## tnmea2026007

## Source details

**Canonical URL:** [tnmea2026007](https://www.imf.org/-/media/files/publications/tnm/2026/english/tnmea2026007.pdf)

## Other formats

- [Markdown version](/-/media/files/publications/tnm/2026/english/tnmea2026007.pdf.md)
- [Structured JSON version](/-/media/files/publications/tnm/2026/english/tnmea2026007.pdf.json)

---

### Evaluation scope and evidence base
- Purpose: Evaluate the IMF’s Public Investment Management Assessment (PIMA) Capacity Development (CD) since its launch in 2015 through FY25 using the IMF’s Common Evaluation Framework and the OECD‑DAC criteria: relevance, coherence, efficiency, effectiveness, impact, and sustainability.
- Inputs informing the assessment:
  - Evaluation sample analysis: Six countries that completed both an initial PIMA and an Update PIMA.
  - Descriptive data: Comprehensive data on the entire cohort of PIMA CD activities.
  - Expert interviews: Seven infrastructure governance specialists.
  - Management information: Data from Fiscal Affairs Department’s Capacity Development Management and Administration Program (CDMAP), including RBM indicators and follow‑on CD details.
  - Additional sources: Information from the IMF’s Monitoring of Fund Arrangements database.

### Coverage and evolution of PIMA CD
- Since launch in 2015 through FY25:
  - 102 countries completed PIMA assessments across all regions and income groups.
  - Country composition: 58 emerging market economies, 37 low‑income developing countries, and 7 advanced economies.
- Milestones:
  - First PIMA mission: Mozambique in November 2015.
  - First edition of the PIMA Handbook: July 2022.
  - Climate module (C‑PIMA) introduced in 2021 (C‑PIMA is outside the scope of this evaluation).
  - First PIMA updates launched in FY23; by FY25, 18 countries had opted for updates—10 low‑income developing countries and 8 emerging market economies.
- Mission cadence: PIMA missions declined during the COVID‑19 pandemic, surged in FY23, then stabilized at lower levels in FY24 and FY25.

### Key findings — Relevance and coherence
- Overall judgment: PIMAs have made strong and sustained contributions across the six DAC criteria; PIMA CD is coherent and well aligned with recipient needs.
- Specific findings:
  - PIMA remains highly relevant to country needs and institutional priorities.
  - The diagnostic is generally well aligned with national infrastructure governance reform agendas.
  - Areas for methodological and scope enhancements to sustain impact:
    - Methodological improvements: Update and refine approaches for assessing public investment trends and efficiency.
    - Broader coverage: Expand the framework to include public investment by state‑owned enterprises.
    - Investment implementation: Strengthen the focus on project execution and delivery.
  - Improved coordination and communication are needed with major development partners (World Bank, Asian Development Bank, Inter‑American Development Bank) to avoid duplication and foster integrated action plans.

### Key findings — Efficiency
- Overall assessment: “Mostly Met”
- Findings:
  - PIMA missions are delivered economically and efficiently, producing substantial outputs relative to size and cost.
  - By end of FY25, 102 PIMAs completed:
    - 57 percent in emerging market economies; 36 percent in low‑income developing countries; 7 percent in advanced economies.
  - Missions typically last about 14 days with an average team size of 6.1 (including World Bank colleagues who may not contribute to the formal report).
  - Combined PIMA and C‑PIMA missions increased productivity; outputs expanded faster than inputs following the addition of the climate module.
  - The PIMA Handbook (2022) standardized assessment ratings and report preparation, strengthening operational efficiency.
  - Recommendation: Fiscal Affairs Department should collaborate with the Information Technology Department to explore AI integration to enhance delivery efficiency.

### Key findings — Effectiveness, sustainability, and impact
- Overall effectiveness: PIMA is an effective CD tool with benefits likely to be sustained, though lasting success depends on broader reform conditions (political commitment, legal framework, staff capacity).
- Evidence:
  - Analysis of the evaluation sample shows most outcome and milestone indicators were fully or largely achieved.
  - Strong linkages exist between PIMA and IMF surveillance and lending functions.
  - Durable reform embedding requires legal incorporation of reforms and realistic medium‑term action plans.
- Institutional design vs. effectiveness:
  - Countries typically score lower on infrastructure‑specific governance areas (project selection, maintenance funding, project appraisal) compared with broader PFM systems, reflecting less mature infrastructure governance arrangements.

### Quantitative assessment (Table ES.1 averages from internal evaluation)
- DAC criteria average scores (scale 1 = not met to 4 = fully met):
  - Relevance: 4.00
  - Coherence: 3.20
  - Efficiency: 3.00
  - Effectiveness: 3.17
  - Sustainability: 3.00
  - Impact: 2.67
  - Overall rating: 3.17
- Interpretation: Most criteria assessed as “fully met” or “mostly met,” with impact lower relative to other criteria.

