Evaluations of project expenditure performance have been expanded from "provisional" to "formal" to four categories of budget plus government funds, ppp, etc., resulting in direct links to budgetary arrangements and accountability. This change is larger than many had expected。
From provisional to formal, what's the new rule? Board
On 2 march, the ministry of finance officially issued the management approach for the evaluation of the performance of project expenditures, which coincided with the discontinuation of the interim approach previously in place. Wang zaiqiang, chinese institute of fiscal science, stated to the daily economic newspaper journalist that this was the first time that the evaluation of project expenditure performance had been issued in the form of a formal management approach, and that it was also the implementation of the "performance" requirement of the new budget law and the full implementation of the central budgetPerformance managementInstitutional arrangements for observations。
The new approach targets the evaluation of project expenditures at four dimensions: economic, efficient, effective and equitable, with the evaluation being clearly defined as the fiscal, budgetary and unit sectors. In the past, the vague and unstructured provisions of the provisional approach were all included in the official text, and there was a clear basis for grass-roots operations and no longer had to guess what to do with old documents。
Each of the three types of evaluation
The approach divided evaluations into three levels of unit self-assessment, sector evaluation, and financial evaluation. The unit self-assessment is graded by the organizational level of the budget department and the performance targets of the unit to which it belongs against the batch; the sector evaluation is carried out by the budget department on the basis of indicator criteria; and the financial evaluation is organized directly by the financial sector. The three layers of the tube avoid the old problem of judging themselves in the past。
In particular, wang zai chai mentioned that the new approach added four dimensions of decision-making, management, output, efficiency in financial and sectoral evaluations, and no longer asked whether it was worth the cost, but rather whether it was scientific, regulatory, output-compliant and sustainable. This stratification has made the evaluation more relevant from a total score to a tiered examination。
The scope of evaluation no longer focuses solely on general public budgets
In the past, expenditures were assessed only for general public budget items, and the new approach included a combination of government fund budgets and state capital operating budgets. It also provides that government investment funds, sovereign wealth funds, ppp, government purchase of services, government debt projects, etc. May be implemented by reference. Almost all projects from which financial resources have been transferred are subject to evaluation without leaving behind a dead end。
Wang zai chae believed that the coverage had been expanded to close the gap between money spent and no one asked for results. Previous projects in government funds and state-owned capital operating budgets, performance evaluations were largely in grey areas, with no rigidity in how much and how much they were spent. The inclusion of the reference clause in this case would be tantamount to placing all financial resources under evaluation。
We're going to take it down to level three
The new approach breaks down performance targets into quantity, quality, timeliness, cost, economic benefits, social benefits, eco-efficiency, sustainable impact, client satisfaction, etc., with indicators of level i, ii and iii. Guidance and reference weights for tier 1 indicators have also been established, with quantifiable reference frames in place for evaluation, and no longer based on empirical head count。
Evaluation criteria follow planning standards, industry standards, historical standards, etc., but it is clear that they are used to compare the achievement of indicators. Methodologically, the unit self-assessment is based on a quantitative and qualitative comparison, with the total score aggregated by each score; one or more combinations of financial and sectoral evaluations are available for cost-benefit analysis, factor analysis, minimum cost method, public assessment, stick management, etc。
It's tied to the budget
The approach is straightforward: the results of performance evaluations must be linked to budgetary arrangements, policy adjustments, and management improvements in substance, reflecting merit and disincentive orientation. Effective project continuity, inefficient pressure reduction and ineffective direct accountability. Wang zai chae said that this was tantamount to adding teeth to the evaluation results and that the budget unit could no longer take the evaluation seriously。
The results of past performance evaluations are not hard-linked to the next budget and have been evaluated in vain. This time, the substantive linkage has been made into a rigid clause, meaning that the end-of-year score has a direct impact on whether the same level of funding will be available in the coming year, forcing departments to think clearly about performance targets at the project stage and not to wait for the money to be spent。
Accountability, direct referral for misconduct
Those responsible for the serious inefficiency and ineffectiveness of the use of financial resources and for significant losses are held accountable. Financial violations identified in the evaluation are prosecuted in accordance with the law; any finding of a disciplinary offence must be promptly referred to the disciplinary inspectorate. Wang zai chae indicated that those provisions would in turn force budget holders to raise awareness of risk and of the law, so that money would come to fruition。
For the finance staff at the grass-roots level, every step of the project is followed by a trail, execution and acceptance, which is no longer possible. Wang zai has determined that when accountability mechanisms are put on the ground, financial resources will be truly skewed towards efficient output, and accountability will not be effective, but rather institutional arrangements with specific operational paths, with marked changes at the grass-roots level of implementation。
What level of project performance evaluation do you have now? Did you fill out the form, or did you really link it to the next budget arrangement? The comment area would be welcome to talk, and if it was useful, it would be transmitted to colleagues。
