations for Government Budget Guidelines
A2.21: Approach to Gathering District Level Data
A2.22: Overview of Monitoring and Evaluation (Ghana)
A2.23: Institutional Coordination Mechanisms
A2.24: Explaining Expenditure Inefficiencies
Relevant Website references include:
www.worldbank.org/afr/agperprogram
web.worldbank.org/apea
51

Agriculture Public Expenditure Workshop Module 2

More Related Content

What's hot (20)

Viewers also liked (7)

Similar to Agriculture Public Expenditure Workshop Module 2 (20)

More from African Regional Strategic Analysis and Knowledge Support System (ReSAKSS) (20)

Recently uploaded (20)

Agriculture Public Expenditure Workshop Module 2

Editor's Notes