Obstructing Public Sector Accounting Reform: the Top 10 pitfalls

This article is published in association with IMF.

Policymakers and government officials spend time, energy, budgets, and political capital on implementing public sector accounting reforms, only for unintended actions to potentially obstruct their chances of success. 10 types of obstruction are outlined below, and how policymakers and officials can instead avoid it: 

1. Avoid diagnostics.

The obstructive approach: Avoiding diagnostics can obstruct reform processes. It is a waste of time to identify benchmarks, baselines, and gaps. Do not assess and clarify the purpose and value of the reform, e.g., with effectively understanding and managing the stock of public wealth.

Solution: Set clear indicators and diagnostics. Benchmarks, baselines, and targets should be built into decision making processes and regularly reported against.

2. Avoid setting a strategy/roadmap and calculating the costs.

The obstructive approach: Don’t have a roadmap or only a fragmented one. Keep everything separate from the PFM strategy and the plan to modernize ICT.Don’t bother to calculate the costs of reform or resources required. Concentrate on the methodology and try to avoid entanglement with multi-year and annual budget processes.

Solution: Develop a comprehensive interconnected strategy, that includes a costed implementation roadmap. Communicate the strategic goals, responsibilities, and budgets.

3. Focus on short-term objectives and horizons.

The obstructive approach:A two/three year time horizon is quite sufficient to implement full International Public Sector Accounting Standards (IPSAS), then just extend for one-two years regularly after that.

Solution: Set effective objectives. Implementation of IPSAS is a long-term undertaking and this needs to be well planned.

4. Separate FMIS and IPSAS/SR reforms.

The obstructive approach: Keep any steering committees working in silos, implement FMIS before full IPSAS roll out, try to bypass a revision of a chart of accounts, delay implementation of IT systems. Avoid IT support for the rollout in regions/subnational level.

Solution: Integrate accounting reforms. Establish good coordination through a steering committee with senior leadership.

5. Avoid any exchange with other countries and experts who have already undertaken an accrual accounting reform.

The obstructive approach: Our situation and challenges are unique and not comparable. It is a waste of time to discuss with other countries and you cannot learn from them anyway.

Solution: Seek information and advice from experts and other countries on their experience of accrual accounting reform. There are often lessons that have been learned and pitfalls that can be avoided by sharing information on successes and failures.

6. Do not engage with affected stakeholders.

The obstructive approach: Officers and experts involved with finance statistics, budgeting, sustainability reporting, and macro-economics have nothing to do with other stakeholders. You work on an island.  Position accrual as a purely technical reform. Avoid politicians, legislators, SAIs, and internal auditors’ involvement to the maximum extent.

Solution: Communicate and engage with all stakeholders in the planning, implementation, and ongoing reform process. The dialogue should be open, informative, and welcoming questions and opinions.

7.  Avoid communications about the reform with the media and the broader public.

The obstructive approach: Use as much technical language as possible with lots of unnecessary details. When communicating within government, such as with spending units, communicate in writing only, and use buzzwords and technical terminology as much as possible.

Solution: Develop a communications strategy and plan. Reforms should be explained, making clear why they are needed and what impact they will have.

8. Do not waste time training staff.

The obstructive approach: The less staff know about the reforms, the fewer questions they will ask. This will save time. Limit practical discussions and avoid participation of high-level officials. Ignore core competency requirements and training, certification, education, and continuing professional development to the extent possible.

Solution: Ensure staff understand and are equipped to implement the reforms.

9. Follow a big bang approach. 

The obstructive approach: Avoid pilots and testing, justifying it by the simplicity of the reforms and reduced use of resources and time. Start with technical implementation. No need for adaptation to your country’s specific legal and institutional arrangements, capacity, or needs. Copy and paste from the most advanced countries.

Solution: Set realistic timelines, tailor and phase reform transitions.               

10. Delay adopting regulations and supporting practical application guides and instructions.

The obstructive approach: Regulations are not needed. Refer only to the standards and do not engage with practitioners. Remember, the fewer people that know what you’re doing, the more success you will have.

Solution: Set clear laws and regulations related to your reforms and embed the targets (e.g., increased public wealth) you strive to achieve. Engage practitioners and provide practical application guides and instructions.