Abstract

This handbook is aimed at anyone who is involved in a Public Investment Management Assessment (PIMA) or who has a practical interest in public investment management. It is intended to be useful for country authorities, IMF staff, staff of other financial institutions and development organizations, and anyone who is interested in exploring different aspects of public investment management to understand how country systems are designed and how they work in practice.

Legal Framework

While legal aspects of Public Investment Management Assessment (PIMA) institutions are discussed under each institution, it is also important to consolidate and summarize common legal themes under the cross-cutting issues section of the report. This section should comment on any critical gaps, inconsistencies, and overlapping competencies that have been identified in this area.

Countries vary widely in how they document and give force to public investment management (PIM) frameworks. The types of legal instruments used depend on each legal system. Civil law countries tend to put greater weight on enacting the PIM framework in a primary law and spelling it out in detailed rules and regulations with legal force.1 Common law countries to a greater extent may rely on policy documents and administrative guidelines. In many common law countries, such guidelines and policy documents will not constitute a law or be part of the law, but they are often considered to be binding on the public officials and practitioners. Nevertheless, such a distinction is not always clear-cut. Many common law countries have also introduced specific legislation (for example, dedicated public-private partnership laws) or a component of broader public financial management law for a more binding form of PIM framework. PIMA teams must be aware of these differences between the legal systems. The assessments must consider the overall legal and regulatory framework for PIM, not just high-level legislation.

The legal and regulatory framework for PIM will often comprise three levels:

  • The highest level will often be law-governing public investment activities, particularly, in civil law countries. Some countries have separate public investment laws, but often this area is incorporated in a broader budget system law, public financial management law, or fiscal responsibility law. The law will generally establish the legal authority for the PIM system, allocate the key roles and responsibilities, and define the most important functions and procedures related to public investment, including how it is integrated with the budget process. Some aspects of public investment may be governed by specialized laws, for instance, on public-private partnerships, procurement, debt management, and fiscal decentralization. In common law countries, this overarching law may be missing or public investment may only be partially regulated through legislation.

  • In all countries, there will usually be one or more regulations covering the public investment functions. These will define procedures for project identification, preparation, appraisal, and selection, as well as for project management, monitoring, and evaluation. Budget process regulations will also be important for public investments, for instance, regulations on budget planning and implementation, commitment controls, and cash management.

  • There will also often be technical guidelines and methodological documents. These may cover a range of different issues, including detailed advice on how to analyze project proposals, how to structure PPP contracts, or how to ensure efficient procurement of major investment projects. Technical standards for different types of assets may also be important. The guidelines will usually not be legally binding and in most cases will not be considered under the institutional design assessment. However, the guidelines will often impact on the effectiveness of different institutions.

The key issue in the assessment of the legal and regulatory framework is whether this supports a robust institutional design for PIM:

  • Are all the main features of the system covered by legal and regulatory instruments?

  • Does the legal and regulatory framework support institutional arrangements, mandates, coverage, procedures, disclosure, and accountability for effective PIM?

  • Are the legal provisions sufficiently clear and unambiguous? Have they been updated to reflect recent institutional and policy developments?

  • Is the legal framework transparent and accessible, and can it be understood by stakeholders from different professional backgrounds?

  • Do guidelines and methodological documents provide sufficient support to implement the specific legal provisions?

Important Documents

article image

The legal and regulatory framework will also impact the assessment of PIM effectiveness. The formal requirements in laws and regulations, and the guidance provided in guidelines and similar documents, will contribute to defining the potential impact of PIM. However, the effectiveness will depend on compliance with legal requirements and the attention given to technical guidelines, and several other factors.

However, in some cases the effectiveness of PIM may be negatively impacted by the design of a law or regulation. The legal framework may include significant exemptions from standard process and criteria, for example, too-permissive exceptions to mandatory public tender or significant exemptions from the standard process and criteria for priority projects or emergency projects. This will undermine the effectiveness of the relevant institutions.

Where PIM legal frameworks, rules, and procedures exist but are not followed, the effectiveness of PIM may require some legal adjustments. For instance, effectiveness can be improved by addressing weaknesses in the design of the legal frameworks for sanctions and internal and external audit. In other cases, the legal and regulatory framework may be too demanding, given the capacity of the country. In these cases, calibration of legal requirements to a more realistic level can improve the quality of PIM. This may include limiting the most extensive procedures to large and complex projects, with simplified procedures for small and routine projects.