### Strategic recommendations (high level)
- Reaffirm PIMA as a core component of Fiscal Affairs Department public financial management CD.
- Expand coverage of public investment by state‑owned enterprises, potentially via a new PIMA module. (DAC criteria implicated: Relevance, sustainability, impact)
- Redouble focus on follow‑on CD to assist embedding reforms across countries. (DAC criteria implicated: Relevance, sustainability, impact)

### Operational recommendations (prioritized actions)
- Methodology and data:
  - Review and update investment efficiency measurement methodology and update the IMF’s Investment and Capital Stock Dataset. (Relevance)
- Sharper mission outputs:
  - Limit number of recommendations; provide guidance on sequencing and prioritization while taking capacity and financial constraints into account. (Relevance, coherence, sustainability, impact)
- Enhanced reporting for updates:
  - Include a standard section in PIMA update reports that reconciles previous recommendations to track reform implementation progress over time. (Sustainability)
- Knowledge sharing:
  - Publish more detailed information on PIMA findings, follow‑on CD activities, good‑practice examples, and related resources on the IMF’s Infrastructure Governance portal. (Sustainability)
- Efficiency through technology:
  - Collaborate with the Information Technology Department to explore opportunities for enhancing efficiency through the use of AI. (Efficiency)

### Findings on institutional design vs. effectiveness and regional/income scores
- Persistent gap between institutional design and implementation: institutional frameworks often updated, but fewer countries fully implemented changes to achieve better PIM results.
- Regional average scores (Institutional design | Effectiveness):
  - Africa: 1.9 | 1.9
  - Asia and Pacific: 2.1 | 1.8
  - Europe: 1.8 | 1.8
  - Middle East and Central Asia: 1.5 | 1.7
  - Western Hemisphere: 1.8 | 1.6
- Income‑group average scores (Institutional design | Effectiveness):
  - Advanced economies: 2.3 | 1.9
  - Emerging market economies: 1.9 | 1.9
  - Low‑income developing countries: 2.2 | 1.7

### Country evidence and illustrative cases
- Results‑based management evidence (six‑country sample) shows a mix of “Not achieved,” “Partially achieved,” “Largely achieved,” and “Fully achieved” outcomes across targeted milestones and outcome indicators.
- Benin (2018 PIMA):
  - Public investment efficiency index: 0.47 in 2018; 0.58 in 2024.
  - Institutional reforms: Decree No. 2021‑586 and complementary PFM reforms (program budgeting 2022, accrual accounting, 2020 SOE law).
  - Sustained CD support and AFRITAC West collaboration were critical.
- Ghana (2016 PIMA; 2025 update):
  - Institutional design significantly strengthened since 2016; institutional effectiveness lagged and deteriorated in some areas (cost overruns, schedule delays, arrears).
  - Concentrated follow‑up CD needed for implementation.
- Cambodia (2019 PIMA; 2023 update):
  - Public investment efficiency index: 54 percent in 2020; 61 percent in 2023; reported improvement: 13 percent.
  - Reforms included fiscal rule, debt ceiling, capital expenditure ceilings, new SOPs for appraisal and selection, PPP law, and Public Investment Committee.
  - Sustained CD and resident PFM advisory support contributed to progress.
- United Kingdom (Box 8; 2025 National Infrastructure Strategy):
  - PIMA recommendations reflected in medium‑term infrastructure policy, 5‑year ministerial ceilings, published business cases, sectoral maintenance allocations (up to 10 years for social investment), procurement enhancements, and skills interventions.
  - By end of FY25, PIMA recommendations underpinned 84 structural benchmarks across 29 countries:
    - Planning: 33
    - Allocation: 24
    - Implementation: 15
    - Cross‑Cutting: 12
    - Total: 84

### Risks, sustainability conditions, and monitoring
- Critical enabling elements for sustainability: sound legal framework, modern IT systems, and adequate staff capacity (“crosscutting institutions”).
- Observations:
  - Many reforms not codified in primary legislation, posing a risk to durability.
  - High staff turnover and political instability are major risks to sustaining benefits.
  - Where reforms are anchored in primary legislation, benefits are more likely to endure.
- Progress tracking and follow‑on CD:
  - By end of FY25, 18 countries had completed an updated PIMA diagnostic.
  - Institutional design strengthened on average across planning, allocation, and delivery; institutional effectiveness improved planning and allocation but delivery declined slightly.
  - Recommendation: Systematic, transparent progress tracking; updated PIMAs should reconcile previous recommendations and action plans should be medium‑term and capacity‑aware.

### Recommended changes to the PIMA framework and Handbook
- Revise Handbook and framework to:
  - Update investment efficiency measures and the Investment and Capital Stock Dataset (current dataset relies on 2019 data and has not been updated since 2021).
  - Emphasize state‑owned enterprise investment through an expanded module.
  - Strengthen procurement and implementation analysis (e.g., focus on contract design).
  - Produce a second edition of the Handbook as a living document to refresh examples, correct minor errors, and refine methodologies.
- Operationalize recommendations:
  - Cap the number of recommendations in PIMA reports and provide sequencing/prioritization guidance tied to country capacity.
  - Prioritize follow‑on CD to support appraisal, project selection, financing, procurement, maintenance, and asset management.
  - Publish more granular findings and follow‑on CD updates on the Infrastructure Governance portal.
  - Explore AI opportunities with the Information Technology Department to improve mission delivery efficiency and consistency.

