Question 133

With regard to the mechanism identified in question 128, does the executive provide the public with information on how citizens’ inputs have been used to assist in monitoring the implementation of the annual budget?
 * a. Yes, the executive provides a written record which includes both the list of the inputs received from the public and a detailed report of how the inputs were used to assist in monitoring the annual budget.
 * b. Yes, the executive provides a written record which includes both the list of inputs received and a summary of the how the inputs were used to assist in monitoring the annual budget.
 * c. Yes, the executive provides a written record which includes either the list of the inputs received or a report or summary on how they were used.
 * d. The requirements for a “c” response or above are not met.
 * e. Not applicable/other (please comment).

OBS Guidelines
This question reflects the GIFT principles of “Transparency” and “Sustainability”, and examines the extent to which the executive provides information to citizens on which public inputs were received during the implementation of the annual budget, which ones are take into account to improve budget monitoring, and how/why.

By “written record”, we mean a document that is produced and released by the lead budget agency (Ministry of Finance, Treasury) that has set up and holds the participation activity.

Answer “a” applies when the executive provides a written document with:
 * The inputs (e.g., a written transcript) received from the public and
 * A detailed report on how the inputs were used or not used (such report should include information on which inputs were used or not used, why, and how)

Answer “b” applies when the executive provides a written document that includes:
 * The inputs received (e.g., a written transcript) from the public and
 * A not-so-detailed report, such as a document with a few paragraphs, on how public inputs were used or not used. This document only gives a general idea on how those inputs were or were not taken into account by the executive during budget monitoring.

Answer “c” applies when the executive provides a written document that includes:
 * The inputs (e.g., a written transcript) received from the public or
 * A report (being it detailed or not-so-detailed) on how public inputs have been used or not used.

Answer “d” applies if the requirements for a “c” response or above are not met or if the executive does not use public participation mechanisms during the budget implementation stage.

(1) A summary of consultations
Some countries simply provide a summary of the consultations without any reference to how the inputs were or were not used and why. If there is a summary of the consultations, we could go with a “c” response and be consistent. While this is far from ideal, in OBS 2017 there were only a handful of countries that provided as little as a summary report. By acknowledging the summary report, we could acknowledge at least the transparency in consultations.

(2) If there are references to the impact of public consultations in unconventional places, like a budget speech or a blog on the agencies website, how should we score?
Please bring such cases to the team. Once established that it is in reference to same participation mechanism we are citing, we could go with a “c” score. However, we should be more demanding in terms of linking the participation mechanism to some meaningful outcome in the budget.

(3) If the government has a practice of publishing outcomes, but the outcome for the most recent participation mechanism is missing our research cut-off, how should we score?
We should mention in comments and score according to past practice of at least the last 2 years.