From the perspective of public finance, the performance evaluation of financial funds should assess the proportion of funds used for social undertakings, that is, people's livelihood, and what aspects are involved: How much funds are used for the necessary investment in people's lives? How much is invested in environmental protection, energy conservation, libraries, museums and social undertakings? At present, it is difficult for people to see a doctor, go to school, travel, eat and live and so on. It is worth discussing what funds in agricultural expenditure are used for people's livelihood.
Second, the concept of performance has not yet been fully formed, and the ideological understanding is inconsistent.
The intricate interest relationship of financial funds itself increases the complexity of understanding performance evaluation. There is a big gap between the understanding and grasp of financial departments, project management units and project execution units, which weakens the status and role of performance evaluation from different aspects. Performance evaluation is mainly to understand the progress of the project and supervise and inspect the use of financial funds, which is more or less related to the content of performance evaluation and has not yet become a real performance evaluation of financial funds. There is still a process for the whole society to understand performance evaluation, and traditional and inherent concepts bring considerable resistance to performance evaluation.
Third, the subject of performance evaluation is not clear.
Many western countries and international organizations such as the World Bank have clear management subjects and implementation subjects, while the implementation subjects of financial performance evaluation in China are not very clear. Some cities are entrusted evaluation institutions, and some cities are intermediaries such as accounting or investment evaluation centers; The provincial level is also diverse, which easily leads to the grade difference of evaluation results. The intermediary agencies of performance evaluation can not meet the needs of evaluation, and it is difficult to ensure the objectivity and impartiality of financial fund performance evaluation. First, intermediaries did not jump out of the thinking of auditing and inspection, and paid more attention to the rationality and effectiveness of expenditure items. Second, the quality of intermediaries needs to be further improved through intensive training.
Fourth, performance evaluation lacks legal constraints and institutional guarantees.
To achieve real results, the performance evaluation of financial funds must be supported by legislation, institutionalized and regular. Although China's public investment departments have also proposed to improve the project investment decision-making procedures and implement the whole process management of national key investment projects from project decision-making, completion acceptance to financial fund performance evaluation, so far, there is no unified national financial fund performance evaluation laws and regulations, which makes China's financial fund performance evaluation lack legal constraints and institutional guarantees.
Fifth, there is no clear management organization.
Many western countries and international organizations such as the World Bank have established public expenditure performance evaluation institutions. However, China lacks such an authoritative comprehensive management institution for financial fund performance evaluation. The performance evaluation of financial funds is mainly scattered in various management departments, and each department mainly evaluates the performance of financial funds from two aspects: technical performance and project management. The indicators, methods and organizational procedures are quite different, so it is difficult to form a unified and comprehensive performance evaluation of financial funds. The standard is not uniform, which makes the performance evaluation results of financial funds vary widely, lacking comparability, and it is difficult to ensure the objectivity and impartiality of the performance evaluation results of financial funds. This is an important reason for the lagging performance evaluation of financial funds at present.
Sixth, the administrative cost of performance evaluation of large-scale expenditure projects is high.
At present, there is no unified regulation or reference model on how to determine the expenditure items that need performance evaluation if performance evaluation is carried out selectively. Under normal circumstances, performance evaluation projects are mainly important projects, projects with a large amount of funds, and projects determined by meetings and arranged by superiors for evaluation. Due to the wide range of financial funds, involving different sources of funds (including budget, extra-budget, funds, financing, etc.), different fields of use, and different nature of expenditure, which projects need to be evaluated for performance are not clear and arbitrary at present. How to strengthen the supervision of projects without performance evaluation through auditing and financial inspection is also an urgent problem to be solved.
Seventh, the performance evaluation indicators are unscientific and unsystematic.
In practice, the evaluation index system is not perfect, the guidance based on the implementation standards is not strong enough, and the implementation method is difficult. The indicators of performance evaluation are generally determined by the financial department according to general accounting standards and financial rules. Although it is concrete and operable, it is too simple and pursues quantitative indicators, which can not objectively and comprehensively reflect the performance of project expenditure. At present, the performance evaluation of financial funds of relevant departments is mainly based on a number of fixed financial, technical and engineering management indicators, and the evaluation focuses on the compliance evaluation of technology, engineering and capital use, but the evaluation of the efficiency of financial funds use is insufficient; At the same time, the evaluation still lacks a scientific, unified and complete index system. These are far from meeting the requirements of all-round and three-dimensional evaluation from different levels, different industries and different expenditure properties.
Eighth, the project scope of performance evaluation is not wide enough and the content is incomplete.
The content of performance evaluation is incomplete and has not yet become a real performance evaluation of financial funds. First, pay attention to compliance evaluation and ignore benefit evaluation. Evaluation is mainly a reflection of simple data, focusing on whether the project expenditure behavior symbolizes the current financial system and relevant state regulations, while ignoring the evaluation of project efficiency or development benefits. Second, the evaluation object is limited to the project itself, ignoring the comprehensive analysis of the internal and external factors of the project, which can not serve the macro-decision of the government. At present, it is only carried out in some industries and some projects, and most projects have not yet been carried out. At the same time, it is limited to the project expenditure, and the basic expenditure has not been involved. The first content of performance evaluation is to pay attention to compliance evaluation, but ignore benefit evaluation, even if the evaluation is a simple reflection of some data, it pays attention to examining whether the project expenditure behavior conforms to the current financial system and relevant state regulations, and ignores the evaluation of the efficiency or development benefit of the project. Second, the evaluation object is limited to the project itself, ignoring the comprehensive analysis of the internal and external factors of the project. Evaluation not only involves project process review and investment return evaluation, but also involves the evaluation of various objective factors, such as evaluating the influence of social environment, policy environment and natural environment on investment behavior, and evaluating the influence of investment behavior on industry, society and the whole economic operation, which can not serve the macro-decision of the government.
Ninth, the lack of professional and technical personnel for performance evaluation.
Performance evaluation institutions are short of project evaluation talents, which can not meet the needs of evaluation work, and it is difficult to ensure the objectivity and impartiality of financial fund performance evaluation. If a computer talent pool can be established, it will be convenient to use. In 2005, Yangquan City developed a network system to evaluate the social and economic operation according to the progress and the amount of funds, which was relatively objective and combined with basic data, but it died because of its limited ability level.
Tenth, the application of performance evaluation results is insufficient and lacks effective binding force.
First, the results of performance evaluation are not made public; second, the results of performance evaluation are rarely linked with the project establishment and fund arrangement in the future, and there is no incentive and restraint mechanism for performance evaluation. It not only makes the evaluation work a mere formality, but also affects the authority of performance evaluation and restricts the in-depth development of performance evaluation.
At present, the performance evaluation results of financial funds are only kept as project construction files of relevant departments, or as a reference for relevant departments to strengthen new project management. There is no direct constraint on the achievements, problems and related responsibilities in financial expenditure projects, which will largely make the performance evaluation of financial funds a mere formality.