The assessment of and recommendations related to specific legal and regulatory frameworks will usually be included under the relevant institutions. The cross-cutting discussion should summarize the relevant assessments and recommendations. In some cases, there could also be specific recommendations in the cross-cutting issues section, for example, related to the consistency between or integration of different pieces of legislation and regulations.

A useful part of the cross-cutting issue section could be a table listing for each PIMA institution the existing legal documents and guidelines, A second column could indicate year in which it came into effect. A third column may register institutional coverage (central government, public corporations, subnational governments) The last column could be used for comments by the PIMA team. The table could be part of this section or could be presented in an appendix.

Capacity

The cross-cutting analysis of staff capacity should build on and summarize the assessments of different PIMA institutions and dimensions for which there are identified capacity and skills gaps. Staff capacity is a critical factor in the implementation of public investment policies and has significant impact on the effectiveness of public investment institutions. As indicated in the generic theory of change for the PIMA framework (Figure 4.1), staff capacity will determine whether public investment activities are carried out as envisaged in the institutional design and whether the planned outputs are produced.

The organizations responsible for PIM will need staff with different expertise and skills in the different phases:

  • In the planning phase, there is a need for planners, economists, engineers, social scientists, and project development specialists to help develop investment strategies and plans, coordinate these plans across levels of government, and appraise potential investment projects.

  • During the budget allocation phase, budget and finance specialists are essential to ensuring adequate and transparent budgeting for investments, but there is also a need for engineers and other technical staff to determine maintenance needs, and for economists and social scientists to contribute to project selection.

  • During project implementation, procurement specialists and contract lawyers play key roles in the procurement phase; control engineers, project managers, and monitoring and evaluation specialists contribute to project management and monitoring; and internal and external auditors and accountants will be critical to ensure accountability. Many countries have emphasized the need to build and retain staff capacity for PIM. In the absence of competent staff, even the best designed institutions are unlikely to produce the intended results. Box 8.1 summarizes the project delivery capability framework in the United Kingdom and Box 8.2 provides a summary assessment of staff capacity for public investment in Estonia.

Some countries establish project implementation units (PIUs) to manage major projects, often as part of agreements with international financial institutions. These PIUs will follow the institution’s procedures and exhibit good practices, including rigorous project appraisal, independent review of project appraisal, transparent project selection criteria, systematic project monitoring, differentiated requirements across the project cycle by size of project, and dedicated funding for capacity building in key functions. The good practices developed in these PIUs can usefully be main-streamed in the regular government organizations and applied also to projects financed from the national budget. PIMA evaluators could analyze (and possibly recommend) how a transfer of skills from externally financed investment projects to regular civil service structures could be beneficial. In many countries, the dual-track nature of the national PIM framework exacerbates the skills gap as scarce skills are often dedicated to externally financed projects. This discrepancy can be reduced by forming joint staffing teams, allowing skills transfer across externally financed projects and other government projects.

Important Documents

article image

Project Delivery Capability Framework in the United Kingdom

The Project Delivery Capability Framework describes the job roles, capabilities, and learning for all government project delivery professionals across government. These professionals are responsible for delivery of major public investments in the United Kingdom. The PDCF contains three elements: a career pathway/ common set of job roles, a set of competencies, and a signpost for development opportunities specific to job roles. It provides a common language to describe job roles, and the knowledge, skills and abilities needed to perform project work across all areas of government. It is a useful resource for both current project delivery professionals and anyone interested in moving into the profession. Figure 8.1.1 lists the different job roles covered by the Project Delivery Capability Framework.

Figure 8.1.1.

Any recommendations in this area should be based on a comprehensive assessment of capacity and skills compared with the key functions to be performed. Recommendations based on incomplete information should be avoided. In some cases, government staff may suggest that lack of staffing is a constraint, although overall staff numbers may be high by international comparison. One common challenge is that staff resources may be spent on low-value routine reporting activities instead of being reassigned to more important analytical tasks. Skills gaps may also be important. This implies that staff training and streamlining of processes often is a more appropriate response than increased staff numbers.