*Source: Internal Evaluation of Public Investment Management Assessment Capacity Development — Executive Summary (content provided from the document).*

### Executive Summary 3

### Executive Summary 3

### Evaluation Scope and Evidence Base
- Purpose: Evaluate the IMF’s Public Investment Management Assessment (PIMA) Capacity Development (CD) since its launch in 2015 through FY25 using the IMF’s Common Evaluation Framework and the OECD-DAC criteria: relevance, coherence, efficiency, effectiveness, impact, and sustainability.
- Inputs informing the assessment:
  - Evaluation sample analysis: Six countries that completed both an initial PIMA and an Update PIMA.
  - Descriptive data: Comprehensive data on the entire cohort of PIMA CD activities.
  - Expert interviews: Seven infrastructure governance specialists.
  - Management information: Data from Fiscal Affairs Department’s Capacity Development Management and Administration Program (CDMAP), including RBM indicators and follow-on CD details.
  - Additional sources: Information from the IMF’s Monitoring of Fund Arrangements database.

### Coverage and Evolution of PIMA CD
- Since launch in 2015 through FY25:
  - 102 countries completed PIMA assessments across all regions and income groups.
  - Country composition: 58 emerging market economies, 37 low-income developing countries, and 7 advanced economies.
- Milestones:
  - First PIMA mission: Mozambique in November 2015.
  - First edition of the PIMA Handbook: July 2022.
  - Climate module (C-PIMA) introduced in 2021 (C-PIMA is outside the scope of this evaluation).
  - First PIMA updates launched in FY23; by FY25, 18 countries had opted for updates—10 low-income developing countries and 8 emerging market economies.
- Mission cadence: PIMA missions declined during the COVID-19 pandemic, surged in FY23, then stabilized at lower levels in FY24 and FY25.

### Key Findings — Relevance and Coherence
- Overall judgment: PIMAs have made strong and sustained contributions across the six DAC criteria; PIMA CD is coherent and well aligned with recipient needs.
- Specific findings:
  - PIMA remains highly relevant to country needs and institutional priorities.
  - The diagnostic is generally well aligned with national infrastructure governance reform agendas.
  - Areas for methodological and scope enhancements to sustain impact:
    - Methodological improvements: Update and refine approaches for assessing public investment trends and efficiency.
    - Broader coverage: Expand the framework to include public investment by state-owned enterprises.
    - Investment implementation: Strengthen the focus on project execution and delivery.
  - Improved coordination and communication are needed with major development partners (World Bank, Asian Development Bank, Inter-American Development Bank) to avoid duplication and foster integrated action plans.

### Key Findings — Efficiency
- PIMA missions are delivered economically and efficiently, producing substantial outputs relative to size and cost.
- Operational improvements:
  - The PIMA Handbook (2022) standardized assessment ratings and report preparation, strengthening operational efficiency.
  - Fiscal Affairs Department should explore leveraging artificial intelligence (AI) with the Information Technology Department to further enhance delivery efficiency.

### Key Findings — Effectiveness, Sustainability, and Impact
- Overall effectiveness: PIMA is an effective CD tool with benefits likely to be sustained, though lasting success depends on broader reform conditions (political commitment, legal framework, staff capacity).
- Evidence:
  - Analysis of the evaluation sample shows most outcome and milestone indicators were fully or largely achieved.
  - Strong linkages exist between PIMA and IMF surveillance and lending functions.
  - Durable reform embedding requires legal incorporation of reforms and realistic medium-term action plans.
- Institutional design vs. effectiveness:
  - Countries typically score lower on infrastructure-specific governance areas (project selection, maintenance funding, project appraisal) compared with broader PFM systems, reflecting less mature infrastructure governance arrangements.

### Quantitative Assessment (Table ES.1 averages from internal evaluation)
- DAC criteria average scores (scale 1 = not met to 4 = fully met):
  - Relevance: 4.00
  - Coherence: 3.20
  - Efficiency: 3.00
  - Effectiveness: 3.17
  - Sustainability: 3.00
  - Impact: 2.67
  - Overall rating: 3.17
- Interpretation: Most criteria assessed as “fully met” or “mostly met,” with impact lower relative to other criteria.

### Strategic Recommendations (high level)
- Reaffirm PIMA as a core component of Fiscal Affairs Department public financial management CD.
- Expand coverage of public investment by state-owned enterprises, potentially via a new PIMA module. (DAC criteria implicated: Relevance, sustainability, impact)
- Redouble focus on follow-on CD to assist embedding reforms across countries. (DAC criteria implicated: Relevance, sustainability, impact)

### Operational Recommendations (prioritized actions)
- Methodology and data:
  - Review and update investment efficiency measurement methodology and update the IMF’s Investment and Capital Stock Dataset. (Relevance)
- Sharper mission outputs:
  - Limit number of recommendations; provide guidance on sequencing and prioritization while taking capacity and financial constraints into account. (Relevance, coherence, sustainability, impact)
- Enhanced reporting for updates:
  - Include a standard section in PIMA update reports that reconciles previous recommendations to track reform implementation progress over time. (Sustainability)
- Knowledge sharing:
  - Publish more detailed information on PIMA findings, follow-on CD activities, good-practice examples, and related resources on the IMF’s Infrastructure Governance portal. (Sustainability)
- Efficiency through technology:
  - Collaborate with the Information Technology Department to explore opportunities for enhancing efficiency through the use of AI. (Efficiency)

### Overall Conclusion
- PIMA CD has established itself as a unique and highly valued framework for improving public investment management across regions and income groups.
- With targeted methodological updates, broader scope (notably on state-owned enterprise investment), and stronger emphasis on follow-on implementation support, PIMA is well positioned to deepen its impact and remain a leading global standard for assessing and improving infrastructure governance.

