1. 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
Tel. (202)

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

3. 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

5. 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.

6. 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.)

7. 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.

8. 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.

9. 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

10. 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