Useful Data Series

article image

Staff Capacity for Public Investment Management in Estonia

The Estonian Ministry of Finance consists of about 450 staff, of which 90 percent have higher education, and staff turnover is modest. There are currently 71 staff in the three departments of the fiscal sector that are involved in PIM, with 48 in the State Budget Department, 4 in the Local Governments Financial Management Department, and 19 in the Fiscal Policy Department. For recruitment to professional-level positions, a master’s degree is generally required, and 64 percent of staff meet this requirement and a further 24 percent have bachelor’s degrees. Staff turnover is less than 10 percent each year, and average time of service in the Ministry of Finance is more than 10 years. Salary levels are competitive: the policy is to offer salaries equivalent to the median of similar positions in the private sector.

Staff capacity in the Ministry of Finance is high, in terms of numbers, skills, and experience; the same appears to be the case in other agencies involved in PIM. The Estonian Ministry of Finance has a higher staff complement than many finance ministries in the Nordic countries, and the fiscal policy and budget functions have staff numbers similar to these countries. Staff are highly educated, and many have long experience from the ministry and other relevant organizations. Estonia’s highly developed and well-managed public financial management system is also a clear indication of the high level of staff competencies.

There are no apparent capacity gaps in the Ministry of Finance that hamper efficient PIM, and the ministry and the government’s shared service center are also providing training to other ministries and agencies. There is a potential for improvements in public investment practices, and this will require learning and development among the staff. Staff have in the past demonstrated a strong interest in and ability to continuously improve practices and strengthen their capacities, and it is expected that this also will be the case in future reform processes. The Ministry of Finance has also contributed to training staff in other ministries and organizations in their areas of responsibility, including in procurement and performance budgeting.

Source: Estonia PIMA 2019.

Information Systems

Many public investment functions are based on computerized systems, and the quality of these systems is essential for the public investment process. Robust information systems support efficient PIM and enhance the transparency of the process. PIM information systems may be independent and separate, but often they will be partially integrated with other government financial management information systems. The extent and quality of this integration will often be a key feature in this cross-cutting assessment.

The following IT functions will be particularly important for efficient PIM:

  • Project pipeline development (identification, preparation, design, and presentation)

  • Project development and appraisal

  • Interface with budgeting system

  • Interface with procurement system

  • Interface with budget execution and accounting system

  • Project management

  • Portfolio monitoring

  • Interface with asset management system

The assessment should provide a consolidated overview of the main information systems used for PIM and the interfaces between them and with other information systems. The analysis should build on the description of relevant information systems under different PIMA institutions and dimensions. The cross-cutting assessment should include a brief description of the overall program architecture and the key functions performed by the systems. Organizational responsibilities, including for data entry, verification, and consolidation, should be described. Key interfaces with other systems, including the mechanisms for data transfer and reconciliation, should be outlined. Tables and figures describing key aspects of the information system structure will be useful. Box 8.3 describes Ireland’s investment projects and programs tracker, and Box 8.4 gives an overview of Chile’s integrated project database.

Important Documents

article image

Useful Data Series

article image

The quality of the information system may be a key determinant in the assessment of different PIMA institutions. Information systems design and comprehensiveness affect the institutional design of PIMA institutions, and information system effectiveness has direct results for the overall effectiveness of PIM.

  • Recommendations related to how the information system can improve the design or effectiveness of specific institutions should be discussed under that institution, with a summary under the cross-cutting issues section.

  • Recommendations related to better integration or coordination between systems may be presented in the cross-cutting issues section.

Investment Projects and Programs Tracker in Ireland

The Irish Investment Projects and Programs Tracker is an information system for monitoring of major investments through their different stages. The system is maintained by the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform, and data are provided by relevant government departments and agencies. The system is publicly available on the department’s website.

The tracker reflects the portfolio of projects with estimated costs above €20 million in the pipeline. This includes projects at all stages in the project life cycle from strategic assessment through preliminary business case, final business case, implementation, and review. Figure 8.3.1 summarizes the number of projects at each stage.

Figure 8.3.1.
Figure 8.3.1.

Number of Projects in Ireland’s Investment Projects and Programs Tracker, by Life Cycle Stage, 2020

Source: Government of Ireland 2020.

