Fiscal Hydraulics — Diagnostic Tool

Crisis Finance Flow Maturity Survey

Ten questions across three domains. Receive a provisional assessment of where your crisis finance system sits on the Fiscal Hydraulics flow maturity scale — and what it would take to move to the next level.

Around two minutes

No contact details required

Self-reported — provisional only

Section 1 of 4

Context — Section 1 of 4

Setting the context

Two questions to establish the context your system needs to be ready for. These shape how your responses are interpreted.

Q1 — What is the primary shock risk your fiscal system needs to be ready for?

Select the option that best reflects your context. If multiple apply, select the one that drives the most urgent readiness need.

Climate and weather eventsFloods, storms, cyclones, drought, or other climate-related shocks

Conflict or political instabilityActive conflict, post-conflict reconstruction, or political crisis

Pandemic or public health emergencyDisease outbreaks, health system shocks, or pandemic response

Multiple or compound shocksOverlapping or sequential shocks across more than one category

Not yet definedThe primary shock risk has not been formally assessed

Q2 — Has your system been activated in response to a major shock in the last five years?

This helps calibrate the readout against real-world activation experience rather than design intent alone.

Yes — finance reached communities within the crisis windowThe system was activated and funds moved at reasonable speed

Yes — but finance was significantly delayed or constrainedThe system was activated but bottlenecks limited speed or reach

Yes — but we relied primarily on external or humanitarian channelsGovernment systems were bypassed or supplemented by partners

No — the system has not been tested at scaleNo major shock activation in the last five years

Please answer both questions before continuing.

Domain 1 — Section 2 of 4

Execution trunk

The execution trunk is the core payment rail — the part of the fiscal system that turns spending authority into actual payments. These three questions assess how quickly and reliably that rail functions under crisis conditions.

Q3 — When a shock occurs, how is emergency spending authority granted?

This tests whether activation can begin quickly or whether it depends on a political decision that introduces delay.

Automatically — pre-delegated authority is in placeEmergency spending authority is pre-delegated for defined scenarios and triggers without requiring new political decisions

By ministerial decisionFast but dependent on individual availability and judgment at the moment of shock

By cabinet or parliamentary approvalStructured but introduces significant delay — typically days to weeks before authority is granted

This has not been formally defined or testedThe activation pathway has not been documented or is unclear

Q4 — Once spending authority is granted, how quickly can funds be committed and disbursed?

This tests whether the commitment and payment infrastructure can operate at crisis speed.

Within days — emergency rules are in place and testedEmergency procurement and payment processes are documented, adapted for speed, and have been used in practice

Within weeks — standard processes with some adaptationSome emergency adaptations exist but standard controls apply for most of the process

Within months — standard processes without adaptationNo emergency adjustments to commitment or disbursement controls; standard timelines apply under crisis conditions

This has not been assessed or testedCommitment and disbursement speed under crisis conditions is not known

Q5 — Are emergency finance flows visible and trackable within the core financial management system?

This tests whether crisis funds can be monitored and accounted for without creating parallel systems that reduce visibility.

Yes — emergency flows are on-budget and fully integratedCrisis finance is processed through the core FMIS with real-time visibility and standard accountability mechanisms

Partially — a mix of on-budget and parallel systemsSome emergency finance flows through the core system; some operates off-budget with separate tracking

No — emergency finance flows primarily off-budgetCrisis funds typically operate through structures outside the core FMIS, limiting consolidated visibility

This has not been assessedHow emergency finance integrates with the core financial management system is not known

Please answer all three questions before continuing.

Domain 2 — Section 3 of 4

Financing channels

Financing channels are the instruments that supply emergency liquidity — parametric insurance, contingent credit, catastrophe bonds, and contingency reserves. These three questions assess whether adequate instruments exist and whether they can be accessed when needed.

Q6 — Which pre-arranged crisis finance instruments does your system currently have access to?

Select all that apply.

