2025 PEFA PFM Data Tracker
The 2025 PEFA PFM data tracker uses Public Expenditure and Financial Accountability (PEFA) data to identify trends in public financial management (PFM) across diverse regions, country income levels, time periods, and the seven pillars of PEFA. The data and visualizations presented in this tracker are based on data from national and subnational PEFA assessments published between 2005 and 2024.
The PEFA program provides a framework for assessing and reporting on the strengths and weaknesses of PFM using quantitative indicators to measure performance. It identifies 94 characteristics (dimensions) across 31 key components of PFM (performance indicators [PI]) in seven broad areas of activity (pillars).
The first PEFA assessment framework was launched in 2005 and was updated with minor revisions (to PI-2, PI-3, and PI-19) in 2011 (all assessments using the 2005 and 2011 frameworks are identified in the data tracker as “PEFA 2011”). A major upgrade of the framework was launched in 2016. This was further updated and refined in 2021 with enhanced subnational assessment guidelines. A PEFA gender framework was introduced in 2020 and a PEFA climate framework was fully launched in 2024.
A total of 750 PEFA assessment reports were completed between 2005 and 2024, of which 560 are public. This tracker uses only data from published PEFA assessment reports. The public PEFA assessment reports comprise: (i) 201 national and 114 subnational assessments using the PEFA 2011 framework; (ii) 109 national and 57 subnational assessments using the current PEFA framework (PEFA 2016); (iii) 31 subnational assessments using the PEFA 2021 framework; (iv) 15 national and 1 subnational assessments using the PEFA Climate framework; and (v) 26 national and 6 subnational assessments using the PEFA Gender framework.
Learn about the PEFA program and global trends in public financial management (PFM).
Performance
Global Trends in Public Financial Management Performance
Analytical Design and Data Treatment
Country classifications by income level and region are based on the World Bank's official taxonomy (2024 country classifications). The region and income classification abbreviations are defined as below:
| Income Classification | Abbreviation Expansion |
|---|---|
| HIC | High Income Countries |
| LIC | Low Income Countries |
| LMIC | Lower Middle-Income Countries |
| UMIC | Upper Middle-Income Countries |
| Regional Classification | |
| EAP | East Asia and Pacific |
| ECA | Europe and Central Asia |
| LAC | Latin America and Caribbean |
| MENA | Middle East and North Africa |
| SAR | South Asia Region |
| SSA | Sub Saharan Africa |
The analysis presented in the tracker is based on data obtained from the official PEFA (Public Expenditure and Financial Accountability) website. Assessment scores were initially available in letter grades and subsequently converted into numerical values following the standard conversion methodology adopted by the PEFA Secretariat (Table 1).
| PEFA Scores | A | B+ | B | C+ | C | D+ | D | D* | NA, NU |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Numerical value | 4 | 3.5 | 3 | 2.5 | 2 | 1.5 | 1 | 1 | Excluded |
The dataset includes only publicly available assessments completed up to the year 2024; data from year 2025 (so far) has been excluded to maintain consistency. For the data on PEFA 2011 framework, the score calculations incorporate assessments listed in the Annex 2011 of the 2016 framework reports. The dataset for 2011, therefore, is from the year 2005 to 2024. For the detailed pillar-level analysis, only assessment data conducted under the 2016 PEFA framework has been utilized which includes data from the years 2016 to 2024. Unless otherwise specified, national assessment scores have been used.
Simple averages have been computed across pillars and indicators, as well as by region and income group, wherever applicable and unless otherwise specified. All analyses are based exclusively on publicly accessible and published data. Most of the visualizations and calculations have been carried out in Excel, except maps, spider plots, and box plots which were generated using Python to support the analytical findings.
PFM practitioners and researchers may note that averaging indicators scores is not part of PEFA framework. While it presents a simple proxy for summarizing overall level performance, it does not capture the full nuance and diversity of PFM aspects. Analysis at Individual indicators or dimensions will present a more comprehensive understanding of PFM performance and progress over time. PFM is best understood, measured and monitored at indicator or dimension level.
Any queries regarding methodology should be directed to services@pefa.org.
