Appendix I: Categorization of Medium-Term Budget Systems
Appendix II: Categorization of Performance-Oriented Budget Systems
Eivind Tandberg was the IMF’s regional advisor in the SEE countries from 2005–08. Mia Pavesic-Skerlep works as an interpreter for the IMF in Ljubljana. The authors are greatly indebted to representatives of the SEE finance ministries, who have provided detailed comments to previous drafts of this paper, and to colleagues in the IMF and other international organizations, in particular Richard Allen, Michel Lazare, Ian Lienert, and Tej Prakash.
Public Expenditure and Financial Accountability (PEFA) assessments are based on 31 main indicators with more than 100 subindicators. Most of the benchmarks in Table 2 are reflected in PEFA subindicators.
The shading in the figure indicates areas where there is still need for some improvement (light grey), substantial improvement (dark grey) or very substantial improvement (black) to achieve the benchmarks in Table 2. The fields without any shading reflect areas where countries have completed or are near to meeting the benchmark in question.
There may still be macroeconomic reasons for some of the countries to maintain an even tighter fiscal stance, for instance current account imbalances.
Some of the literature uses this term in a more narrow sense, to describe budget systems with multi-year appropriations.
This paper uses the term ‘binding’ budget ceiling when the out-year ceilings are the starting point for negotiations. It does not require that the out-year ceiling is the final budget for that year.
For instance, in the Australian MTB system, the MOF is involved in discussing line ministry forward estimates at a detailed level, whereas in the Swedish system the MOF is mainly concerned with the aggregate spending limits and does not get involved in the detailed sector estimates.
In both countries, the case payment schemes were a result of reforms within the health sector, and the Finance Ministries were not very active in promoting the new mechanisms.