In the six countries, the evaluations found that budget support had made genuine and positive contributions to better sector governance, improved institutional capacities, and more efficient and higher spending. This enabled the governments to deliver more services to the population. These policy results, in turn, were either verified to have contributed to improved macroeconomic and social outcomes or were inferred to have contributed to these outcomes  

• El Salvador. Funding, technical assistance to strengthen fiscal management, and dialogue about performance indicators targeting subsidy levels and social spending contributed to the country’s progress towards an improved fiscal balance. Tax revenues increased and more funds were allocated to social spending. Overall, budget support programs in El Salvador were found to have contributed to improved education enrolment, grades, and coverage; access to water, sanitation, and electricity; pensions and other social transfers; and the promotion of a culture of quality. 
• Peru. Budget support funds were directed by the government at specific programs and regions. It was found that regions that received the funds performed better than other regions in terms of the prevalence of chronic infant malnutrition, reductions in coca cultivation, and increases in the cultivation of industrial crops. 
• Paraguay. The government directed EU budget support funding at child nutrition, teacher training, and the purchase of textbooks. These programs were considered by stakeholders to have increased education enrolment and to have improved the territorial distribution of education services. 
• South Africa. The funding of innovative processes successfully increased access to and use of water and sanitation, primary health care, justice, and democratic participation by the poorest and most marginalized population groups. 
• Morocco. Lower rates of morbidity and mortality, in particular maternal mortality, were achieved through the wider adoption of health insurance and increased use of health services, supported by budget support. An increase in the adult literacy rate from 52% in 2004 to 67% in 2011 and reduced drop-out rates and improved progression rates were attained, helped by the EU’s budget support to education. More broadly, SRPCs supported legal and regulatory changes, which reinforced a wider liberalization of the domestic market. 

However, budget support did little to reduce regional or urban–rural disparities in access and delivery of services. Moreover, some of the improvements linked to EU budget support were not linked to the improvement of sector outcomes and impacts, or at least the results could not be clearly seen. This was the case for the EU’s budget support to education in Cambodia. The EU strongly contributed to increased and more efficient recurrent spending, but this did not lead to better or more uniform education outcomes (primary and secondary enrolment rates, and repetition rates) over the period. For example, the evaluation found that the provision of EU scholarships and better school governance, which the EU support emphasized, did not play a significant role in the positive changes observed in drop-out rates and early childhood enrolment rates. Other factors, including correct school entry age, access to drinking water, and the location of schools or school spaces were more important. However, in this specific case, it was also noted that by the time the evaluation was carried out, the improved sector policy implementation might not yet have had enough time to lead to the expected outcomes.