Transparency in Monitoring Budget Expenditures (RS0001)

Commitment aim:

This commitment aimed at enhancing fiscal transparency by raising the wider public’s knowledge and understanding about local- and central-level budget spending. Furthermore, this commitment intended to increase the transparency of budget expenditures by providing the public with annual budget documents that are clear and understandable. 

Status

Midterm: Substantial

Annual reports were published on the website of the Ministry of Finance and the Civil Budget Document of the Republic of Serbia was also published in the first year of the action plan cycle, although the publication of annual reports was not completed within the envisioned timeline. The publication of local self-government^{[Note 1: In accordance with the Law on Self-Government, local government in Serbia is divided into local self-government units (LSUs) (Nos. 129/2007 and 83/2014), which is the terminology used in Serbia's 2014-2015 Action Plan and used throughout this report.]} units’ (LSU) budget execution reports and of the local self-government Civil Budget Document, which focused on the LSUs, was limited. Concerning the publication of the self-government budget execution reports, only 46 percent of LSUs published their budget execution reports. With regards to the Civil Budget Document of the local self-government, the midterm report used a random sample of LSUs and found that none published a civil budget document. For more information, please see the 2014-2015 Serbian midterm IRM report.

End of term: Substantial

The Ministry of Finance continues to release budget execution reports and makes these updates monthly.^{[Note 2: Republic of Serbia, Budget Execution Report (Report, June 2016), [Serbian] http://bit.ly/2fIbMhQ ]} However, the publication of the self-government budget execution reports is similar to the progress made for the midterm report. A random sample taken by the IRM researchers of 48 LSUs^{[Note 3: The random sample used for this report was different from the one used for the midterm report. The difference was to assure an objective comparison on local level progress on these milestones. Additionally, in accordance with the Regulation on Establishing a Unified List of Regional Development and Local Government Units for 2014, there are four local self-government units categorized in terms of their economic development. The random sample accounted for these differences by using an equal number of units from each category.]} revealed that less than 50 percent of units published budget execution reports. The same sample of self-government units was used to assess the completion of the publication of the Civil Budget Document. The IRM researchers found that some progress has been made, given that the previous sample had not revealed any self-government unit with a published Civil Budget Document. The current sample found two units published these documents. Additional research found that, 10 self-government units released their Civil Budget through a civil society project titled “Participative budgeting.”^{[Note 4: A list of LSUs and their civil budget documents can be found online. Balkan Investigative Reporting Network, “First Citizens’ Guide of the Budget in 10 Local Communities in Serbia,” 28 April 2016, [Serbian] http://bit.ly/2gy9ALW; “Citizens Choose Favourite [sic] Projects in Participatory Budgeting,” Balkan Investigative Reporting Network, 30 December 2015, http://bit.ly/2gyiVDs ]} Given the small percentage of local municipalities that required documents, progress on these two local-level milestones remains limited. Hence, although the commitment was completed in relation to the central level, overall completion remains substantial.

Did it open government?

Access to information: Marginal

The general public in Serbia is not well acquainted with budget planning or expenditures processes at the central or local level. According to the Open Budget Index,^{[Note 5: “Serbia,” Open Budget Index, International Budget Partnership, http://bit.ly/2g7gzGW]} the Serbian Government provides “limited budget information,” and this commitment intended to change this trend. The government aimed to increase the transparency of budget spending and the public’s understanding of budget planning and expenditures by publishing budget execution reports and civil budget documents. Because of the amount of new government information provided, this commitment provided a positive step toward enabling CSOs to monitor and evaluate budget expenditures. It also is a positive step toward informing the wider public through the civil budget documents. 

Given that the level of completion of the two milestones remained limited by focusing on the LSUs, access to information changed only marginally. More extensive progress was made at the central level because the national civil budget and national budget execution reports continue to be published.

Carried forward?

During the course of the pre-publication review, Serbia adopted their action plan for 2016-2018. In accordance with the latest document, none of the activities from this commitment were carried over.