https://dailyasianage.

com/news/107925/bd-budget-only-41-transparent

BD budget only 41% transparent

M S Siddiqui

Citizens come across budget of different public institutions in national, local and other autonomous
bodies. Among those the entire population has eye on National budget. The annual national budget
is almost without exception the main instrument of fiscal policy of the government. It is the key
documents of government's priorities in terms of policies and programs. Peoples use to give their
opinion on upcoming budget and also evaluate after declaration of the budget. The openness and
democratizing the budget process gives citizens a say in policy formulation and resource allocation.
Budget transparency is to the extent and ease with which citizens can access information about and
provide feedback on government revenues, allocations, and expenditures.

The openness implies full disclosure to the public at all stages of the budget process. Budget
preparation and execution should be open in the sense that information is readily available on how
budgets are prepared and executed. The openness has some limitation and control as well.
Transparency in this context is necessarily limited by considerations of market sensitivity, due
process in policy formulation, national security and the costs of providing information to the public
relative to the expected benefits.

A budget that is not transparent, accessible, and accurate cannot be properly analyzed. Its
implementation cannot be thoroughly monitored nor its outcomes evaluated. Without opportunities
for citizens' active participation - particularly citizens from marginalized or vulnerable groups - budget
systems may only serve the interests of powerful elites. There may be some principles and
conventions relating to openness of the budget process, documentation, budget presentation,
procedures for budget execution, and fiscal reporting.

The benefits of transparency of Budget are numerous. Firstly, it facilitates the oversight the
resources are allocated and spent. It is barrier to misuse or misappropriate funds since their actions
are more likely to be scrutinized and powerful disincentives for officials. This leads to less
corruption.

The gesture of opening up government books of account is likely to lead to more trust in
government. In developing countries, where revenues are often inadequate to pay for needed
investments in sustainable poverty reduction and development programs, this is of utmost
importance. In many cases, perceptions of high levels of corruption, poor services and infrastructure,
and opaqueness of operations lie at the heart of citizens' distrust of their governments.

Transparent and inclusive budgeting process can create better fiscal outcomes and more
responsive, impactful and equitable public policies. Benefits of budget transparency ensure
Accountability and clarity of use of public funds to make the public representatives and officials
accountable for effectiveness and efficiency. It can prevent waste and misuse and corruption in
public expenditure. It creates inclusiveness of all stakeholders in decision of budget and encourage
debate on income and expenditure of the government.

The open and transparent budget process fosters trust in society and respect among the citizen and
the public officials. The Open Budget initiative, a USA based think Tank regularly conducting study
on budget process, allocation and expenditure of many countries around the world since 2006.
Launched in 2006, the Open Budget Survey (OBS) is the world's only independent, comparative
assessment of the three pillars of public budget accountability: transparency, oversight and public
participation.

According to the study of last year of 2017 namely "Open Budget Survey 2017" reports says the
openness of budget is in decline. The 2017 survey shows a modest decline in average global budget
transparency scores, from 45 in 2015 to 43 in 2017 for the 102 countries that were surveyed in both
rounds. The reversal of transparency gains is particularly discouraging given roughly three-quarters
of the countries assessed do not publish sufficient budget information (a score of 61 or higher),
seriously undermining the ability of citizens worldwide to hold their government accountable for using
public funds efficiently and effectively.

The sixth round since 2006 of this biennial assessment, the 2017 survey evaluated 115 countries
across six continents. Bangladesh was included in the study since beginning and DrAtiurRahman,
ex-Governor of Bangladesh was their local partner. A number of countries have experienced
significant gains in transparency since they were first included in the survey, including Georgia,
Jordan, Mexico and Senegal. Declines in budget transparency were most dramatic in Sub-Saharan
Africa, where the average budget transparency scores fell by 11 points between 2015 and 2017.
Other regions experienced small increases or small declines in their scores, with the exception of
Asia, where the average score rose more substantially.

The Open Budget Survey assesses budget transparency based on the amount and timeliness of
budget information governments are making publicly available. Bangladesh's score in 2015 was the
highest in South Asia and is substantially higher than the global average score of 45. Unfortunately
the score came down to 41in 2017.

