The government is carrying out loan programs to support specific and various segments with the fiscal budget amount based at approximately 27.6 trillion won in 2012.
This report, which analyzed and evaluated the Government financial loan programs (based on year 2012 exist) for the performance management system and performance indicators through 17 ministries, including the Ministry of Strategy and Finance, presented the following issues and ways to improve.
Analysis results are as follow:
First, the performance management system should be arranged based on the nature of loan programs. The current performance management system relevant to loan programs varies in consistency and uniformity. Therefore, loan programs and management tasks are to be mutually correspondent, and systematization of performance management should proceed.
Second, distinctive performance indicators for loan programs should be developed and applied actively. Performance indicators that reflect the nature of loan programs are rare now, and the performance indicators relevant to loan management such as loan recovery rate, and loss rate are not established. Therefore, it is necessary to develop and apply these indicators, prevent a loss of loan, and make a retrenchment in the budget.
Third, common guidelines related to financial loan programs and raising overall checks are required. It is necessary to organize a tentative name (“Financial Loan Programs Assessors”) or take advantage of financial program self-assessment in order to overhaul and evaluate the government loan programs generally and overall.
Kim Tae Kyu
This report, which analyzed and evaluated the Government financial loan programs (based on year 2012 exist) for the performance management system and performance indicators through 17 ministries, including the Ministry of Strategy and Finance, presented the following issues and ways to improve.
Analysis results are as follow:
First, the performance management system should be arranged based on the nature of loan programs. The current performance management system relevant to loan programs varies in consistency and uniformity. Therefore, loan programs and management tasks are to be mutually correspondent, and systematization of performance management should proceed.
Second, distinctive performance indicators for loan programs should be developed and applied actively. Performance indicators that reflect the nature of loan programs are rare now, and the performance indicators relevant to loan management such as loan recovery rate, and loss rate are not established. Therefore, it is necessary to develop and apply these indicators, prevent a loss of loan, and make a retrenchment in the budget.
Third, common guidelines related to financial loan programs and raising overall checks are required. It is necessary to organize a tentative name (“Financial Loan Programs Assessors”) or take advantage of financial program self-assessment in order to overhaul and evaluate the government loan programs generally and overall.
Kim Tae Kyu