*Source: Internal Evaluation of Public Investment Management Assessment Capacity Development — Executive Summary (content provided from the document).*

### 9. Maintenance funding

### 9. Maintenance funding

### Ranking of Effectiveness Scores
- Figure shows relative effectiveness ranking across PIMA institutions and phases (Planning | Allocation | Implementation).
- Top-ranked items in one ordering: 10. Project selection; 6. Multiyear budgeting; 9. Maintenance funding; 15. Monitoring of public assets; 4. Project appraisal; 13. Portfolio management and oversight; 5. Alternative infrastructure financing; 14. Management of project implementation; 2. National and sectoral planning; 3. Coordination between entities; 11. Procurement; 1. Fiscal targets and rules; 8. Budgeting for investment; 7. Budget comprehensiveness and unity; 12. Availability of funding.
- Source: IMF staff calculations based on PIMA reports.

### Methodology for the Evaluation
- Combined quantitative and qualitative methods in line with the IMF’s Common Evaluation Framework.
- Three main components:
  - (1) deep analysis of an evaluation sample of six countries;
  - (2) expert interviews covering the full cohort of PIMAs since 2015;
  - (3) desk-based research using descriptive data and information from the RBM framework, CDMAP, and other IMF data sources.
- For the six-country sample:
  - Structured assessment of PIMA CD performance assigning numerical ratings for each DAC criterion.
  - Complemented by qualitative insights from interviews with seven infrastructure governance advisors.
  - Countries chosen had both an initial and an updated PIMA to enable comparisons over time.
- Standardized four-point scale applied using performance labels: “not met,” “partially met,” “mostly met,” and “fully met.”
- Numerical ratings complemented by documentary analysis and expert interviews.

### Findings on Institutional Design vs. Effectiveness
- Evaluation highlights a persistent gap between institutional design and implementation:
  - Institutional frameworks often updated, but fewer countries have fully implemented changes to achieve better PIM results.
- Regional average scores (Institutional design | Effectiveness):
  - Africa: 1.9 | 1.9
  - Asia and Pacific: 2.1 | 1.8
  - Europe: 1.8 | 1.8
  - Middle East and Central Asia: 1.5 | 1.7
  - Western Hemisphere: 1.8 | 1.6
- Income-group average scores (Institutional design | Effectiveness):
  - Advanced economies: 2.3 | 1.9
  - Emerging market economies: 1.9 | 1.9
  - Low-income developing countries: 2.2 | 1.7
  - (Note: figure labels presented as these averages in source.)
- Source: IMF staff calculations based on PIMA reports.
- Note: PIMA = Public Investment Management Assessment.

### Relevance and Coherence
- Overall conclusion: PIMA’s relevance and coherence are very strong, with some scope for improvement.
- Relevance: Rated “Fully Met”
  - PIMA effectively identifies institutional priorities, PIM gaps, and country-specific needs.
  - PIMA CD responded to gaps identified by national authorities; reports described as clear, comprehensive, and relatively easy to understand.
  - PIMA aligned with IMF priorities, reinforcing surveillance and lending objectives and supporting program implementation.
  - PIMA informed structural benchmarks and follow-on CD contributed to meeting conditions under IMF-supported programs.
  - PIMA acted as a catalyst for medium-term reform programs; provided detailed analyses and actionable insights; supported benchmarking against international practices.
  - One country quote: “PIMA is a much more detailed drill-down assessment than public expenditure and financial accountability. More detailed recommendations and actions are likely to be generated by the PIMA report” (Ministry of Finance of Georgia 2023).
  - Delivery modalities included RTACs and remote and in-person short-term expert missions.
- Three areas to strengthen relevance:
  - Update and improve measures of public investment trends and efficiency:
    - IMF’s Investment and Capital Stock Dataset has not been updated since 2021 and still relies on 2019 data.
    - Some reports used broader sources ad hoc; recommendation to review methodologies and update the database promptly.
  - Strengthen focus on state-owned enterprise public investment:
    - Current PIMA primarily focuses on governance of budget-funded investment; case to broaden coverage, potentially via a dedicated module like C-PIMA.
  - Enhance assessment of procurement and implementation practices:
    - Implementation-phase assessment is more basic; need to strengthen evaluation of procurement, contract management, governance and accountability for project delivery, and risk management.
- Coherence: Rated “Mostly Met”
  - PIMA CD is closely integrated with other IMF CD initiatives; shows strong complementarity and minimal overlap.
  - Evidence of coordination with RTACs and development partners (World Bank, Asian Development Bank, Inter‑American Development Bank).
  - Examples: donor coordination frameworks, RTAC support for PIM information systems, World Bank development of PIM methodology integrated into FMIS.
- Two opportunities to strengthen coherence:
  - Strengthen action plans for greater collaboration and coherence:
    - Some PIMAs contain extensive recommendations that overlap with or diverge from donor support; follow-up should better align with existing donor interventions and clarify roles, prioritization, and sequencing.
  - Ensure consistent communication and collaboration:
    - Need for deliberate and systematic collaboration on infrastructure governance CD to become standard practice.

