Services
Economics and financing analysis
We follow the money and cost the options. Budget analysis and costing show what something takes to run at scale, who benefits, and what happens when outside funding ends.
Questions this answers
- What would this cost at scale?
- Who benefits, and who is missed?
- What happens to the service when donor money stops?
The kinds of economics and financing work we run
Most engagements combine two or three of these.
Budget and expenditure analysis
What is actually budgeted and spent, by whom, and where the two diverge.
Costing of services, packages and programme options
What a service, a benefits package or a programme option costs to deliver, per unit and at scale.
Fiscal space and financing sustainability analysis
Whether government revenue could realistically absorb a cost once donor funding steps back, and what would have to change for it to.
Benefit incidence and equity analysis
Who actually receives the value of public spending, broken down by income group, location and other characteristics, not just who a programme is designed for.
Cost-effectiveness and value-for-money analysis
What a given outcome costs to achieve through one option compared with another, so a choice can be made on evidence rather than assumption.
Labour market, skills demand and donor transition assessments
What skills or jobs a market actually needs, and what a programme would need to put in place before donor funding ends.
How we cost and analyse
The assumptions behind a number matter as much as the number. We write ours out, in every proposal.
Unit costs stated, not buried.
What one dose, one place, one participant costs, shown on its own, before it is multiplied up to a total.
Assumptions written out.
Every assumption behind a costed option is listed in plain language, so your finance team can check it, challenge it, or swap in their own figure.
Average is not the same as marginal.
What the next naira spent achieves is often different from what has already been achieved on average. We say which one a figure describes.
Who benefits is checked, not assumed.
A programme designed for the poorest does not always reach them. We check who actually receives the benefit, not only who the design intended.
The four standards a cost analysis is judged against
Economy, efficiency, effectiveness and equity: the value-for-money framework of the UK’s former aid department, DFID (now part of FCDO), which began with three Es in 2011 and later added equity. Many other donors now use it.
Economy
Spending less: are inputs bought at the right price, for the right quality?
Efficiency
Spending well: how well are inputs converted into outputs?
Effectiveness
Spending wisely: are the outputs achieving the intended outcome?
Equity
Spending fairly: is the benefit reaching the poorest and most marginalised?
What benefit incidence analysis has found in Nigeria
Published studyA 2012 benefit incidence study of federal spending found that primary education spending favoured poorer households: the poorest fifth received 25.6% of it, the richest fifth 14.9%. Secondary and tertiary spending favoured the rich, with the richest fifth receiving 34.8% of tertiary spending. Health spending was not pro-poor: the richest fifth received 28.7% of the benefit from government hospitals, the poorest 13.1%. The data are now old; the method is what carries over.
From our own work
Real work of ours that used this kind of research, not an invented example.
Adebayo Adeleke LLC
Real exampleMapping the real cost of moving food across Nigeria
195 respondents (98 farmers, 95 suppliers/retailers). Seven states: Benue, Kano, Borno, Oyo, Edo, Lagos and Abuja (FCT).
Reading a costed options table
Illustrative| Option | Unit cost | Equity |
|---|---|---|
| A: existing model | ₦8,200 per participant | Reaches mainly urban participants |
| B: expanded outreach | ₦11,400 per participant (highest) | Reaches rural and urban participants evenly |
| C: fully remote | ₦4,900 per participant (lowest) | Excludes participants without phone access |
The cheapest option (C) is not necessarily the best value: it costs least per person reached, but the equity column shows who it leaves out. A costed options paper shows this trade-off, not just a ranked price list.
Questions worth asking an economics and financing provider
We built five questions from the value-for-money framework and the practice of benefit incidence analysis, and we answer all five in every proposal.
Which of the four value-for-money standards does this analysis cover?
Stated in the proposal, not assumed. Not every costing needs all four.
What are the assumptions behind the unit cost, and can I see them?
Written out in the report itself, in a form your finance team can check line by line.
Is this an average cost or a marginal cost?
Stated explicitly, because the two answer different questions.
Who actually benefits, not just who the programme is designed for?
Checked against data on who receives the service, split by income group and location where the data allow.
What would have to be true for government financing to replace donor financing here?
Stated as specific conditions, not a general hope that funding will be found.
What you receive
A costed options paper or budget analysis, with the assumptions written out so your finance team can check them.
The options
Costed side by side, with the trade-offs stated, not just ranked by price.
The assumptions
Written out in full, so your own team can check or challenge any figure.
Who benefits
A statement of who the analysis shows actually receives the value, where the data allow it.
Questions people ask about economics and financing specifically
What’s the difference between a cost and a cost-effectiveness figure?
A cost is what something takes to deliver. A cost-effectiveness figure divides that cost by the outcome it achieves, so two different approaches can be compared on the same basis.
How do you know who actually benefits from spending?
Through benefit incidence analysis: combining spending data with survey data on who actually uses a service, broken down by income group and location, rather than assuming the intended group is the group reached.
Can you cost something that doesn’t exist yet?
Yes, using unit costs from comparable programmes and stated assumptions about scale, adjusted for context. The report says plainly which figures are estimated and on what basis.
What happens when donor funding ends?
That is what a financing sustainability or donor transition assessment is for: stating what government revenue would need to cover the cost, and what would have to change for that to be realistic.
Need to know what something actually costs, or who it reaches?
Tell us the decision the cost figure needs to inform. We will say what kind of analysis answers it, and what it would need from your finance team.