Fiscal Hydraulics products
Start with the delivery-risk question you need to answer — whether a specific finance route can be relied on, whether a programme assumption is supported by the public evidence, whether several countries or pathways should be prioritised, or whether a deeper diagnostic is needed before a major commitment.
Clarify the next step
Initial review
Scoping Review
A short expert assessment to identify the right level of due diligence before commissioning more detailed work.
Includes limited review of a short context note, survey result, or selected public links; a brief written note; and a 45-minute discussion.
£950
Test one route or delivery assumption
Decision-risk review
Flow Route Review
Best when a live decision depends on an assumption that finance will move through public systems to delivery.
Most finance and programme documents contain an implicit assumption that resources will move through public systems to delivery. This review tests that assumption.
- Can a contingent credit facility move from drawdown to emergency delivery?
- Can adaptation finance reach local implementation agencies?
- Can a parametric insurance payout reach the delivery channels it is meant to protect?
- Can reconstruction finance move from approval into municipal projects?
Fees from
£7,500–£15,000
· scoped to route and evidence base
Scales with
Complexity of the route, number of assumptions tested, and depth of evidence required.
Typical use
Concept notes, appraisal papers, facility design, due diligence packs, proposal annexes, or programme reviews.
Deliverables
Route map, Trigger–Track–Transit assessment, evidence confidence table, likely constraint, validation checklist, and short decision-ready statement.
How the products relate
Scoping ReviewClarifies the question.
Flow Route ReviewTests one route or assumption.
ScanExamines a broader system or pathway.
DiagnosticBuilds a stronger evidence base.
WorkshopAligns stakeholders around findings.
Portfolio ReviewCompares multiple countries or pathways.
Across several countries or pathways
Multi-country prioritisation
Portfolio Review
Best when the decision is portfolio-wide rather than country-specific.
A portfolio-level review comparing public resource flow risk across several countries, instruments, or pathways. It can be used as an evidence-informed initial screening, or delivered as a coordinated multi-country Scan or Diagnostic where stronger evidence is needed.
Fees from
From 3 countries · fee scoped to evidence level
Scales with
Number of countries or pathways, the evidence level required, and coordination across them.
Typical use
Screening, comparison, or prioritisation before deeper work.
Output
Portfolio view with country-level findings and escalation recommendations.
For a defined system or pathway
FH 01 — First view
Scan
Best when you need a broader first view of a country, system, or pathway before deeper work.
Identifies likely flow constraints, bottlenecks, and evidence gaps across a defined system or pathway.
Fees from
£16,000
Delivery
2 weeks from start
Scales with
Breadth of the system, number of segments examined, evidence depth.
FH 02 — Deeper View
Diagnostic
Best when planning or design decisions need a stronger evidence base.
Provides a document-supported diagnostic with evidence logging, confidence signalling, and a proof pack.
Fees from
£24,000
Delivery
4–8 weeks from start, tier-dependent
Scales with
Number of routes, validation effort, confidence level required.
FH 03 — Alignment
Workshop
Best when stakeholder alignment is part of the constraint.
A facilitated session to map the pathway, test assumptions, identify gate owners, and agree what evidence is needed next.
Fee
Scoped to format and participation
Delivery
2–3 weeks from start
Scales with
Format, number of participants, sessions, and preparation depth.
From the system down to the pathway
Tailored engagement
Delivery Assurance
A delivery constraint diagnostic — locating the constraint most likely to be holding delivery back.
Best when a desk view of the fiscal system is not enough — when the question needs to follow the risk down to a specific delivery pathway and be tested with people on the ground.
The objective is not to explain everything wrong with a programme — it is to identify the constraint that, if addressed, is most likely to restore progress, and to say whether it can be acted on. Separating the binding constraint from secondary symptoms focuses scarce attention where it will have the greatest effect. The engagement begins with an evidence-logged view of the wider fiscal system, then narrows — to the pathway carrying a given programme or project, and into subnational channels where risk concentrates — before moving off the desk to validate findings through in-country interviews and workshops where feasible. Throughout, it refines a constraint hypothesis rather than asserting a definitive conclusion: each stage raises confidence in where delivery risk most likely sits, and is clear about what remains unconfirmed.
Fees from
Fee scoped to depth, validation, and footprint
Typical use
For a programme or project where a system-level view of delivery risk needs to be followed down to the pathway and validated where feasible.
Movement
System scan and evidence log, then a closer view of the specific pathway and subnational channels, then on-the-ground validation.
Output
A confidence-graded constraint hypothesis with supporting evidence, residual uncertainty, and possible unlock pathways. Where more than one constraint is material, they are ranked — what is binding now, and what becomes binding once it is resolved — each with an addressability read: directly addressable, addressable with government support, or outside practical influence.
Scales with
How far down the analysis goes — system, pathway, or subnational channels — and how much in-country validation is involved.
What scales the engagement
Focused
Scoped on enquiry
Maps how resources move through the system, then traces the pathway your project depends on to find where it is most likely stalling. Desk-based, from public sources, with a set number of validation calls.
Extended
Scoped on enquiry
Extends into subnational channels and tests the likely cause first-hand with people closer to delivery — in-country where feasible, otherwise remote; travel at cost. Moves a probable cause to one validated on the ground.
Programme
Scoped on enquiry
Applies the same approach across several pathways or sites, with fuller validation and stakeholder workshops, refined iteratively. Assurance across a whole programme rather than a single pathway.
Delivery Assurance is scoped to the depth of the review and the validation each mandate requires; deeper or more field-intensive engagements are priced accordingly and agreed in stages. In-country validation is subject to a security and feasibility assessment and may be delivered remotely where travel is not viable; travel, security, and accommodation are charged at cost. Findings refine a constraint hypothesis and do not constitute a guarantee that the binding constraint will be located.
Additional support
Targeted Scan
Scope the Scan to a single segment — trunk, channels, or distribution — when a bottleneck is already suspected.
Validation calls
Structured calls with counterparts or institutional stakeholders to test key assumptions, validate the likely bottleneck, and clarify priority evidence gaps.
Executive briefing
Ninety-minute briefing for senior teams or boards on findings, implications, and validation priorities.
In-country engagement
In-country consultation and direct validation where findings need in-person testing and refinement.
Scan fees are credited at 40% against a subsequent Diagnostic commissioned within 6 months.
Fees exclude VAT where applicable and engagement expenses. Travel and accommodation are charged at cost unless listed as all-in.
Fiscal Hydraulics draws on experience across public finance, crisis response, reconstruction, resilience, infrastructure delivery, and multilateral programme design.
Before you rely on the finance, test the route
Book a 20-minute introductory call