### Efficiency
- Overall assessment: “Mostly Met”
- Box 2 evaluation questions: outputs, cost-efficiency, timeliness and management.
- Key efficiency findings:
  - PIMA CD delivered efficiently and cost-effectively; outputs produced on time; missions well managed.
  - Pace of authorities’ responses depends on political climate.
  - By end of FY25, 102 PIMAs completed.
    - Of these: 57 percent in emerging market economies; 36 percent in low-income developing countries; 7 percent in advanced economies.
  - Missions typically last about 14 days with an average team size of 6.1 (including World Bank colleagues who may not contribute to the formal report).
  - Combined PIMA and C-PIMA missions increased productivity; outputs expanded faster than inputs following the addition of the climate module.
- PIMA outputs delivered as part of reports:
  - Sequenced Recommendations and Action Plan
  - Heatmap of Findings
  - Comparator Charts
  - Detailed Assessment Report
- The PIMA Handbook (published 2022) improved efficiency by standardizing institutional ratings and report preparation:
  - Provides clear rating criteria and benchmarking guidance.
  - Structure: 15 institutions grouped into three phases, plus crosscutting enablers (IT systems, staff capacity, legal framework).
  - Offers good-practice examples, stakeholder engagement road map, data collection, and report preparation guidance.
  - Since 2022, Handbook improved consistency and quality; also served as blueprint for development of the C-PIMA Handbook (IMF 2025).
- Artificial intelligence potential:
  - AI could enhance efficiency and consistency by streamlining assessment of institutional design, identifying good country practice examples, and accelerating diagnostics.
  - Recommendation: Fiscal Affairs Department should collaborate with the Information Technology Department to explore AI integration for faster, more consistent, and cost-effective CD delivery.

### Effectiveness, Sustainability, and Impact
- Evaluation conclusion: Benefits of PIMA expected to endure and continue delivering positive impact over time.
- The report sets out detailed findings on effectiveness, sustainability, and impact in subsequent sections (guiding questions presented in Box 4 in the source).

*Source: Internal Evaluation of Public Investment Management Assessment Capacity Development, IMF staff calculations based on PIMA reports.*

### Box 4. Evaluation Questions for Effectiveness, Sustainability, and Impact

### Box 4. Evaluation Questions for Effectiveness, Sustainability, and Impact

### Evaluative questions and key results
- Key results: What have been the main outcomes from PIMA missions to date?
- Achievement of targets: To what extent has the PIMA process delivered the results envisioned at the outset?
- Support for reforms: How far has PIMA contributed to strengthening public investment management systems?
- Effectiveness of advice: Which aspects of PIMA guidance have been most effective, and which have been least?
- Impact on macro factors: What changes resulting from PIMA may have influenced macroeconomic success factors?
- Sustainability: Are PIMA results being maintained, and to what degree does sustainability depend on follow-up actions by the IMF or other development partners?
- Source for the questions: Inception Report.

### Effectiveness — assessment headline
- Overall finding: Effectiveness: Mostly Met
- Summary conclusion: The evaluation concludes that PIMA CD has largely achieved its intended objectives and delivered expected results.
- Evidence base: Evaluation sample analysis, full cohort analysis, logframe analysis for sample countries, interviews with country authorities and area departments, and documentation reviews.
- General conclusion across cases: PIMA CD objectives were found to be substantially met.

