Ogp gift fiscal openness working group london workshop 2 november 2013
Download
1 / 13

OGP-GIFT Fiscal Openness Working Group: London Workshop, 2 November 2013 - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 224 Views
  • Uploaded on

OGP-GIFT Fiscal Openness Working Group: London Workshop, 2 November 2013 . Murray Petrie Lead Technical Advisor GIFT. Overview. 1. How transparent are OGP countries’ budgets? 2. What types of fiscal transparency commitments did OGP governments make?

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about ' OGP-GIFT Fiscal Openness Working Group: London Workshop, 2 November 2013 ' - norina


An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
Ogp gift fiscal openness working group london workshop 2 november 2013

OGP-GIFT Fiscal Openness Working Group: London Workshop, 2 November 2013

Murray Petrie Lead Technical Advisor

GIFT


Overview
Overview November 2013

1. How transparent are OGP countries’ budgets?

2. What types of fiscal transparency commitments did OGP governments make?

3. What is the pattern of OGP commitments against the GIFT High Level Principles?

4. What are the strengths and weaknesses of the commitments?

5. For countries for which Progress Reports under the Independent Reporting Mechanism are available, what has been the experience to date in implementing fiscal transparency commitments?

6. Are there any immediate steps that OGP countries could take?

7. Concluding comments.


How transparent are ogp countries budgets
How transparent are OGP countries’ budgets? November 2013

  • 2012 Open Budget Index:

    • Average OGP country score = 59

    • Average non-OGP country score = 34

  • Some OGP countries have achieved rapid improvements in OBI scores between the 2010 and 2012 surveys e.g. Honduras, the Dominican Republic, Indonesia, Argentina, Bulgaria, Colombia, Slovakia.

  • Many gains from publishing existing internal reports

  • Public participation:

    • Average score for all countries = 19

    • Average OGP member score = 29


What types of fiscal transparency commitments did ogp countries make
What types of fiscal transparency commitments did OGP countries make?

  • Citizens’ budgets

  • Reporting of fiscal data:

    • Revenues: general; natural resources; aid/external financing

    • Expenditures: general; public investment projects; sub-national government

  • A large number of general commitments on ‘open data’, and further analysis required of overlap between open data and fiscal transparency.


What is the pattern of commitments against the gift high level principles
What is the pattern of commitments against the GIFT High Level Principles?

  • The mapping of OGP commitments against the GIFT HLPs showed two main areas of focus:

    • Public reporting of fiscal data (HLP 3)

    • Direct public participation in fiscal policy (HLP 10).

  • Areas where there are few OGP commitments are:

    • HLP 8 - legislative oversight of fiscal policy

    • HLP 2 - macro-fiscal policy

    • HLP 1 - a citizen right to receive fiscal information.


What are the strengths and weaknesses of the commitments
What are the strengths and weaknesses Level Principles?of the commitments?

  • Against ‘SMART’ criteria, many commitments are not specific or measurable, and few have time lines.

  • Three selected good examples:

    • ‘…commits to publish data on government subsidies to elementary and junior high schools and to publish health expenditures and budgets at every community hospital in 497 regions…’

    • ‘Update the annual report on the state budget execution for 2012 with an explanation about the difference between the original macroeconomic forecasts for the budgetary year and the real outcomes and publish it within statutory deadlines.’

    • ‘Improve the management of public resources by increasing the country’s ranking in the Open Budget Index from providing ‘limited information’ to providing ‘significant information.’


Implementation progress
Implementation Progress Level Principles?

  • The Philippines and UK National Action Plans contained significant fiscal transparency commitments:

    • Philippines: dissemination of fiscal information; public participation; new IT initiatives; procurement; Citizens’ Budget

      Completed 3 out of 19 commitments, 16 in progress

    • UK: innovations in open data and online service delivery. On fiscal transparency, publication of evidence and databases behind policy statements, and ODA data.

      Completed 17 out of 41 commitments completed, 20 in progress, 4 withdrawn.


Indonesia
Indonesia Level Principles?

12 commitments, 5 completed, 7 in progress

‘Considering the ambition of the Action Plan, this was a promising start…’ IRM report

On schedule: publish extractive industry revenues; e-procurement; publish budget reports across cycle

Health, education, and national budget data are at too high a level of aggregation in terms of the administrative classification


Mexico
Mexico Level Principles?

37 commitments: 20 completed; 14 in progress; 2 not started; 1 unclear

On schedule: improved e-procurement; spending on public servant salaries; join EITI

Behind schedule: transparency of climate change expenditure and financing; information on subsidy programs; budgets for each school.


Public consultation
Public Consultation Level Principles?

Findings from the first five IRM progress reports point to weaknesses in all the countries in public consultation in developing the first national action plans – although improvements are evident. There is a need to ensure awareness of OGP both inside and outside government, and to step up and institutionalise public consultation processes.

Indonesia established ‘Open Government Indonesia’ as national coalition to coordinate NAP – 5 government bodies plus 4 selected CSOs

Mexico established a Tripartite Commission comprising Ministry of Public Administration, the Federal Institute for Access to Information, and a coalition of CSOs


What immediate steps could ogp countries take
What immediate steps could OGP countries take? Level Principles?

  • There are relatively easy gains from publishing reports that are already produced within govt.

  • Based on the 2012 OBI, the number of OGP countries that produce internally but do not publish:

    • Pre-budget statement: 8 countries

    • In-year budget reports: 3 countries

    • Mid-year budget review: 5 countries

    • Year-end report: 3 countries

    • Audit report: 1 country

  • 20 OGP countries do not publish a Citizens’ Budget


Concluding comments
Concluding Comments Level Principles?

Some OGP countries have demonstrated large and rapid improvements in fiscal transparency.

OGP commitments have 2 areas of focus: fiscal reporting, and public participation.

Weaker in legislative oversight, macro-fiscal policy, and citizen right to fiscal info.

Need to develop connections with open data initiatives.

Country commitments must be well specified and new.

In some countries need for more disaggregated spending data.

Relatively easy gains possible in many countries from publishing reports already produced within government.


Overall conclusion
Overall conclusion Level Principles?

There is considerable scope to design more ambitious and better specified country commitments on fiscal transparency in initial and subsequent national action plans, based on sound public consultation and deliberation, cross-country learning, and technical support.


ad