Chile Integrated Projects Database

The Integrated Project Bank (BIP) is an information system for the registration of projects, programs, and basic studies that request annual financing through a report called the Investment Initiative File. The conceptual unit of the system is the investment initiative based on its life cycle, and it monitors the different phases of the process during the budget year: entry of initiatives, registration of their entry in the National Investment System (SNI), admissibility, technical-economic analysis and recommendation, creation of assignments, and their physical-financial execution.

The main objective of the BIP is to deliver, in a permanent and dynamic way, information on the management process of public investment as a whole, as well as each of the public institutions involved; link the institutions that participate in the public investment process and improve, through institutional coordination, decision-making, administration tasks, and planning tasks; and provide information to improve the formulation of investment initiatives. It also provides information of a diverse nature for operational control or management analysis activities.

The BIP comprises the following modules:

  • Consultation BIP presents in a summarized and easily accessible way, available to all users of the web, the most relevant data of the current processes of public investment.

  • Work BIP alllows public sector users, previously registered, to enter or modify information on their investment initiatives. It also allows investment analysts from the Ministry of Social Development to issue the Result of the Technical Economic Analysis (RATE).

  • Management BIP is a set of tools to which Work BIP users have access, and its objective is to extract information from current processes or previous processes directly from the database, in order to sup port the analysis and control tasks of the process of public investment.

  • Central Administrator BIP allows maintenance of the BIP system, preventive corrections, and updates to the system information.

  • BIP Regional Administration allows preventive corrections to system information, particularly to initiatives in the region of the country to which the administrator belongs.

Source: Government of Chile 2017.
1

Civil law is based on Roman legal principles and was developed in continental Europe. Common law was developed in England during the Middle Ages; both forms of law spread to other parts of the world through colonialization and political influence. Common law countries include the United Kingdom, the United States, India, Australia, Canada, South Africa, New Zealand, and other former British colonies. Most of the other countries follow civil law.

  • Collapse
  • Expand
Public Investment Management Assessment, 1st Edition
  • Figure 8.1.1.

    UK Government Project Delivery Career Pathways

  • Figure 8.3.1.

    Number of Projects in Ireland’s Investment Projects and Programs Tracker, by Life Cycle Stage, 2020

  • Allain-Dupré, Dorothee. 2011. “Multi-Level Governance of Public Investment: Lessons from the Crisis.” OECD Regional Development Working Papers 2011/05, Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, Paris.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Allen, Richard, and Dimitar Radev. 2010. “Extrabudgetary Funds.” IMF Technical Notes and Manuals 10/09, International Monetary Fund, Washington, DC.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Allen, Richard, Mary Betley, Carolina Renteria, and Ashni Singh. 2020. “Integrating Infrastructure Planning and Budgeting.” In Well Spent: How Strong Infrastructure Governance Can End Waste in Public Investment, edited by Gerd Schwartz, Manal Fouad, Torben S. Hansen, and Genevieve Verdier. Washington, DC: International Monetary Fund.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Allen, Richard, and Miguel Alves. 2016. “How to Improve the Financial Oversight of Public Corporations.” IMF How To Notes, International Monetary Fund, Washington, DC.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Allen, Richard, and Eivind Tandberg. 2021. “How to Manage Public Investment During a Postcrisis Recovery.” How-To Note 2021/007, International Monetary Fund, Washington, DC.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Asian Development Bank (ADB). 2001. Developing Best Practices for Promoting Private Sector Investment in Infrastructure (5 volumes). ADB, Manila, Philippines.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Beetsma, Roel, and Rick van der Ploeg. 2007. “The Political Economy of Public Investment.” CEPR Discussion Paper No. DP6090, Center for Economic and Policy Research, Washington, DC.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Blazey, Andrew, Fabien Gonguet, and Philip Stokoe. 2020. “Integrating Infrastructure Planning and Budgeting.” In Well Spent: How Strong Infrastructure Governance Can End Waste in Public Investment, edited by Gerd Schwartz, Manal Fouad, Torben S. Hansen, and Genevieve Verdier. Washington, DC: International Monetary Fund.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Blumenthal, David, and Ray Stoddard. 1999. “Implementation Planning: The Critical Step.” PM Network 13 (10): 8086.