### Results-based management evidence (sample country findings)
- Table 1 summaries (selected findings and assessments as reported in the source):
  - Country 1
    - Outcome: Project proposals are subject to systematic project appraisal; Effective oversight of implementation of the entire public investment portfolio.
    - Milestones: 2017 PIMA is updated (two milestones noted).
    - Assessments: 3: Largely achieved; 2: Partially achieved; 4: Fully achieved; 4: Fully achieved.
  - Country 2
    - Outcome: Availability, adoption, and reporting of fiscal strategy; Medium-term perspective in budget framework.
    - Milestones: Ministry of Economy and Finance staff trained on macrofiscal function; A fully developed medium-term fiscal framework implemented; Institutional review/gap analysis achieved; Fiscal risk statement produced; Individual capital projects better identified; Medium-term budget framework piloted in a few ministries.
    - Assessments: 1: Not achieved (ongoing); 4: Fully achieved; 4: Fully achieved; 4: Fully achieved; 4: Fully achieved; 4: Fully achieved.
  - Country 3
    - Outcome: Sectoral and intersectoral strategies guide investment allocation decisions.
    - Outcome indicator: Only projects identified and costed in strategic planning compete for budget allocations.
    - Milestones: A mission to update the 2018 PIMA is delivered.
    - Assessments: 1: Not achieved; 4: Fully achieved.
  - Country 4
    - Outcome: Capacity to plan, implement, and sustain infrastructure governance reforms is enhanced.
    - Outcome indicator and milestone: Diagnostic infrastructure governance framework with climate component (PIMA or C-PIMA) finalized.
    - Assessments: 4: Fully achieved; 4: Fully achieved.
  - Country 5
    - Outcomes: Public investments are allocated to the right sectors and projects.
    - Outcome indicators and milestones: Medium-term projections of capital spending prepared on a full cost basis; Investment projects protected during budget implementation; Capital and recurrent spending undertaken through the budget process; Estimation of expropriation costs decentralized; In-year budget transfers from capital to current expenditure restricted; Multiannual commitment data available to budget department.
    - Assessments: 4: Fully achieved; 4: Fully achieved; 4: Fully achieved; 1: Fully achieved; 2: Partially achieved; 1: Not achieved (ongoing).
  - Country 6
    - Outcome indicator: Appraisal, selection, and implementation of public investments are improved.
    - Milestones: New projects separated from ongoing projects; Impose moratorium on build-transfer-operate projects; All projects consolidated in the budget for approval; New budget process requiring appraisal before inclusion in budget proposal.
    - Assessments: 4: Fully achieved; 3: Largely achieved; 3: Largely achieved; 4: Fully achieved.
- Note: C-PIMA = Climate-Public Investment Management Assessment; CDMAP = Capacity Development Management and Administration Program; PIMA = Public Investment Management Assessment.
- Country evidence has been anonymized in the source.

### Effectiveness — supplementary country evidence
- Broader cases reinforce PIMA’s role in driving reforms, though effectiveness varies:
  - Benin (2018 PIMA): catalyzed a series of reforms that strengthened investment efficiency (see Box 5).
  - Ghana (2016 PIMA): triggered extended reform period with significant institutional design improvements; gains in effectiveness have not kept pace with design enhancements (see Box 6).

### Country case: Benin (Effectiveness)
- Key outcome: Benin’s 2018 PIMA highly effective in driving reforms that strengthened public investment management and improved efficiency.
- Public investment efficiency index:
  - 0.47 in 2018 (near sub-Saharan Africa average of 0.46)
  - 0.58 in 2024 (surpassing the regional average and approaching the global benchmark of 0.62)
- Institutional and regulatory reforms:
  - Adoption of Decree No. 2021-586 establishing a coherent national public investment management framework for appraisal, selection, and monitoring.
  - Complementary public financial management reforms: program budgeting (2022), accrual-based accounting, and a 2020 state-owned enterprise law.
- Governance and transparency improvements:
  - Stronger central-local and state-owned enterprise alignment; regular fiscal risk analyses; greater procurement openness and competition; more comprehensive capital budgeting.
- Implementation support: Sustained capacity development support, including follow-up technical assistance from IMF headquarters and collaboration with AFRITAC West, was critical.

### Sustainability — assessment headline
- Overall finding: Sustainability: Mostly Met
- Summary conclusion: Benefits of PIMA are likely to endure provided risks are effectively managed.
- Rationale: Balance between notable implementation progress and internal/external risks; sustaining reforms hinges on mitigating these risks.
- Role of PIMA reports: Establish a clear baseline that anchors subsequent reforms and strengthens long-term impact.

### Sustainability — measured outcomes and trends
- By end of FY25, 18 countries had completed an updated PIMA diagnostic.
- Observed institutional changes (reported in Figure 10; source: staff analysis of PIMA database):
  - On average, institutional design strengthened across planning, allocation, and delivery (Figure 10, panel 1).
  - Institutional effectiveness improved planning and allocation, though delivery declined slightly (Figure 10, panel 2).
  - The reported results likely understate progress because updated assessments used the more rigorous framework introduced in the PIMA Handbook with explicit scoring thresholds and stricter evaluation criteria from 2021.

### Country case: Ghana (Varying improvements)
- Ghana’s 2025 PIMA update:
  - Confirmed major reforms in PIM institutional design since 2016 (new PIM regulations, formal procedures for project preparation, strengthened project assurance and approval structures, detailed investment appraisal guidelines, measures to enhance project and portfolio management).
  - Institutional design: significantly stronger than previous assessment.
  - Institutional effectiveness: lagged and even deteriorated in some areas due to limited implementation of the PIM framework (cost overruns, schedule delays, arrears on key projects).
- Implication: Full implementation of the PIM framework could resolve most issues; concentrated capacity development is needed for follow-through.

### Conditions and risks for sustaining PIMA benefits
- Enabling environment elements critical for sustainability:
  - Sound legal framework, modern information technology (IT) systems, and adequate staff capacity (referred to as “crosscutting institutions” in the PIMA framework).
- Observations:
  - Reforms often focus on new/amended PIM laws and IT system upgrades.
  - Strengthening staff capacity remains a priority; high turnover poses challenges.
  - Designing these elements does not guarantee successful implementation, limiting enabling impact.
- Legal anchoring:
  - PIMA benefits more likely to endure when reforms are anchored in primary legislation.
  - Case studies found many improvements were not codified in primary law (e.g., prohibiting new extrabudgetary funds, requiring project appraisals), which authorities and area departments viewed as a key risk.
- Political risks:
  - Political instability and weak leadership are the greatest risks to sustaining benefits.
  - Political shifts after a PIMA have in some cases led to setbacks (e.g., transferring planning responsibilities from the finance ministry to the presidency), undermining efficient investment management.
- PIMA as catalyst:
  - PIMA reports often trigger follow-on work (analytical studies, institutional changes such as creating a dedicated PIM unit or drafting new public investment legislation).
  - Cambodia (Box 7) illustrates how a PIMA led to a sustained reform program.

