Bulgaria - Resourcing the Judiciary for Performance and Accountability : A Judicial Public Expenditure and Institutional Review
Author(s)
World BankKeywords
INTEGRITYCONTRACT ENFORCEMENT
ACCOUNTING
PERSONNEL EXPENDITURES
GOVERNMENT EXPENDITURES
PUBLIC EMPLOYEES
CENTRAL BUDGET
DISTRICT COURTS
JUDICIAL DISTRICT
CLAIM
MEDIATION
PUBLIC FINANCE
ANNUAL BUDGET
COURT STAFF
BUDGET FORMULATION
BUDGETARY MANAGEMENT
PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT
JUDICIAL BRANCH
FISCAL PROGRAM
QUANTITATIVE INDICATORS
MINISTERS
ACCESS TO JUSTICE
JUDICIAL RESOURCE
ADMINISTRATIVE COURTS
CRIMINAL
SERVICE DEMAND
BAILIFFS
PERFORMANCE GOALS
SERVICE PROVISION
JUDICIAL COUNCIL
LITIGATION
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
JUDGE
PROSECUTOR
CAPITAL EXPENDITURE
BUDGET REQUESTS
COURT SYSTEM
INDEPENDENT JUDICIARY
GOVERNMENT SPENDING
DISPOSITION
CAPITAL PROJECTS
EXPENDITURE CATEGORIES
INITIATIVE
BUDGET FRAMEWORK
MEDIA
COURT PERFORMANCE
JUDICIARY
PERFORMANCE FRAMEWORK
PERFORMANCE EVALUATION
REFORM EFFORTS
JUDICIAL POWER
CONTRACT MANAGEMENT
PUBLIC EXPENDITURES
POVERTY REDUCTION
SMALL DEBTORS
PERFORMANCE REVIEW
CRIME
JUDICIAL SERVICES
LEGAL AUTHORITY
ACCESS TO COURTS
JUDICIAL CORRUPTION
PROCUREMENT
NATIONAL AUDIT
ASSETS
BUDGET PREPARATION
BUDGET ALLOCATIONS
FISCAL SUSTAINABILITY
BUSINESS REGULATIONS
JURISPRUDENCE
RESOURCE ALLOCATION
CAPITAL SPENDING
FINANCIAL FLOWS
LAWYERS
BUDGET PROPOSAL
FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS
PROSECUTION
CREDIBILITY
COURT DECISION
PUBLIC FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS
CASE BACKLOG
JUDICIAL AUTHORITIES
MILITARY COURTS
NEGOTIATIONS
PERFORMANCE INDICATORS
JUDICIAL INFRASTRUCTURE
PERSONNEL EXPENDITURE
JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE
JUDICIAL BRANCHES
BUDGETARY FUNDS
HUMAN RIGHTS
CRIMINAL CASES
COMPLAINTS
PUBLIC FUNDING
BUDGET ENVELOPE
LEGAL POWERS
PROSECUTORS
ETHICS
CAPITAL BUDGET
BUDGET ALLOCATION
RESOURCE ALLOCATIONS
LEADERSHIP
BUDGET PROCESS
IMMOVABLE PROPERTY
PERFORMANCE IMPROVEMENT
NATIONAL BUDGET
UNCERTAINTY
TRIAL
DISCRETION
JUDICIAL EFFICIENCY
APPROPRIATIONS
JUDICIAL RESOURCES
STATE BUDGET
COST PER CASE
BUDGETARY AUTHORITY
LAWS
MAGISTRATES
CAPACITY CONSTRAINTS
INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS
JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS
REPO
BUDGETARY ACCOUNTS
JUDICIAL POSITIONS
PUBLIC SERVICE
RESOURCE ALLOCATION PROCESS
ACCOUNTABILITY FOR PERFORMANCE
LEGAL AID
ESTATE
FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT
PUBLIC SECTOR
FINANCIAL RESOURCES
POLICE
PERFORMANCE MONITORING
BUDGET REQUEST
BUDGETARY RESOURCES
CASH MANAGEMENT
JUDICIAL STATISTICS
CONVICTIONS
TRANSPARENCY
JUDICIAL SYSTEM
MOVABLE ASSETS
CAPITAL INVESTMENT
PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT FRAMEWORK
ALLOCATION OF RESOURCES
DEBT COLLECTION
MINISTER
JUDICIAL COUNCILS
BUDGET CIRCULARS
CORRUPTION
RECEIVABLE
RECURRENT COSTS
COURT RULINGS
FISCAL DISCIPLINE
MEMBER COUNTRIES
EFFICIENCY GAINS
INSTITUTIONAL ARRANGEMENTS
JUSTICE SYSTEM
JUDICIAL STAFF
BUDGET NEGOTIATIONS
APPROPRIATION
SALARY
PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT
AUTHORIZED BUDGET
JUDICIAL REFORM
DEBT
STATE EXPENDITURE
PERFORMANCE INFORMATION
QUANTITATIVE DATA
JUDICIAL SECTOR
ADJUDICATION
BUDGET IMPLEMENTATION
FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT SYSTEM
JUDICIAL GOVERNANCE
JUDGES
PENSION LIABILITIES
JUDICIAL PERSONNEL
JUDICIAL DECISIONS
COMMERCIAL DEBTS
PUBLIC FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT SYSTEM
