Results-oriented budgeting in Egypt

|
2013
11
In addition to political imperatives, civil society is another source of internal pressure. Several countries 
acknowledged the role played by civil society in achieving their outcomes-based approach by providing and 
sustaining a democratic basis for reform efforts that reflect citizens’ needs and desires.
On the other hand, external factors have a subtler influence. According to participants in the G8 club as well as 
the OECD forum gatherings, 
‘’
external factors (e.g. annual IMF reports, rating agencies, etc) may be behind 
countries that have made greater progress in measuring performance and putting it to some direct application in 
national programs.”
Perhaps the single most important finding arising from these experiences is that focus on outcome is central to 
the raison d’etre of government, such as poverty reduction in Uganda and Tanzania or presidential reform in 
Mexico, and is 
directly connected to “something that matters” both to
the political leadership and citizenry. In 
the case of Tanzania, people wanted to know that real change has happened as a result of the policies and 
strategies. Otherwise, it is likely to remain a technical exercise that is unlikely to be accepted or to result in real, 
positive differences. 
As drawn above, a number of benefits to an outcomes-oriented approach have been identified. For example, it 
can serve as a frame of reference to ensure that the appropriate inputs, activities and outputs lead to tangible and 
effective results. It represents a means of demonstrating the value and benefits of public services to citizens and 
to the legislature. A focus on outcome is an essential component of a learning approach
4
that can identify how 
policies and program approaches may need to be tied, adjusted, improved or replaced with alternatives. It is 
essential not only to demonstrate that outcomes have occurred, but that the interventions in question have 
contributed to these in some way. 
The difficulty in moving towards a focus on outcomes is attributed to a number of reasons: 

An outcome orientation represents a fundamentally different way of thinking and of managing across all 
aspects of government and how it relates to its citizens and major stakeholders. To be effective, such 
thinking needs to be incorporated into the organizational culture at all levels. Organizational change of this 
nature is rarely easy. Just about every country that tried encountered some initial resistance and took its 
time to put it in place and sustain it using an array of approaches and supports. 

Outcomes take longer time in nature than outputs and typically are influenced by a variety of factors, in 
addition to the program and policy intervention in question. They tend to be more difficult to quantify than 
activities or outputs. Given that achievement of outcomes may depend, in part, on factors beyond the direct 
control of a program and its manager, a different approach to attribution may be required than with inputs 
or outputs. This can imply the need for changes to existing accountability and reward mechanisms. 
Nevertheless, it has to be understood that an outcome orientation is considered essential when the role of public 
services is viewed not as engaging in activities and producing outputs for their own sake, but in achieving 
“strategic” outcomes that result in real, positive differences to the people they serve. Substantial evidence from 
different countries shows that it is possible to provide KPIs for a focus on outcomes. And, it is possible to assess 
the extent to which outcomes have been achieved.