  • Canadian Infrastructure Report Card. 2019. “Monitoring the State of Canada’s Core Public Infrastructure: The Canadian Infrastructure Report Card 2019.” Canadian Infrastructure Report Card.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Cebotari, Aliona, Jefrey Davis, Lusine Lusinyan, Amine Mati, Paolo Mauro, Murray Petrie, and Ricardo Velloso. 2008. “Fiscal Risks: Sources, Disclosure, and Management.” International Monetary Fund, Washington, DC.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Chimhowu, Admos O., David Hulme, and Lauchlan T. Munro. 2019. “The ’New’ National Development Planning and Global Development Goals: Processes and Partnerships.” World Development 120: 7689.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Collier, Paul, Martina Kirchberger, and Måns Söderbom. 2015. “The Cost of Road Infrastructure in Low- and Middle-Income Countries.” Policy Research Working Paper No. 7408, World Bank, Washington, DC.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Construction Industry Development Board (CIDB). 2021. “Infrastructure Maintenance Budgeting Guideline.” National Infrastructure Maintenance Strategy, CIDB, Pretoria, South Africa.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Corbacho, Ana, Katja Funke, and Gerd Schwartz. 2008. Public Inves tment and Public-Private Partnerships: Addressing Infrastructure Challenges and Managing Fiscal Risks. Washington, DC: International Monetary Fund.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Drevland, Frode, Kjell Austeng, and Olav Torp. 2005. “Uncertainty Analysis: Modelling, Estimation and Calculation.” Concept Report No. 11, Norwegian University of Schience and Technology, Trondheim, Norway.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD). 2011. “Public Procurement Assessment: Review of Laws and Practice in the EBRD Region, EBRD 2011.” EBRD, London, UK.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • European Commission. 2005. “Infrastructure Expenditures and Costs: Practical Guidelines to Calculate Total Infrastructure Costs for Five Modes of Transport.” European Commission, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • European Commission. 2014. “Guide to Cost-Benefit Analysis of Investment Projects.” European Commisison, Brussels, Belgium.

  • European Court of Auditors. 2020. “EU Transport Infrastructures: More Speed Needed in Megaproject Implementation to Deliver Network Efects on Time.” Special Report 10/2020, European Court of Auditors.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • European Investment Bank. 2013. “Economic Appraisal of Investment Projects.” European Investment Bank, Luxembourg.

  • Flynn, Suzanne, and Mario Pessoa. 2014. “Prevention and Management of Government Expenditure Arrears.” IMF Technical Notes and Manuals TNM/14/01, International Monetary Fund, Washington, DC.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Flyvbjerg, Bent. 2014. What You Should Know About Megaprojects and Why: An Overview.” Project Management Journal 45 (2): 619.

  • Gómez-Lobo. 2012. “Institutional Safeguards for Cost Benefit Analysis: Lessons from the Chilean National Investment System.” Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis 3 (1) : 130.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Government of Ireland. 2019. Annual Report on Public Debt in Ireland 2019. Department of Finance, Government of Ireland.

  • Government of Chile. 2017. Manual de Usuario Completo: Banco Integrado de Proyec tos. Government of Chile.

  • Government of Korea. 2013. “Guidelines for Total Project Cost Management.” Ministry of Strategy and Finance, Government of Korea.

  • International Monetary Fund (IMF). 2020. Fiscal Monitor: Policies for the Recovery. Washington, DC: IMF.

  • International Monetary Fund (IMF). 2021. “Strengthening Infrastructure Governance for Climate-Responsive Public Investment.” IMF Policy Paper, Washington, DC.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Government of Timor-Leste 2020a. Timor Leste Budget Book 1. Government of Timor-Leste.

  • Government of Timor-Leste 2020b. Timor Leste Budget Book 3A. Government of Timor-Leste.

  • Harris, Jason, Richard Hughes, Gösta Ljungman, and Carla Sateriale. 2013. “Medium-Term Budget Frameworks in Advanced Economies: Objectives, Design, and Performance.” In Public Financial Management and Its Emerging Architecture, edited by Marco Cangiano, Teresa R. Curristine, and Michel Lazare. Washington, DC: International Monetary Fund.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Infrastructure and Projects Authority. 2018. Government Functional Standard: Project Delivery. London, UK: HM Treasury.

  • Infrastructure and Projects Authority, 2020. Annual Report on Major Projects 2019–20. London, UK: HM Treasury.