RESOURCE MANAGEMENT
LEGAL PRACTICE
JUDICIAL ACCOUNTABILITY
JUDICIAL PROCESS
JUDICIAL BODIES
CENTRAL CONTROL
DATA COLLECTION
PUBLIC EXPENDITURE
CIVIL PROCEDURE
SEPARATION OF POWERS
COMMERCIAL DISPUTE
BUDGET CONSTRAINT
ARTICLE
PRIVATE SECTOR
COMPLAINT
AUDIT OFFICE
JUDICIAL INDEPENDENCE
CAPACITY BUILDING
JUDICIAL PROCESSES
PUBLIC FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT
INVESTIGATION
CAPITAL ALLOCATIONS
CONFIDENCE
INVESTIGATORS
BUDGET EXECUTION
SALARIES
JUSTICE
CIVIL SOCIETY
CATEGORIES OF EXPENDITURE
EXPENDITURE DATA
INSTITUTIONAL REFORMS
DEBTS
SECTOR POLICIES
JUDICIAL REFORMS
BUDGETARY DATA
INSTITUTIONAL ENVIRONMENT
CAPITAL EXPENDITURES
Full record
Show full item recordOnline Access
http://hdl.handle.net/10986/8076Abstract
This report examines why, given the increasing resources allocated to the judiciary, there seem to have been only modest improvements in judicial performance. It lifts the veil on the conflicting opinions on the reasons for slow progress on performance and efficiency by analyzing the institutional environment within which the judiciary functions and the key incentives propelling the policy stances and actions of major institutional actors. A supply-demand approach is then used to review the challenges behind improving judicial performance, focusing on resource allocation and management issues on the supply side and on case inflow on the demand side. This perspective enables consideration of both supply and demand issues impacting judicial performance and offers an opportunity to suggest actions and policy responses that could enable policy makers to manage demand more effectively while strengthening access to justice. Overall, therefore, improving judicial performance now requires a shift from increasing the overall level of resources to approaches that do not increase the burden on the central budget. The key challenge now confronting Bulgaria's judiciary is to build on the reforms so far by developing, financing and implementing a judiciary-wide modernization program to sustain the transformation and demonstrate impact through monitor able indicators of performance. The information and analysis in this report much of it familiar to the leadership of Bulgaria's judiciary, executive and legislature could facilitate a consensus between the three branches of power on the resources that the judiciary could realistically expect to receive, and on the results that it can be expected to achieve, given existing resource and capacity constraints. In this dialogue, an exclusive focus on judicial independence could risk diverting attention from concrete measures needed to ensure that the judiciary is adequately resourced and that mechanisms to ensure the efficient use of resources and improved performance are in place. Indeed, judicial independence is a fundamental principle guaranteed by the Constitution and laws of Bulgaria, and unconditionally respected with regard to the judiciary's adjudicative functions. However, sustained focus on the achievement of performance goals could have important potential long-term benefits for the judicial system, not only in terms of increased budgetary resources, but more importantly in terms of increased public trust and confidence.Date
2008-06Identifier
oai:openknowledge.worldbank.org:10986/8076http://hdl.handle.net/10986/8076
Copyright/License
CC BY 3.0 UnportedRelated items
Showing items related by title, author, creator and subject.
