This is an update on the 2011 report which responded to the following questions: What is the evidence on providing health funding support through unearmarked sector budget support (SBS) as opposed to disease specific funds or programmes? Are there specific outcomes that can be attributed to different funding modalities? Are there any outcomes (or outputs) that can be linked to the way support is provided including sustainability or institutional strengthening? Is one way or the other way better or worse for outcomes?
Key findings include:
- Sector budget support has generated some impressive results in the
health field in the East Africa context (The Independent Commission
for Aid Impact, 2012).
- A previous helpdesk review (Holley, 2012) finds evidence showing the
benefits of budget support and deeming it cost effective.
- An ODI evaluation (Tavakoli, H. and Hedger, E., 2010) shows negative
effects on resource allocation of switching from General Budget
Support (GBS) to a Health SWAp.
- Peters et al. (2012) find SWAps have contributed to the development of
robust national health policies and transparent expenditure frameworks
as well as strengthening institutional capacity, though levels of
success vary widely.
- IBRD/World Bank (2013) finds positive impact for results-based
- Country specific resources including reviews and evaluations of aid
impact in Malawi, Kenya and the South Pacific region can be found in
- EC sector budget support contributed significantly to financing staff
retention schemes, but data available do not permit a precise
statement of impact (Particip GmbH, 2012)
Bolton, L.; Thompson, S. Helpdesk Report: Different Funding Modalities for Health - Update. (2014) 36 pp.