Improving Domestic Resource Mobilization for Inclusive Growth Program

The DMF was reasonably well-designed and the performance indicators—with the exception of the initial program impact indicators—targets, and baseline data were precise and generally easily measurable. However, the PCR assessed the program against the DMF prepared for subprogram 3, which, like subprogram 2 had no indicators to measure impact, although these were included for subprogram 1. The impact indicators under subprogram 1 were not reflective of the impact statement—measuring the reduction in the fiscal deficit, absolute poverty, and income distribution against the impact of higher living standards and more employment opportunities, particularly for women. The impact statement and its measurement need to be more closely aligned to the program and as such, indicated a design deficiency in the DMF. The risks for subprogram 1 related to a deteriorating external environment and delays to reforms, and weak economic growth that impact expenditure efficiency; weak economic growth was not included for subprograms 2 and