### Country case: Cambodia (Sustainability)
- Cambodia’s 2019 PIMA sparked a sustained reform program; the 2023 PIMA update confirms clear improvements in institutional strength and effectiveness.
- Reform measures:
  - Introduced a fiscal rule and debt ceiling; enhanced medium-term fiscal framework; set capital expenditure ceilings.
  - Reinforced regulatory framework for project appraisal and selection via government subdecree and new standard operating procedures.
  - Adopted a public–private partnership law; created a dedicated public–private partnership department; established a Public Investment Committee.
- Public investment efficiency index:
  - 54 percent in 2020
  - 61 percent in 2023
  - Reported improvement: 13 percent
- Capacity development support:
  - IMF Fiscal Affairs Department CD, including a resident public financial management advisor, follow-up headquarters and short-term expert missions, and collaboration with IMF Capacity Development Office in Thailand and the World Bank.

### Recommendations to enhance sustainability (evaluation highlights)
- Streamline recommendations for clarity and feasibility:
  - Many PIMA reports contain an excessive number of recommendations and subrecommendations, often not reconciled between original and updated PIMAs.
  - Updates should assess progress with earlier recommendations; action plans should adopt a medium-term focus.
  - Reports should cap recommendations based on the country’s capacity and clearly flag institutionally challenging items.
- PIMA Handbook guidance:
  - Should provide clearer guidance on recommendations; current guidance is broad with no limits on number or standards for clarity and harmonization.
  - Fewer, more targeted recommendations could help authorities design effective reform programs.
- Prioritize follow-on capacity development (CD):
  - CD support is critical for implementing PIMA recommendations and improving infrastructure governance (appraisal, project selection, financing, procurement, maintenance, asset management).
  - Interviews confirm follow-on CD has been pivotal; greater emphasis on CD is warranted given the extensive diagnostics already completed.
- Systematic and transparent progress tracking:
  - Progress tracking should become systematic and transparent.
  - Although the Fiscal Affairs Department tracks some PIMA-related reforms, resource constraints limit monitoring of individual recommendations.
  - Updated PIMAs should consistently report progress, and the Infrastructure Governance portal should be regularly refreshed with good-practice examples to foster learning and implementation.

### Impact — assessment headline
- Overall finding: Impact: Mostly Met
- Scope: The extent to which PIMA intervention has generated or is expected to generate significant positive or negative effects, intended or unintended.
- Summary conclusion: PIMA CD has significantly advanced Fiscal Affairs Department goals in improving infrastructure governance and public investment efficiency.

### Impact — stated goals advanced by PIMA CD
- Enhancing investment efficiency through:
  - Better national and sectoral planning
  - More effective procurement
  - Stronger portfolio and project management
- Aligning investment decisions with debt sustainability by:
  - Reinforcing fiscal rules
  - Strengthening institutions for multiyear budgeting, funding availability, and investment budgeting
- Raising awareness and disseminating good practices through:
  - Improved governance for alternative financing
  - Better project appraisal and selection methods

### Broader impact evidence
- Country cases beyond the evaluation sample (e.g., the United Kingdom) illustrate the impact of PIMA CD.

*Source: Inception Report; IMF staff analysis.*

### Box 8. Impact Country Case Study: United Kingdom

### Box 8. Impact Country Case Study: United Kingdom

### Overview: 2025 National Infrastructure Strategy and PIMA alignment
- The UK’s 2025 National Infrastructure Strategy implements key Public Investment Management Assessment (PIMA) recommendations through comprehensive governance reforms.
- Strategy measures include medium-term infrastructure policy and investment budgets and measures to boost transparency, streamline delivery, manage risk, and strengthen links between infrastructure development and spatial planning.

### Social infrastructure and planning horizon
- A major PIMA recommendation to broaden infrastructure planning to include social investment has been adopted.
- For the first time, the strategy covers housing, schools, health care facilities, and prisons, supported by a “social infrastructure roadmap” to improve governance, prioritize maintenance, and enhance quality over the next decade.
- The strategy extends the planning horizon for public investment in line with PIMA guidance:
  - Includes 5-year ceilings for ministerial allocations.
  - Includes longer-term allocations for major projects in some cases, replacing the previous 3-year spending review cycle.

### Targeted measures addressing PIMA findings
- Published business cases for major projects and programs.
- Introduced sectoral maintenance allocations—up to 10 years for social investment—to address a key PIMA-identified weakness.
- Analyzed construction skills gaps and funded training and apprenticeships to tackle supply-side constraints.
- Enhanced procurement processes to improve delivery and support the construction industry.
- Tightened investment approval to prevent premature project initiation.

