Skip to main content

Table 2 Summary of country-level perceptions of the Global Fund’s paradigm

From: The Global Fund’s paradigm of oversight, monitoring, and results in Mozambique

Aspect of paradigm Perceived country-level result Respondent(s)
Performance-based financing • Recipients’ focus on disbursement rather than results OECDPartner10
• Burdensome administrative requirements GFCountryStructure4
• Duplication of reporting efforts from the ground all the way to central level Multilateral3
Emphasis on financial technicalities • Staff with financial rather than development background who lack country experience GFBoard4
Lack of country office • Other partners doing monitoring for the Global Fund OECDPartner2
• Global Fund is not engaged in country-level coordination Coordination1, OECDPartner3
• Forces partners to coordinate among themselves more Multilateral2
• Frequent deadlines and time stress GFSecretariat5
• Over-worked staff, communication challenges, out-of-touch with realities on the ground GFSecretariat5
• Dependent on expertise and interest of single person (Fund Portfolio Manager) GFBoard4, GFCountryStructure1, GF Secretariat5
Partnerships • Reliance on external consultants to develop proposals Multilateral2
• Early identification of gaps and provision of additional support OECDPartner6
• Undefined roles and concerns about accountability GFBoard2, GFCountryStructure4
• Potential for agenda alignment with single partner and less coordinated/multilateral approach GFBoard1, GFCountryStructure2, GFSecretariat5, OECDPartners2, 3, and 10