The SRBC evaluation found that SRBCs had a positive and proven track record of contributing to macroeconomic and fiscal stabilization and strengthened PFM systems in contexts of fragility and risk. The flow of funds effect on social spending was also important. 

However, the evaluation found that the early SRBCs paid insufficient attention to the structural causes of fragility and did not sufficiently integrate considerations about resilience. They did not seek to support structural reforms that could address fragility and the risk factors affecting longer-term economic growth. Nor were they able to have a positive impact upon population poverty and vulnerability. SRBCs rarely had an exit strategy, which could have defined the manner in which gains made could be consolidated and the follow-up programmes that the EU could have offered after emergency support had been delivered. 

The SRBCs were found to be extremely valuable in responding to the specific and immediate needs of countries in crisis and/or countries in a situation of fragility or transition or in need of reconstruction. In these contexts, SRBCs brought opportune support that enabled countries to avoid further disintegration of the state’s basic functions and allowed the government to resume delivery of basic public services to the population. SRBCs are the EU’s only instrument capable of mobilizing, at very short notice, financial resources to be used for recurrent expenditure (usually salary payments) and continued state functioning, as well as providing technical resources to help strengthen the capacities of vital state institutions. These two effects combined have allowed populations to be protected from a total state collapse and to be provided with a minimum level of services. 

Although not covered by the evaluation, the current COVID-19 crisis illustrates how SRBCs can rapidly disburse funds to the Treasury to enable it to channel more resources to the health sector and tackle the extra strain on health services at a time of pandemic. This allows for more support to be given to vulnerable populations and/or for resources to become available at a time when domestic resource mobilization may be squeezed by negative effects of the crisis on the economy.