Contents
Transparency:
81
/100
(Open Budget Index score)
Public Participation:
28
/100
Budget Oversight:
82
/100

Government budget decisions – what taxes to levy, what services to provide, and how much debt to take on – affect how equal a society is and the well-being of its people, including whether the most disadvantaged will have real opportunities for a better life. It is critical that governments inform and engage the public on these vital decisions that impact their lives.

The Open Budget Survey (OBS) is the world’s only independent, comparative and fact-based research instrument that uses internationally accepted criteria to assess public access to central government budget information; formal opportunities for the public to participate in the national budget process; and the role of budget oversight institutions such as the legislature and auditor in the budget process.

The survey helps local civil society assess and confer with their government on the reporting and use of public funds. This 7th edition of the OBS covers 117 countries.

Transparency

This part of the OBS measures public access to information on how the central government raises and spends public resources. It assesses the online availability, timeliness, and comprehensiveness of eight key budget documents using 109 equally weighted indicators and scores each country on a scale of 0 to 100. A transparency score of 61 or above indicates a country is likely publishing enough material to support informed public debate on the budget.

Georgia has a transparency score of 81 (out of 100).

Transparency in Georgia compared to others

Global Average
45
Georgia
81
Russia
74
Kyrgyz Republic
63
Kazakhstan
58
Turkey
51
Azerbaijan
35
Tajikistan
17
0
Insufficient
61
Sufficient
100

Georgia’s ranking: 5 of 117 countries

0
100

How has the transparency score for Georgia changed over time?

55
2010
55
2012
66
2015
82
2017
81
2019
0
Insufficient
61
Sufficient
100

Public availability of budget documents in Georgia

Available to the Public
Published Late, or Not Published Online, or Produced for Internal Use Only
Not Produced
Scroll
Document 2010 2012 2015 2017 2019
Pre-Budget Statement
Executive’s Budget Proposal
Enacted Budget
Citizens Budget
In-Year Reports
Mid-Year Review
Year-End Report
Audit Report

How comprehensive is the content of the key budget documents that Georgia makes available to the public?

61-100 / 100
41-60 / 100
1-40 / 100
Scroll
Key budget document Document purpose and contents Fiscal year assessed Document content score
Pre-Budget Statement Discloses the broad parameters of fiscal policies in advance of the Executive's Budget Proposal; outlines the government's economic forecast, anticipated revenue, expenditures, and debt. 2019 100
Executive’s Budget Proposal Submitted by the executive to the legislature for approval; details the sources of revenue, the allocations to ministries, proposed policy changes, and other information important for understanding the country's fiscal situation. 2019 78
Enacted Budget The budget that has been approved by the legislature. 2019 100
Citizens Budget A simpler and less technical version of the government's Executive’s Budget Proposal or the Enacted Budget, designed to convey key information to the public. 2019 58
In-Year Reports Include information on actual revenues collected, actual expenditures made, and debt incurred at different intervals; issued quarterly or monthly. 2018 100
Mid-Year Review A comprehensive update on the implementation of the budget as of the middle of the fiscal year; includes a review of economic assumptions and an updated forecast of budget outcomes. 2018 52
Year-End Report Describes the situation of the government's accounts at the end of the fiscal year and, ideally, an evaluation of the progress made toward achieving the budget's policy goals. 2017 85
Audit Report Issued by the supreme audit institution, this document examines the soundness and completeness of the government's year-end accounts. 2017 95

Georgia’s transparency score of 81 in the OBS 2019 is near its score in 2017.

What changed in OBS 2019?

Georgia has increased the availability of budget information by:

Including an executive summary in the Audit Report.
However, Georgia has decreased the availability of budget information by:
Reducing the information on actual revenues and expenditures during the prior budget year as part of the Executive's Budget Proposal, which had been included in previous years when there were modified budgets approved by the legislature.

Recommendations

Georgia should prioritize the following actions to improve budget transparency:

Include additional information on fiscal risk in the Executive's Budget Proposal, for example, on transfers to public corporations, quasi-fiscal activities for public corporations, and tax expenditures for the budget year.
In the Mid-Year Review, include updated revenue estimates for the year underway as compared to the original estimates.
Seek public input on the contents of the Citizens Budget and disseminating the Citizens Budget through different types of media to reach a variety of audiences.

Public Participation

Transparency alone is insufficient for improving governance. Inclusive public participation is crucial for realizing the positive outcomes associated with greater budget transparency.

The OBS also assesses the formal opportunities offered to the public for meaningful participation in the different stages of the budget process. It examines the practices of the central government’s executive, the legislature, and the supreme audit institution (SAI) using 18 equally weighted indicators, aligned with the Global Initiative for Fiscal Transparency’s Principles of Public Participation in Fiscal Policies , and scores each country on a scale from 0 to 100.

Georgia has a public participation score of 28 (out of 100).

Public participation in Georgia compared to others

Global Average
14
Kyrgyz Republic
33
Georgia
28
Russia
22
Kazakhstan
17
Azerbaijan
9
Tajikistan
7
Turkey
0
0
Insufficient
61
Sufficient
100

For more information, see here for innovative public participation practices around the world.

Extent of opportunities for public participation in the budget process

0
/100
Formulation
(executive)
56
/100
Approval
(legislature)
0
/100
Implementation
(executive)
78
/100
Audit
(supreme audit institution)

few: 0 - 40; limited: 41 - 60; adequate: 61 - 100

Recommendations

To further strengthen public participation in the budget process, Georgia's Ministry of Finance should prioritize the following actions:

Pilot mechanisms to engage the public during budget formulation and to monitor budget implementation.
Actively engage with vulnerable and underrepresented communities, directly or through civil society organizations representing them.

Budget Oversight

The OBS also examines the role that legislatures and supreme audit institutions (SAIs) play in the budget process and the extent to which they provide oversight; each country is scored on a scale from 0 to 100 based on 18 equally weighted indicators. In addition, the survey collects supplementary information on independent fiscal institutions (see Box).

The legislature and supreme audit institution in Georgia, together, provide adequate oversight during the budget process, with a composite oversight score of 82 (out of 100). Taken individually, the extent of each institution’s oversight is shown below:

Legislative oversight

0
78
100
adequate

Audit oversight

0
89
100
adequate

weak: 0 - 40; limited: 41 - 60; adequate: 61 - 100

To strengthen independence and improve audit oversight by the Georgia State Audit Office, the following actions are recommended:

Ensure audit processes are reviewed by an independent agency.

The emerging practice of establishing independent fiscal institutions

Georgia’s independent fiscal institution (IFI) is the Parliamentary Budget Office. Its independence is set in law, and it reports to the legislature. It publishes its own macroeconomic and fiscal forecasts, and its own cost estimates of all new policy proposals.

*The indicators for IFIs are *not* scored

Methodology

  • Only documents published and events, activities, or developments that took place through 31 December 2018 were assessed in the OBS 2019.
     
  • The survey is based on a questionnaire completed in each country by an independent budget expert:
    Beso Namchavadze
    Transparency International Georgia
    61 Davit Aghmashenebeli Ave Tbilisi, Georgia
    [email protected]
  • To further strengthen the research, each country’s draft questionnaire is also reviewed by an anonymous independent expert, and in Georgia by a representative of the Ministry of Finance.

 

Other years