From May 2008 ICGFM Conference,THE OPEN BUDGET INDEX and other indicators of accountable public financial management, Pamela Gomez, International Budget Project

1. …
THE OPEN BUDGET INDEX
and other indicators of accountable
public financial management
ICGFM 2008 Miami Conference
May 20, 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

2. …
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

6. 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.

7. Are the OBI indicators similar to the
other PFM indicators, such as PEFA?
 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.)

8. 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
aspect 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 tool to promote
public discussion. Also, important to building
representative sample for research.

9. 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 and research articles.

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

11. 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