-
Mongolia Public Financial Management Performance ReportWorld Bank (Washington, DC, 2015-04)This public financial management
 performance report (PFM-PR) is the first assessment of
 Mongolia’s PFM system using the public expenditure and
 financial accountability (PEFA) framework. The report aims
 principally to establish an objective baseline measure of
 current PFM performance, highlighting areas of absolute and
 relative strength and weakness, thereby enabling a
 stock-taking of over a decade of PFM reforms in Mongolia and
 guiding the government in its reform priorities. The
 assessment covers PFM at the budgetary central government
 level. The PEFA is an evidence-based methodology that
 measures the performance of a country’s PFM system at a
 particular point in time using a set of standardized
 indicators. The assessment is done on six dimensions of an
 open and orderly PFM system identified by the framework,
 which are: credibility of the budget; comprehensiveness and
 transparency; policy-based budgeting; predictability and
 control in budget execution; accounting, recording, and
 reporting; and external scrutiny and audit. This PEFA
 assessment will complement the considerable work that has
 already taken place on public expenditure management, which
 includes regular economic updates, public investment
 reviews, procurement reviews, analytic work conducted and
 supported by the World Bank funded technical assistance
 projects, as well as technical assistance mission reports of
 the International Monetary Fund (IMF).
-
Ghana - 2009 External Review of
 Public Expenditures and Financial Management : Volume 2. The medium term expenditure frameworkWorld Bank (World Bank, 2012-03-19)The 2009 External Review of Public
 Expenditures and Financial Management (ERPEFM) is the fifth
 in a series of annual assessments by some of the development
 agencies that contribute to the Multi-Donor Budgetary
 Support (MDBS) in Ghana. The review was prepared in close
 collaboration and after extensive discussions with senior
 government officials in the Government of Ghana, in
 particular with officials from the ministry of finance and
 economic planning. The main purpose of the review is to
 inform based on research findings the policy dialogue on
 public financial management that takes place in Ghana. The
 implementation of the 2009 budget is happening against the
 backdrop of the Government's stated objective of
 reducing the overall fiscal deficit to 9.4 percent of gross
 domestic product (GDP), down from an estimated 14.5 percent
 in 2008. The remainder of this chapter is organized as
 follows. Section B recapitulates the change in Ghanaian
 public finances in 2008. Section C discusses the
 country's fiscal outlook and the policy challenges
 ahead. Section D closes the chapter with the main
 conclusions and recommendations.
-
PRSPs and BudgetsJudge, Lindsay; Klugman, Jeni; Alonso, Rosa (A Synthesis of Five Case Studies, 2005-01-18)This paper synthesizes the findings from
 a series of case studies on the interaction between the PRSP
 process and the budget. The five studies, Bolivia, Burkina
 Faso, Cambodia, Tanzania and Vietnam aim to assess the
 extent to which public finance management and budget
 allocations reflect the principles and content of the
 Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper PRSP, hence providing
 insights into progress in PRS implementation. The cases also
 shed light on whether the PRSP process itself has fostered
 more accountable, efficient and pro-poor budget processes
 and allocations as of 2003.The PRSP process, with its focus
 on data and information for evidence-based policy-making,
 open and participatory policy-making processes, poverty
 results and country-led donor coordination, alignment and
 harmonization has the potential to significantly improve the
 pro-poor focus and general accountability of budgeting
 processes.The cases confront a number of methodological
 challenges. First, in some countries and sectors, lack of
 appropriate data constrained the extent to which the
 research questions could be fully answered. Second, the PRSP
 remains a relatively recent innovation in all the countries
 studied and we recognize that many of our findings are
 preliminary, and require additional confirmation over time.
 Third, any assessment of the value added of the PRSP
 approach needs to be cognizant of the initial conditions in
 country, both to avoid ascribing successes to the PRSP which
 pre-date its existence, and to temper expectations about
 what the approach can deliver in a relatively short space of
 time given the starting point of each country. To address
 this last challenge, the case studies explicitly acknowledge
 the pre-existing situation in-country and try to assess the
 value added of the PRSP process.The four countries studied
 have a number of common features.Finally, and perhaps most
 importantly, all five countries share a high-level political
 commitment to addressing poverty, although the extent to
 which this commitment permeates throughout government
 agencies varies from country to country.The five countries,
 however, also display many distinctive features. Bolivia and
 Cambodia, for example, both suffer from high degrees of
 political fragmentation, which in Bolivia has manifested
 itself as civil unrest on a number of occasions in the last
 two years. Burkina Faso, Tanzania, and Vietnam, on the other
 hand, benefit from more stable political systems and an
 inherited commitment to pro-poor policies from socialist governments.