The Open Budget Survey's participation measure assesses the opportunities governments are
providing to civil society and the public to engage in decisions about how public resources are raised
and spent. It has reviewed whether information are opened up to the citizens through (1) Pre-Budget
Statement, (2) Executive's Budget Proposal, (3) Enacted Budget, (4) Citizens Budget, (5) In-Year
Reports, (6) Mid-Year Review, (7) Year-End Report and (8) Audit Report etc.

The 2017 survey revealed that most countries fail to provide meaningful opportunities for the public
to participate in the budget process - both to inform decisions about how government raises and
allocates funds and to hold government accountable for implementing those decisions. The Open
Budget Survey uses 109 equally weighted indicators to measure budget transparency.

These indicators assess whether the government makes eight key budget documents available to
the public online in a timely manner and whether these documents present budget information in a
comprehensive and useful way. Each country get a composite score (out of 100) that determines its
ranking on the Open Budget Index - the world's only independent and comparative measure of
budget transparency.

Bangladesh authority provides the public with limited budget information as it got 41 out of 100.
Bangladesh got only 13 out of 100 for proving few opportunities for the public to engage in the
budget process. This is higher than the global average score of 12. The legislature and audit
institution have limited oversight of the budget the mark got is 41 among 100.

The country's score is in part affected by the change in definition of "publicly available" which from
OBS 2017 only recognizes those documents that are published online on an official government
website as available to the public. Online availability is now considered a basic standard for the
publication of government information. Bangladesh publishes the Mid-year Review in hard copy
only and did not get the credit for this year. Moreover, Bangladesh has been inconsistent in which
documents are made publicly available in a given year.

It has are not making the Pre-Budget Statement available to the public. This study reflects that the
legislature provides limited oversight during the planning stage of the budget cycle and weak
oversight during the implementation stage of the budget cycle.

The office of Comptroller of Auditor General (CAG) of Bangladesh has limited budget oversight
although it has full discretion to undertake audits as it sees fit. The audit seems limit to oversee and
calculation of accounts and matching to allocated amounts. They don't have expert manpower,
financial power and other logistics. In many cases the concerned officials are transferred or retire
before audit objection and making them accountable.

They are dependent on government for many issues budget and recruitment staffs. Citizen
perceived the office is not independent and a part of government. There is no research and
recommendation of policy on preparation of budget and improvement of budgetary system.

CAG is appointed by the government make the institution questionable although cannot be removed
without legislative or judicial approval. CAG also don't have sufficient resources to fulfill its mandate
and also the audit report is not reviewed by an independent body of Parliament.

A present trend around world is of independent fiscal Institution (IFI). It may be within Parliament and
have strong commitment to make the process transparent. Bangladesh does not have an IFI. It has
an eye wash consultation with business persons and other stakeholders before presentation at
Parliament. They present a budget prepared by bureaucrats and submitted to the Parliament and
during approval the Parliament hardly changes anything except some typographical mistakes.
Bangladesh should prioritize to improve public participation in its budget process for public
participation and social audit of the budget process.

The Audit report should be a public document. Parliament can hold legislative hearings on the Audit
Report. All the stakeholders can be testified. It can establish formal mechanisms for the public to
assist the supreme audit institution in formulating its audit program and to participate in relevant
audit investigations. Government may initiate a pilot mechanism for members of the public and
executive branch officials to exchange views on national budget matters during both the formulation
of the national budget and the monitoring of its implementation.

The audit processes of CAG are reviewed by an independent agency like Independent Fiscal
Institution (IFI) and also appointment of CAG through independent Parliamentary committee.
Bangladesh can improve in rating by improving budget documents to parliamentarians, government
officials, media and civil society. All the stakeholders including the Parliamentarians are kept in dark
before presentation of budget in Parliament by the Finance Minister. Government should simplify the
budget documents and make available through electronic and print media.

Business persons frantically try to draw attention of administration on their issues through different
lobby and express their "mixed reactions" after announcement of budget proposal. The budget is
always un-predictable. It should be citizen friendly and frame on the basis of declared policy and
recommendation of the stakeholders. Government and Parliament must take note of discussion on
pre and post budget discussion in different media and forums. The law makers should go for public
hearing on budget before and after presented to the Parliament.

The writer is a legal economist. Email: mssiddiqui2035@gmail.com