  • Inter-American Development Bank. 2019. Monitoring Public Investment: The Impact of Mapa Regalí in Colombia. Washington, DC: Inter-American Development Bank.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • International Federation of Accountants (IFAC) and Chartered Institute of Public Finance & Accountancy (CIPFA). 2018. “International Public Sector Financial Accountability Index.” IFAC/CIPFA.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • International Monetary Fund (IMF). 2002. “Assessing Sustainability.” IMF Policy Paper, Washington, DC.

  • International Monetary Fund (IMF). 2009. “Macro Policy Lessons for a Sound Design of Fiscal Decentralization.” IMF Policy Paper, Washington, DC.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • International Monetary Fund (IMF). 2013. “Medium-Term Budget Frameworks in Advanced Economies: Objectives, Design, and Performance.” In Public Financial Management and Its Emerging Architecture, edited by Marco Cangiano, Teresa Curristine, and Michel Lazare. Washington, DC: IMF.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • International Monetary Fund (IMF). 2014. Government Finance Statistic Manual. Washington, DC: IMF.

  • International Monetary Fund (IMF). 2015. “Making Public Investment More Efcient.” IMF Policy Paper, Washington, DC.

  • International Monetary Fund (IMF). 2016a. “Analyzing and Managing Fiscal Risks—Best Practices.” IMF Policy Paper, Washington, DC.

  • International Monetary Fund (IMF). 2016b. “How to Improve the Financial Oversight of Public Corporations.” IMF How-To Note 5, Washington, DC.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • International Monetary Fund (IMF). 2018a. Fiscal Transparency Handbook 2018. Washington, DC: IMF.

  • International Monetary Fund (IMF). 2018b. “How to Select Fiscal Rules: A Primer.” How-To Note 9, Washington, DC.

  • International Monetary Fund (IMF). 2018c. “Public Investment Management Assessment: Review and Update.” IMF Policy Paper, Washington, DC.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • International Monetary Fund (IMF). 2019. “How to Design a Financial Management Information System: A Modular Approach.” IMF How-To Note 19/03, Washington, DC.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • International Public Sector Accounting Standards Board (IFSASB). 2020. Handbook of International Public Sec tor Accounting Pronouncements. Toronto, Ontario, Canada: IFSASB.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Irwin, Tim, Samah Mazraani, and Sandeep Saxena. 2018. “How to Control the Fiscal Costs of Public-Private Partnerships.” IMF How-To Note 18/04, International Monetary Fund, Washington, DC.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Jacobs, Davina F. 2009. “Capital Expenditures and the Budget.” IMF Public Financial Management Technical Guidance Note, Washington, DC.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA). 2018. Public Investment Management Handbook for Capacity Development. Tokyo, Japan: JICA. https://www.jica.go.jp/activities/issues/governance/ku57pq00001wwbna-att/strengthen_public_investment_management_capacity_handbook_e.pdf.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Lee, Sang-Ho, Sanghoon Park, and Jong Myung Kim. 2015. “Suggestion for a Framework for a Sustainable Infrastructure Asset Management Manual in Korea.” Sustainability 7 (11): 1500328.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Lienert, Ian. 2009. “Modernizing Cash Management.” IMF Technical Notes and Manuals 09/03, International Monetary Fund, Washington, DC.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Lledó, Victor, Sungwook Yoon, Xiangming Fang, Samba Mbaye, and Young Kim. 2017. “Fiscal Rules at a Glance.” Background Paper, International Monetary Fund, Washington, DC.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Marcelo, Darwin, Cledan Mandri-Perrott, Schuyler House, and Jordan Z. Schwartz. 2016. “An Alternative Approach to Project Selection: The Infrastructure Prioritization Framework.” World Bank, Washington, DC.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan. 2019. “G20 Principles for Quality Infrastructure Investment.” Tokyo, Japan: Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Monteiro, Rui, Isabel Rial, and Eivind Tandberg. 2020. “Fiscal Risks in Infrastructure.” In Well Spent: How Strong Infrastructure Governance Can End Waste in Public Investment, edited by Gerd Schwartz, Manal Fouad, Torben S. Hansen, and Geneviève Verdier. Washington, DC: International Monetary Fund.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Mouter, Niek. 2018. “A Critical Assessment of Discounting Policies for Transport Cost-Beneft Analysis in Five European Practices.” European Journal of Transport and Infrastructure Research 18 (4): 389412.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Nicolaisen, Morten Skou, and Patrick A. Driscoll. 2016. “An International Review of Ex-Post Project Evaluation Schemes in the Transport Sector.” Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and Management 18 (1): 1650008.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). 2015. OECD Guidelines on Corporate Governance of State-Owned Enterprises, 2015 Edition. OECD, Paris.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). 2017b. “Getting Infrastructure Right: A Framework for Better Governance.” OECD, Paris, France.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). 2017c. “Strategic Infrastructure Planning: International Best Practice.” International Transport Forum Case-Specific Policy Analysis Series, OECD, Paris, France.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). 2017a. “Gaps and Governance Standards of Public Infrastructure in Chile.” OECD, Paris, France.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). 2018. “Methodology for Assessing Procurement Systems.” OECD, Paris, France.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). 2019. “Making Decentralisation Work: A Handbook for Policy-Makers.” OECD, Paris, France.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Pattanayak, Sailendra. 2016. “Expenditure Control: Key Features, Stages, and Actors.” IMF Technical Notes and Manuals 16/02, International Monetary Fund, Washington, DC.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Pattanayak, Sailendra, and Israel Fainboim. 2011. “Treasury Single Account: An Essential Tool for Government Cash Management.” IMF Technical Notes and Manuals 11/04, International Monetary Fund, Washington, DC.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Project Management Institute. 2017. A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK® Guide). Project Management Institute.

