This presentation was made by Marine Camiade, France, at the 12th Annual Meeting of OECD-Asian Senior Budget Officials held in Bangkok, Thailand, on 15-16 December 2016

1. France’s performance framework: lessons
learned and perspectives
OECD
Bangkok, December 15th 2016
Marine CAMIADE, deputy director of the French budget
directorate, Ministry of Economy and Finances

2. 2
1. Characteristics of the new framework
 A budget framework organized according to the main public policies
 A results-oriented budget
 New chain of responsibilities
2. Impact of the performance framework
 In the Parliament
 Inside the Government and the administration
3. Ways of improvement
Summary

3. 3
Before 2001
A budget framework organized according to the main public policies
31 missions
122 programmes
according to the main public policies
The framework set up in 2001
30 ministries
850 chapters
according to the nature of appropriations

4. 4
12 décembre 2016
Example : mission Justice
A budget framework organized according to the main public policies
Judicial system
Before: 30 chapters
- Staff expenditure
- Social contributions
- Staff allowances
-Operating expenditure
-Real estate cost
-IT cost
-Procurements...
- Capital expenditure for prisons
- Capital expenditure for the
judicial system
- Subsidies to associations
-Subsidies to the judicial training
college
-Legal aid
-…
Judicial system
Prisons
Legal protection for under 18s
Access to justice and legal aid
Support for judicial policy and
related organisations
After: 5 programmes

5. 5
12 décembre 2016
■ Zero-base budgeting (“first-Euro
justification of appropriations”)
■ Performance targets and indicators
■ Cost analysis of actions
■ More autonomy given to managers
⇨ “asymmetric fungibility”
■ Presentation of achievements
A results-oriented budget
Set up in the
annual budget bill in
october
(blue documents)
Execution -
Management
Reporting (red
documents attached to
the budget review act)

6. 6
12/12/2016
The blue (october) and the red (april) documents

7. 7
12 décembre 2016
A results-oriented budget : performance objectives and indicators
Mission
Programme Programme Programme
Action ActionAction
The new budget structure
384 objectives
756 indicators
80 objectives
et 90 indicators

8. 8A results oriented budget : 846 indicators
SOCIAL-ECONOMIC EFFECTIVENESS (citizens’
view)
• Healthcare
• Security
• Economic development
• For example, for justice : rate of recidivism/reoffending
SERVICE QUALITY (users’ view)
•Wait time : For example : wait time to get a judgement
•Satisfaction rate
•Accessibility
EFFICIENCY (taxpayers’ view)
• Productivity. For example : number of cases dealt with on
average by a judge.
• Unit cost.
• Administrative charges (IT, real estate, procurements…)
46%
35%
19%

9. 9A new chain of responsibilities
Parliament
National
audit office
Government

10. 10
1. Characteristics of the new framework
 A budget framework organized according to the main public policies
 A results oriented budget
 New chain of responsibilities
2. Impact of the performance framework
 In the Parliament
 Inside the Government and the administration
3. Ways of improvement
Summary

11. 11Impact - In the Parliament
Strenghts
 The performance framework
and the budget
documentation are heavy :
 more than 10 000 pages
 more than 700 indicators
 heavy to produce
 sometimes too technical
and difficult to understand
 Even if poor results are
obvious, it is difficult to
determine the right response
(do you have to increase means
or on the contrary to reduce
them ?)
 Finally, performance results
are not much used in the
discussion in the Parliament
and there is no direct link
between them and budgeting.
 Twice a year, the Parliament
receives a comprehensive
documentation for each public
policy with :
 A “zero base” justification of
appropriations
 Performance objectives and
indicators :
 Targets in october
 Outturn in april
 The quality and accuracy of this
documentation is verified :
 By the budget directorate
 By the national audit office
that, each year,
 produces a budgetary
implementation report
 certifies accrual
accounts.
Limits

12. 12Impact– In the Administration
Strenghts
 It is sometimes difficult to
determine who is responsible for
a public policy when it implies
various actors/partners.
 Little interest of Parliament for
public managers’action and
results
 Few levers to boost public
employees’productivity
 Performance based
remuneration is barely
developed (between 0 and 10
% for high civil servants ;
none for other public
employees)
 Automatic career
advancement system
(connected to seniority only)
 It is important to develop non
financial recognition and
encouragement.
 The performance framework reaches
all levels of administration, including
operational units all over the
territory
 Performance indicators are used to
monitorate local operational
services
 They can help to determine the
distribution of staff or
appropriations between different
operational units
 They can be used in the
management of high civil servants
 Performance indicators are used
in order to set
managers’objectives
Limits

13. 13
1. Characteristics of the new framework
 A budget framework organized according to the main public policies
 A results oriented budget
 New chain of responsibilities
2. Impact of the performance framework
 In the Parliament
 Inside the Government and the administration
3. Ways of improvement
Summary

14. 14Two main ways of improvement
Make our framework :
12/12/2016
1- More
comprehensive =
covering all
public spending
2-Simple and
understandable
for MPs and
citizens

15. 15
central
government
26 %
state
agencies
6 %
local
authorities
20 %
social security
system
48 %
1- Make our framework more comprehensive
12/12/2016
French public spending is split into numerous
actors

16. 161- Make our framework more comprehensive
Harmonizing budget frameworks and
sharing fiscal rules
2001
Central
government
and state
agencies
2005
Social
security
2012
Local
Authorities
12/12/2016
2012 : new
fiscal rule
(Golden rule)

17. 172- Make the framework simple
■ Streamlining the framework
For the central government for example :
– Reducing the number of programmes : by 10 % over the past 10 years
– Reducing the number of indicators : by a half over the past 10 years
– should performance indicators cover all programs equally or should we take into
account some criteria
 Budgetary stake ;
 Ability to quantify the notion of « performance »?
■ Strenghtening the link with government priorities
– A dashboard of 10 key national indicators was set up and published for the first time last
september
■ Improving the communication on performance
– A synthesis that focuses on the main results is published every year with the budget review
act, since last year
12/12/2016

18. 18Conclusion
■ No direct link between performance and budgeting
■ But performance information is necessary
■ One tool can’t do everything : performance framework
should be simple, comprehensive and accompanied by
– Deeper spending reviews
– Binding fiscal rules
THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION
12/12/2016