THE OPEN BUDGET INDEX and other indicators of accountable PFM … THE OPEN BUDGET INDEX and other indicators of accountable PFM May 1, 2008 Pamela Gomez Project Leader Open Budget Initiative International Budget Project Center on Budget and Policy Priorities 820 First Street, NE Washington, DC 20002 E-mail: gomez@centeronbudget.org Tel. (202) 408-1080

THE OPEN BUDGET INDEX and other indicators of accountable PFM … THE OPEN BUDGET INDEX and other indicators of accountable PFM

Joint effort by civil society to collect a comparative data set that covers: Public access to budget information at the national level throughout the entire budget year Institutional issues: Legislatures and Supreme Audit Institutions

Purposes A focal point for public discussion of budget transparency and accountability – to generate understanding and political demand for reform. A data set for research and advocacy Capacity building. A survey instrument and other materials to promote awareness of international good practices related to PFM and how they might be applied in a particular country setting.

Are the OBI indicators similar to the PEFA indicators? Yes, in many respects. Both rely on many of the same principles that PMF experts consider sound public financial management practices. (IMF Code, OECD Best Practices) Both rely on expert assessment or ‘coding,’ backed by evidence. (OBI: one researcher or research group, IBP reviewer, and two anonymous peer reviewers.)

But they also differ from the PEFA indicators… OBI focus is on PFM system external ‘outputs,’ (i.e. timely information disclosures), do not look at internal aspects of PFM systems. OBI research is carried out independently of government. (Unannounced site visits to test for public availability of information.) Government comment on the evaluation was not included in 2006, but has been invited in 2008 All results are made public. Intended as a tool to promote public discussion. Also, important to building representative sample for research.

Who has used the indicators? Civil society groups as a focal point for public events and discussions, Credit rating agencies (e.g. Moody’s), Bilateral donors: MCC for compact monitoring, Multilateral donors: to triangulate their own assessments, as a tool to move the reform dialogue forward Journalists, Legislators (drafting or reviewing reform legislation), Academic articles.

Also an important set of users… Are reform-minded sitting or former officials from ministries of finance, legislatures or national audit offices who see the need for reform and want to support a public discussion of the issues… India Guatemala Egypt Sri Lanka Philippines Uganda Ghana Costa Rica South Africa

Uses we expect in the future… Asses performance over time (2006 v. 2008) Trend within a country – who are the reformers? Available in an expanded number of countries, at least 85 in October 2008