Parametric insuranceTriggers automatically on defined parameters — e.g. CCRIF, ARC, PCRIC

Contingent creditPre-agreed drawdown facility — e.g. World Bank Cat DDO, IMF RCF

Catastrophe bondMarket-based risk transfer instrument with defined trigger and payout

Contingency reserveDedicated emergency budget allocation held within the fiscal system

None of the aboveNo pre-arranged crisis finance instruments are currently in place

This has not been assessedInstrument coverage has not been formally reviewed

Q7 — Have any pre-arranged instruments been activated in the last five years?

Activation experience is the most reliable indicator of whether instruments perform as designed.

Yes — activation was fast and within the expected timeframeInstruments triggered and funds were available at the speed the design intended

Yes — but activation was slower than expectedInstruments triggered but procedural or institutional delays slowed disbursement

No — instruments exist but have not been activatedPre-arranged instruments are in place but operational performance is untested

No — no pre-arranged instruments are in placeEmergency finance has not been pre-arranged

Q8 — Is the gap between available crisis finance and likely needs formally assessed?

Knowing whether coverage is adequate is a precondition for informed instrument design and reform.

Yes — regularly assessed and integrated into planningThe financing gap is quantified, reviewed regularly, and reflected in instrument design and fiscal planning

Partially — some assessment exists but not integratedA gap analysis has been conducted but findings are not systematically used in planning

No — the gap has not been formally assessedWhether available instruments cover likely needs has not been evaluated

This has not been assessedThe financing gap question has not been formally examined

Please answer all three questions before continuing.

Domain 3 — Section 4 of 4

Distribution

Distribution covers how funds reach implementing agencies, local authorities, communities, and projects — including last-mile delivery. These two questions address the subnational gap: the most common point at which crisis finance stalls even when it has moved quickly through the trunk and channels.

Q9 — When crisis finance reaches the central level, how does it reach implementing authorities and communities?

This tests whether the pathway from central to local is pre-established or improvised under pressure.

Through pre-established subnational transfer mechanisms that have been testedDesignated pathways exist, are documented, and have been used or tested in practice

Through subnational channels that exist but have not been testedTransfer mechanisms are defined on paper but their performance under crisis conditions is unverified

Through improvised arrangements determined after the shockNo pre-established pathway — the route is decided when the crisis occurs

Primarily through external partners and humanitarian channelsGovernment systems are supplemented or bypassed by NGOs, UN agencies, or other partners for last-mile delivery

Q10 — Are beneficiary registration systems, payment mechanisms, and local delivery infrastructure pre-positioned?

Pre-positioned delivery infrastructure is the difference between funds that can reach communities within the crisis window and funds that arrive after the acute phase has passed.

Yes — systems are in place, current, and have been testedBeneficiary lists are maintained, payment mechanisms are operational, and local infrastructure has been verified

Partially — some systems exist but coverage is incompleteDelivery infrastructure exists in some areas or for some shock types but is not comprehensive or fully current

No — delivery infrastructure is assembled after a shock occursBeneficiary identification and payment mechanisms are established reactively under crisis conditions

This has not been assessedThe readiness of last-mile delivery infrastructure has not been formally evaluated

Please answer both questions before continuing.

Fiscal Hydraulics — Provisional Assessment

—

Execution Trunk

—

Binding constraint

Financing Channels

—

Binding constraint

Distribution

—

Binding constraint

Suggested next step

This is a provisional assessment based on self-reported information across ten questions. It should be treated as an orientation rather than a diagnostic finding.

Note: several aspects of your system were marked as not assessed or unknown. This limits the confidence of this reading and has been reflected in the provisional level shown. A System Scan would establish a verified baseline across the areas where information is currently unavailable.

Get in touch

Fiscal Hydraulics is a crisis finance diagnostic developed by Sam Woodbridge. This survey is at pilot stage — outputs are provisional orientations only and should not be treated as formal assessments. fiscalhydraulics.com