  • Radev, Dimitar, and Pokar Khemani. 2009. “Commitment Controls.” IMF Technical Notes and Manuals 9/04, International Monetary Fund, Washington, DC.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Rajaram, Anand, Tuan Minh Le, Nataliya Biletska, and Jim Brumby. 2010. “A Diagnostic Framework for Assessing Public Investment Management.” Policy Research Working Paper No. 5397, World Bank, Washington, DC.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors (RICS). 2012. Public Sec tor Property Asset Management Guidelines. London, UK: RICS.

  • Saxena, Sandeep, and Sami Yläoutinen. 2016. “Managing Budgetary Virements.” IMF Technical Notes and Manuals 16/04, International Monetary Fund, Washington, DC.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Schwartz, Gerd, Manal Fouad, Torben S. Hansen, and Genevieve Verdier. 2020. Well Spent: How Strong Infrastructure Governance Can Reduce Waste in Public Investment. Washington, DC: International Monetary Fund.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Spackman, Michael. 2002. “Multi-Year Perspective in Budgeting and Public Investment Planning.” Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, Paris, France.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Taliercio, Robert, and Eduardo Andrés Estrada. 2020. “Best Practices in Project Appraisal and Selection.” In Well Spent: How Strong Infrastruc ture Governance Can End Waste in Public Investment, edited by Gerd Schwartz, Manal Fouad, Torben S. Hansen, and Geneviève Verdier. Washington, DC: International Monetary Fund.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Taz, Chaponda, Chishiro Matsumuto, and Lewis Kabayiza Murara. 2020. “The Public Investment Management Assessment Framework: An Overview.” In Well Spent: How Strong Infrastructure Governance Can End Waste in Public Investment, edited by Gerd Schwartz, Manal Fouad, Torben S. Hansen, and Geneviève Verdier. Washington, DC: International Monetary Fund.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • UK Government. 2018. “Project Delivery Capability Framework.” Government Project Delivery Profession, Infrastructure and Projects Authority, United Kingdom.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • UK Treasury. 2018. “The Green Book: Central Government Guidance on Appraisal and Evaluation.” London, UK: HM Treasury.

  • Watermeyer, Ronald. 2019. “Client Guide for Improving Infrastructure Project Outcomes.” University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • World Bank. 2004. Reforming Infrastructure: Privatization, Regulation, and Competition. Washington, DC: World Bank.

  • World Bank. 2017a. “Benchmarking Public Procurement: Assessing Public Procurement Regulatory Systems in 180 Countries.” World Bank, Washington, DC.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • World Bank. 2017b. Public-Private Partnerships Reference Guide (version 3). Washington, DC: World Bank.

  • World Bank. 2018. “Procurement Regulations for IPF Borrowers.” World Bank, Washington, DC.

  • World Bank. 2020. Public Investment Management Reference Guide. Washington, DC: World Bank.