### PIMA capacity development (CD) outcomes and sustainability challenges
- Original PIMAs, supported by follow-on CD, delivered positive results but face sustainability challenges.
- Examples of positive results:
  - Using a structural benchmark to dissolve most extra-budgetary funds and integrate them into the budget.
  - Delivering targeted CD on Public–Private Partnerships that authorities found highly beneficial.
- Constraints and risks undermining gains:
  - Weak implementation of institutional design changes (for example, public–private partnership laws or upgraded PFM Acts).
  - Risks of overreach and inadequate preparation.
  - High staff turnover eroding PIM capacity.
  - Political shifts and country-specific challenges.

### Influence on IMF surveillance and lending; PIMA structural benchmarks
- PIMAs have significantly influenced IMF surveillance and lending by shaping policy advice and program design.
- PIMA tool has been closely integrated with Article IV consultations and lending programs.
- By the end of FY25, PIMA recommendations underpinned 84 structural benchmarks across 29 countries.
- Table of PIMA Structural Benchmarks Informed by PIMA across the Investment Life Cycle:
  - Planning: 33
  - Allocation: 24
  - Implementation: 15
  - Cross-Cutting: 12
  - Total: 84

### Risks to long-term impact and analytic integration issues
- Evaluation-identified risks that could undermine long-term PIMA CD impact:
  - Uncertainty over renewing Resident Advisor support in one case study country.
  - Economic downturns (for example, end of a commodity boom) reducing resources for public investment.
  - Political changes that weakened progress on PIM reforms.
- Insufficient linkage between sectoral (Sections I and II) and institutional (Section III) analysis reduces PIMA impact; greater integration would clarify how institutional performance influences sector outcomes over time.

### PIMA Handbook status and recommended updates
- The PIMA Handbook remains valuable but requires updates to improve accuracy and relevance.
- Expert-identified issues:
  - Outdated examples and case studies.
  - Minor errors and areas for methodological refinement.
  - Procurement analysis (Institution 11) should emphasize contract design rather than procedural compliance.
  - Sections on infrastructure governance reforms would benefit from refreshed country examples.
- Recommendation: Fiscal Affairs Department should produce a second edition of the Handbook—intended as a living document—to address these issues.

### Recommended changes to the PIMA framework (to enhance impact and sustainability)
- Refine recommendations to make them clearer, more actionable, and better communicated.
- Expand focus on state-owned enterprises’ investment to address its macrocritical role in public investment.
- Renew emphasis on follow-on CD to ensure continuity and deeper engagement after initial PIMA missions.

### Lessons learned: Evaluation findings (DAC criteria and numerical assessment scores)
- Relevance — Evaluation Finding — Fully Met
  - Close alignment of PIMA results with authorities’ PIM reform priorities (numerical assessment average score 4.0).
- Coherence — Evaluation Finding — Mostly Met
  - PIMA CD closely aligned and compatible with non-PIMA IMF CD and other development partners’ CD (numerical assessment average score 3.2).
- Efficiency — Evaluation Finding — Mostly Met
  - Results delivered economically and timely; downward trend in mission team size suggests higher efficiency for recent PIMAs (numerical assessment average score 3.2).
- Effectiveness — Evaluation Finding — Mostly Met
  - Largely successful in achieving most objectives in country cases (numerical assessment average score 3.2), supported by RBM data.
- Sustainability — Evaluation Finding — Mostly Met
  - Good likelihood of net benefits being sustained over the medium term and potentially longer term (numerical assessment average score 3).
- Impact — Evaluation Finding — Mostly Met
  - Good likelihood of a positive continuing effect on sustained improvements in public investment efficiency in country cases (numerical assessment average score 2.7).
- Overall: PIMA CD has driven significant improvements in infrastructure governance, but targeted strategic and operational actions are needed to strengthen sustainability and effectiveness.

### Strategic and operational recommendations (summary of Tables 4 and 5)
- Strategic issues and recommendations:
  - State-owned enterprise investment remains unaddressed despite macrocritical importance: Expand coverage of state-owned enterprise public investment, potentially through a new PIMA module.
  - Impact has been more apparent in institutional design than institutional effectiveness: Build on diagnostics by redoubling follow-on CD efforts to embed reforms.
- Operational issues and recommendations:
  - Comparative efficiency measures for public investment are outdated: Review and update the investment efficiency measurement methodology and update the IMF’s Investment and Capital Stock Dataset.
  - PIMA reports often include too many recommendations: Make recommendations more targeted, set a maximum number, and provide guidance on sequencing and capacity alignment.
  - Lack of reconciliation between original and updated PIMA recommendations hampers progress tracking: Introduce a standard section in PIMA updates to reconcile previous recommendations and track reform implementation.
  - Monitoring and reporting on PIMA progress is too aggregated on the Infrastructure Governance portal: Publish more detailed findings, follow-on CD updates, good-practice examples, and resources on the portal.
  - Opportunities for efficiency gains through technology: Collaborate with the Information Technology Department to explore AI solutions for improving mission delivery efficiency.

*Source: Internal Evaluation of Public Investment Management Assessment Capacity Development, Box 8.*

---


_Source: https://www.imf.org/-/media/files/publications/tnm/2026/english/tnmea2026007.pdf_