evidence that performance information affects budget allocation. In Korea, by contrast, bureaucratic and political culture now creates significant pressure towards the explicit use of performance information. Recognizing that the right political culture was essential to reform, the Ministry of Planning and Budget was very cautious in its implementation of PB until top decision makers supported the reform.

Opportunely, the Ministry of Planning and Budget embraced innovations that were not in their initial blueprint: The ministry developed a prioritization process and found a way to formalize an existing in-depth evaluation process for budgetary use. These actions helped the PB system became well-integrated into the budget process and resulted in greater depth of performance information. In turn, the high stakes of budgeting and the usefulness of performance information have enhanced the perceived value of performance information. If reformers in other countries, like those in Korea, encounter pressure to clearly explain the use of performance information, they need to consider moving beyond performance indicators and targets and find ways to integrate performance information into the budget process. It may not be feasible for those countries to have a PB system only for informational purposes.

A third implication is that organizational restructuring and capacity building may be required to make PB reforms work. In the Korean case, it was not initially clear that capacity among officials was not adequate; clearer was the inadequacy of their willingness to adapt. Thus, organizational restructuring was implemented to overcome resistance from the central budget office and to empower the budget offices in the line ministries. Since organizational restructuring can add confusion in the midst of the PFM reform process, it should be pursued with caution. When adopted with prudence, restructuring may increase momentum for the reform and help the organization fit the reformed system.

Before, throughout, and after the reorganization, bureaucrats in Korea received training from many sources, private, public, and administrative. In any scenario, capacity building among budget officials and program managers is an essential element for the success of PB reform. Capacity building can be achieved by upgrading the budget office with additional personnel and more authority, or by providing consulting services and training programs, or both. Since PB reform requires budget officials and program managers to have planning and evaluation capacity—scarce resources in many governments—serious effort should be put into solving the capacity-building issue.

A fourth implication is that a big-bang reform approach may have pros and cons. By adopting a big-bang approach, the Korean government made the reforms irreversible, while it overburdened the government and brought about some inconsistencies among reform programs. This drastic approach signaled strong support from the top decision makers and created an irreversible momentum for the reform. However, there were some technical issues that could have been minimized if a gradual approach with right sequencing had been adopted. In selecting a reform strategy, political and institutional factors should be considered.

A fifth implication is that strong and competent knowledge-providers are essential for the design and implementation of reform programs. Public research institutes in Korea played such role by conducting cross-country studies to identify best practices in other countries and providing many capacity building programs. If such option is not available, international 24