Improving the accountability of public finance is crucial for achieving global development goals

Methodology: The Open Budget Survey Independent Comparable Biennial Based on international standards

18 month process Methodology: the research process

Transparency Participation Transparency Oversight 16 indicators measuring opportunities for public participation 109 indicators measuring transparency (the Open Budget Index) 15 indicators measuring the strength of the legislature and auditors Methodology: the accountability ecosystem

1.The vast majority of the world’s population live in countries that provide insufficient budget information. 2.Between 2012 and 2015 the world made modest progress toward greater transparency. Substantial gains were made by the least transparent countries. 3.Problems associated with a lack of transparency are compounded by inadequate public participation and weak formal oversight. 4.Of the 102 countries surveyed, only four perform adequately across all three pillars of budget accountability. The Open Budget Survey 2015: Key findings

The vast majority of people live in countries that provide insufficient budget information

The average score for all survey countries is 45 out of countries score 60 or less, meaning they provide insufficient information. 17 countries score 20 or less, meaning scant or no information is available to the public. Distribution of countries by Open Budget Index score

There are serious gaps in information One-third of budget documents that should be publicly available are not published. 16 countries fail to publish an Executive’s Budget Proposal, a country’s foundational budget document. Even when budget documents are published they often lack important details.

10 The characteristics of countries with different levels of transparency Weak PerformersLimited PerformersTop Performers Average GDP per capita of $11k. Mix of strong and weak democracies. Perceived as less corrupt than weak performers. Average GDP per capita of $27k. Mostly strong democracies. Highest press freedom. Perceived as least corrupt. Average GDP per capita of $14k; many oil dependent economies. Mix of autocratic and weak democracies. Least press freedom. Perceived to be most corrupt.

Between 2012 and 2015 substantial gains in transparency were made by the least transparent countries

Global progress has been modest… The global average score on the Open Budget Index increased from 43 to 46 in the 100 countries for which we have comparable data. Countries have increased their scores by an average of 10 points since they were first surveyed. The biggest gains have been made by countries that are the least transparent.

…but some countries have made remarkable progress The Kyrgyz Republic more than doubled its score, from 20 to 54. Tunisia nearly quadrupled its score, from 11 to 42. Francophone Africa made considerable gains, the average score among the eight countries surveyed increased by more than 20 points.

More budget documents are being published Number of budget documents published (2012 & 2015)

Despite progress, enthusiasm should be tempered Improvements have come from a low base. Some countries have regressed. Twelve countries have remained at the bottom of the Open Budget Index each time they have been surveyed. In many countries, there is considerable volatility in disclosure practices.

For example, in Ghana… The availability of budget documents in Ghana

Problems associated with insufficient transparency are compounded by inadequate public participation and weak formal oversight

Most countries don’t provide adequate opportunities for public participation The average score for public participation is just 25 out of countries are weak in providing opportunities for the public to participate. Just seven countries are adequately providing opportunities for public participation.

Some countries have introduced innovative participation practices

Formal oversight is generally lacking In more than half of the countries surveyed, legislatures lack access to independent researchers. In one-third of countries, legislatures are not given enough time to review the budget proposal before it is passed. In the majority of countries, supreme audit institutions have weak or nonexistent quality assurance systems.

Of the 102 countries surveyed, only four perform well across all pillars of budget accountability

Few countries perform adequately across all pillars of budget accountability 0 out of 41 out of 42 out of 43 out of 44 out of 4 Afghanistan Algeria Azerbaijan Benin Bolivia Burkina Faso Cambodia Cameroon China Dem. Republic of Congo Egypt Equatorial Guinea Fiji Iraq Jordan Lebanon Liberia Morocco Mozambique Myanmar Papua New Guinea Qatar Rwanda São Tomé e Príncipe Saudi Arabia Sudan Tanzania Tunisia Yemen Zambia Zimbabwe Albania Argentina Bangladesh Bosnia and Herzegovina Chad Croatia Dominican Republic Ecuador Ghana Guatemala Honduras Hungary India Kazakhstan Kenya Kyrgyz Republic Macedonia Malaysia Mali Namibia Nepal Nicaragua Niger Nigeria Pakistan Senegal Serbia Sierra Leone Slovakia Spain Sri Lanka Thailand Timor-Leste Turkey Venezuela Botswana Bulgaria Chile Colombia Costa Rica El Salvador Indonesia Malawi Mexico Mongolia Poland Romania Tajikistan Trinidad and Tobago Uganda Ukraine United Kingdom Vietnam Czech Republic France Georgia Germany Italy New Zealand Peru Philippines Portugal Russia Slovenia South Korea Sweden Brazil Norway South Africa United States 32 Countries35 Countries18 Countries13 Countries4 Countries Note: Adequate refers to scores above 60 on transparency, participation, and the two measures that comprise oversight.

Improving transparency, participation, and oversight Recommendation 1: Publish more budget information Countries that score 40 or below should make more budget documents available to the public. Countries that score between 41 and 60 should increase the comprehensiveness of budget documents. Recommendation 2: Institutionalize gains in transparency Recommendation 3: Provide more opportunities for public participation in the budget process. Establish legislative hearings at which the public can testify. Establish formal mechanisms such as participatory budgeting and social audits.

Improving transparency, participation, and oversight Recommendation 4: Empower oversight institutions Enable legislatures to engage meaningfully in budgets by providing better access to research and analytical capacity. Support supreme audit institutions to establish quality assurance systems to improve the accuracy and reliability of their reports. Recommendation 5: Promote the development of integrated and accountability budget ecosystems

Contact Information 820 First Street, NE Suite 510 Washington, DC Phone: Fax: