Multi-year budgetingTRAINING FOR THE STAFF OF THE BUDGET COMMITTEE OF THE UKRAINE PARLIAMENT AND THE STAFF OF FEAO

The presentation was prepared by Janis Platais, the head of the Fiscal Council of Latvia, an experienced IMF and the World Bank consultant. The material was presented on January 28-29, 2019, within the framework of a training on medium-term budget planning, organized for workers of the Secretariat of the VRU Committee on budget issues, by the Financial and Economic Analysis Office in the VRU.

Agenda Introduction

Broader trends in budget innovation in advanced economies

What works and what does not?

Specific European examples using multi-year budgeting

How this impacts the work of the Parliament?

Specific lessons for Ukraine – for discussion on day two

Note – all data from OECD publications

Introduction A little bit about myself

What engagement have I had with multi-year budgets?

Why this matter is important for Ukraine – interventions by the participants?

What should we try to achieve during the workshop?

What are the innovations in budgeting in advanced economies? More spending on income transfers

High peacetime debt burdens

Prospects of lower growth and high levels of fiscal stress

Fiscal space has been constrained by demographic issues and troubles getting the economy growing

These have made budgeting difficult – very small part of the budget provides some policy discretion

Common features in budgeting Macroeconomic forecasts inform the government at various stages of the budget cycle of key economic variables that impact the country's fiscal posture

Countries provide for spending units to bid for financial resources, and for one or more central agencies to review these bids in the course of preparing the budget and submitting it to the national legislature, and all have procedures for implementing the budget and auditing financial results

There are formal rules for negotiations leading to a decision by the executive on the funding levels

Differences in budgeting In the scope of parliamentary activity, ranging from Westminster-type arrangements, which preclude or restrict independent legislative actions to separated governments that give a parliament broad discretion to enact its revenue and spending preferences

In the form of appropriation, and in procedures for amending the approved budget or varying from authorized spending levels

In budgetary innovations countries are eager to learn from the successes and disappointments experienced by counterparts elsewhere; through this learning process some procedural reforms becomes the next generation's accepted practice.

Fixed routines Fixed calendars - fixed routines, including milestones and deadlines standardize forms and procedures, delineation of the formal roles and responsibilities of participants in the process, ease preparation of the budget irrespective of political will.

Perhaps the most important standardized practice has been annual budgeting; while preparing the budget and appropriating funds each year is standard operating procedure in almost all countries, the history of budgeting and processes certainly would have been different, if the budget were prepared for the full term of government or on a multiyear planning schedule.

Essential enabling reforms A single treasury account,

Establishment of the central budget office and establishment of basic steps in the annual budget cycle,

Procedures for implementing the budget and controlling public expenditures

Macroeconomic forecasting, using the budget and other fiscal tools to maintain growth and counter economic weakness

Consolidated public investment and operating budgets in a single process, and subsumed national planning within the budget

A different look at program budgeting Program budgeting approaches – legacy from the times of fast economic growth in the developed countries generating huge additional resources for governments to allocate for new activities chosen based on perceived benefits from the public expenditure

Program budgeting has become more a means of classifying expenditures than establishing objectives, and performance budgeting has been transformed into a tool for informing rather than deciding the budget

Spending reviews Conducted to free government leaders from the iron grip of past budgets by closely scrutinizing the purposes and value of existing programs and expenditures, and

In some countries to expand fiscal space for policy initiatives.

To be effective, spending reviews must have sufficient support to reduce or reallocate expenditures, and to override opposition from sectoral ministries and organized interests

Constraints are innovations limiting the discretion of budget makers By proscribing or prescribing certain procedures, actions, or outcomes

Rules that limit deficits, debt, or other fiscal aggregates are the most common contemporary budget proscription;

MTEFs that require government to set expenditure ceilings for each of the next several years are the most popular contemporary prescription

An inter-temporal budget constraint that bars revenue or spending policies that would increase the present value of projected long-term fiscal gaps; the accrual basis which requires recognition in the budget of current liabilities that will be paid out in future years; fiscal risk estimates that require reporting of government exposure to various contingencies; and pre-budget review processes

Budgeting over longer term Weaker growth, persistent deficits, elevated debt level, and demographic pressures have impelled innovators to adapt the machinery of budgeting to current fiscal pressures, and (in some countries) to unfavorable long-term projections

MTEF is an example of a highly popular innovation that started as a constraint, but now is deployed in quite a few countries to enable the government to make multiyear expenditure decisions through the annual budget process.

Constraint or enabler? MTEF originally has been introduced as a “hard” ceiling for expenditures

At a later stage budget managers tend to start the annual budget process with a review, if the expenditure ceilings could be further increased

The latter allows accommodating fresh spending priorities

Setting stage for multi-year budgeting Quite a few contemporary innovations, such as fiscal rules and medium-term frameworks, have roots in the less buoyant economic growth and tighter fiscal conditions have become commonplace.

The way in which reforms are implemented may pull them away from their original purposes. An innovation that was designed to limit the budgetary discretion of government may turn into an innovation that enlarges discretion. Medium-term expenditure frameworks (MTEFs) that were first introduced to limit discretion by assuring alignment of the annual budget and future expenditure commitments has been refashioned into an empowering innovation that extends the reach of the annual budget to the medium term.

A proxy for planning An enabling MTEF may equip advanced countries with policy planning capacity that they would otherwise lack.

OECD countries have no distinct planning ministries or processes; instead, they rely on budgeting (and often on sectoral ministries) to develop policies for the medium term and beyond.

But annual budgeting may be an inadequate planning tool because of its short time horizon and the tendency to define issues principally in financial terms.

Deploying MTEF as a planning tool that sets program objectives and spending levels 3-5 years ahead is enhancement in government capacity.

Constraints in the budgeting The problem with constraints is not that governments are indifferent to fiscal limits, but that they face political and economic pressures that make compliance difficult and unpleasant. The financial burden of past commitments, often embedded in statutory entitlements and political expectations, is not eased by ex-ante spending limits, nor are political demands to finance program initiatives.

MTEF can both enable program planning and constrain expenditures by means of annual or multiyear budget decisions, when the government is formed through a detailed coalition agreement that sets forth national policies, including key budget policies, for the full term of the government.

Can fiscal rules limit public spending? Modern fiscal rules establish quantitative limits for the government expenditure

Meanwhile, breaches are commonplace, particularly under conditions of fractured political systems and easy access to capital markets

First generation fiscal rules had obvious defects, e.g. deficit not to exceed 3% to GDP, while not taking into account the economic cycle, imposed limits on a one-year-at-a time basis, did not provide workable pathways for correcting political imbalances, and lacked sturdy enforcement mechanisms.

Solution has been more complicated EU addressed the initial problems through establishing particular authority for the EC to enforce the fiscal rules

In other countries fiscal rules helped to achieve better fiscal outcomes compared to baseline scenario even, if the fiscal rules have been breached on multiple occasions

Breaching fiscal rules and MTEFs Countries that have insufficient fiscal space to accommodate expenditure pressures within the rules sometimes buy wiggle room by spending a bit above the allowed levels. They pay attention to the rules but do not fully comply with them, and they thereby reconcile or muddle through the clash between fixed constraints and political or financial demands.

MTEF has generated a similar response, with governments giving due regard to the levels set in the previous year's budget, but raising the ceiling to finance policy initiatives.

Financial reporting Financial reporting is revisited on an ongoing basis to clarify existing standards or to deal with new situations. The work of perfecting financial reports never ends in countries where the supreme audit institution or the accounting standards board has authority to promulgate new rules and standards.

The migration of reporting standards across countries is propelled by international accounting groups, as well as by country-based rule-making bodies. Recent enhancements to financial reporting include accrual-based accounting, estimates on government's exposure to contingent liabilities and other fiscal risks, comparisons of expected and actual performance, long-term fiscal projections, and pre-budget statements that signal the government's fiscal plans.

Performance budgeting Performance budgeting (PB) is another perennial reform, which is a recurring focus of innovation because efforts to base allocations on results often fall short of the mark. Instead of abandoning the pursuit of performance, various countries have retained the PB label and reoriented it from performance-based to performance-informed budgeting, or from central budget decisions to performance management in line ministries.

Many countries have repeatedly tinkered with the definition and classification of key concepts, such as outcomes and results, and with their use in the submission and review of budget requests. Others have shifted from PB's original focus as an instrument for deciding the budget to a means of classifying or displaying decisions taken during constructing the budget.

Successful PB application Some countries have had considerable success with PB-type arrangements by recognizing that performance has to be embedded in the culture and systems of public management, especially the strategic processes and goals of government, and has a robust infrastructure across government to support the production and use of performance information. (See: OECD Best Practices for Performance Budgeting).

First, PB cannot be a stand-alone innovation; it must be closely aligned to national performance and medium-term expenditure frameworks and evidence-based assessments of policies and resources.

Second, PB should be adapted to country circumstances, with due regard to the role and interests of important stakeholders. Third, there should be systematic use of performance information, guided by the central budget authority, but also involving line ministries, the legislature and the supreme audit institution.

PB as basis for allocation decisions PB is perennial because countries are unwilling to give up on the alluring idea that public money should be allocated based on achieved or expected results.

Measured against this ideal, actual allocations persistently fall far short of the mark, sometimes because government lacks the capacity to reallocate money from less to more effective activities, sometimes because it lacks sufficient information to transfer resources, and most often because the deadline-driven, political-sensitive machinery of budgeting is more beholden to past commitments than to new possibilities.

Political demands Political demands have always been important features of budget reform; their principal aim is to give certain participants or interests greater influence in making budget decisions. Inherently, therefore, demand-driven innovations are redistributive, in that they seek to give some a greater voice in budget actions.

Main pathways for redistributing budget power: (i) is to strengthen the capacity of some interests to participate; (ii) is to assure that certain issues or policies are given due attention when budget resources are allocated. The first approach focuses on changing the process, the second on changing expenditure and program policies.

Other process innovations Independent fiscal institutions that review and comment on the government's economic and budget assumptions,

Legislative staffs that assist parliamentarians in their budget work, expansion of the legislatures authority to amend the government's budget, and

Participatory budgeting arrangements, usually at subnational levels, that give citizens a voice on certain budget matters.

Increased greater diversity on budget making within countries, with the process somewhat more open to different points of view.

More vigorous questioning of the government's budget and, arguably, to informal channels through which legislators persuade the government to revise some budget policies.

Impact on budget innovations from interaction between the process and policy What is the connection between process and policy in budget innovation?

Is it the case that modifying procedures regularly produces expected changes in substantive outcomes?

Does lengthening the time horizon of budgeting to the medium-term or longer generate lower deficits or debt levels in future budgets?

Are expenditure patterns significantly changed when the legislature has more information and more power?

Will publication of fiscal risks held by government induce it to take less risks?

Where MTEFs come from? Medium-term fiscal framework (MTFF)

Medium-term expenditure framework (MTEF)

Medium-term performance framework (MTPF)

MEFs accommodate strategic and political priorities Governments can closely align their budgets with medium-term strategic and political priorities through developing a stronger medium-term dimension in the budgeting processes beyond the annual cycle, and by organising and structuring the budget allocations in a manner that corresponds with national objectives.

In addition, nurturing a close working relationship between the CBA and the other institutions at the centre of government is important, given the inter-dependencies between the budget process and the achievement of government-wide policies.

Structured approach A medium-term expenditure framework (MTEF) is a structured approach to integrating fiscal policy and budgeting over a multi-year horizon, and links fiscal forecasting, fiscal objectives or rules and forward planning of multi-year budget estimates.

Forward estimates of expenditures become the basis of budget negotiations in the years following the budget and the forward estimates are reconciled with final outcomes in fiscal outcome reports.

Benefits Successful implementation of MTEFs has many potential benefits. MTEFs can underpin fiscal discipline, to the extent that the forward ceilings are framed by reference to fiscal limits and available resources.

MTEFs can improve the effectiveness of public spending by harmonizing public expenditure with national priorities.

Basis for action beyond the annual boundaries From the point of view of line ministry and agency managers, the medium-term perspective signals the direction of policy and funding changes thereby giving them greater assurance about resource availability over the multi-year horizon, and in turn promoting effective forward planning.

MTEFs can facilitate the planning and resourcing of multi-year policies that may require an extended time horizon for implementation, such as large capital projects, new programs, and organizational restructuring.

MTEFs in OECD countries

MTEFs - Legend and summary

OECD Budgeting Outlook 2018

Approval, coverage and monitoring of MTEF An approval of the MTEF can be done by the Ministry of Finance, Cabinet, legislature or other independent institutions.

A comprehensive coverage of expenditure in the MTEF (i.e. the share of expenditures subject to the ceiling) lends itself to greater credibility.

A broad-based MTEF allows for the relevant budget discussions to encompass the broad range of policy options and trade-offs, including the mandatory spending which might otherwise fall outside of consideration at the expense of so-called “discretionary” items.

MTEF procedures in OECD - 1

MTEF procedures in OECD – 2

Setting MTEF ceilings Sound fiscal policy is one which avoids build-up of large, unsustainable debts, and which uses favorable economic times to build up resilience and buffers against more difficult times, so that the needs of citizens and stakeholders can be addressed in an effective and enduring manner.

Different options are used to set up fiscal restraint

How are these established? Political convention to set up of medium-term fiscal objectives

Constitutional or legal requirement to set up of medium-term fiscal objectives

Specific fiscal rules set up in: The Constitution

National laws

International treaties

Fiscal objectives vs. fiscal rules “Fiscal objectives” as targets may not be legally binding but mandated through political decision or established custom and practice;

“Fiscal rules” are a standing constraint on fiscal policy through numerical limits on the budgetary aggregates, usually based in legislation.

Fundamental characteristics of fiscal rules: (i) it presents a constraint that binds political decisions made by the legislature and by the executive; (ii) it serves as a concrete indicator of the executive’s fiscal management.

The intention behind both fiscal objectives and fiscal rules is to provide a counterweight to the “deficit bias” that is presumed to be a feature of budgeting in democratic economies and to strengthen incentives towards responsible and sustainable fiscal policies

Type of fiscal rules

OECD

Fiscal rules: Balance and Debt

Balance Rules

Headline/nominal budget balance

Structural/cyclical budget balance

Primary budget balance

Golden rule

Debt rules

Debt ceiling in a level or as a percentage of GDP

Debt reduction target

Debt target in a level or as a percentage of GDP

Fiscal rules: Expenditure and Revenue

Expenditure Rules

Expenditure level/ceiling

Expenditure growth rate

Revenue rules

Revenue target

Constraints on allocation of higher than expected revenues

Fiscal rules and objectives – country practices 1

Fiscal rules and objectives – country practices 2

Enforcement of fiscal rules Automatic correction mechanism

Automatic sanctions

Entity must implement measures

Proposal with corrective measures presented to the legislature

Explanation with reasons for non-compliance presented to legislature

Fiscal rules - enforcement practices

Spending reviews Spending reviews are widely used as a strategic budgeting tool

The main objective of spending reviews is to increase the fiscal space available to government to finance its policy priorities.

Governments have made use of this tool to carry out budget consolidation, cutting less effective spending while safeguarding key spending priorities and to reprioritize expenditure, helping governments to align spending with key policy priorities.

Spending reviews systematically analyze baseline expenditures to identify scope for savings. This contrasts with the normal focus in the budget on competing demands for incremental increases in spending.

Spending reviews are resource-intensive exercises and so require to be selective to decide, what to review

Effectiveness of spending reviews Program elimination

Medium to long-term improvement in spending efficiency

Spending cuts leading to a rapid reduction in government spending

Reallocation of spending to match government policy priorities

UK introduces in 2018 a concept of a “Public Value Framework” which focuses on productivity and improving the processes through which inputs are turned into outcomes that maximize public value and improve people’s lives. It emphasizes the importance of sound planning, citizen engagement and stresses changing cultures and behaviors within government.

Performance budget Allen Schick: any budget that represents information on what agencies have done or expect to do with the money provided to them

OECD: the use of performance information to inform budget decisions, whether as a direct input to budget allocation decisions or as contextual information and/or inputs to budget planning, as well as to instill greater transparency and accountability throughout the budget process, by providing information to the public on performance objectives and results.

Types of performance budgets 11. Presentational performance budgeting

Performance information is presented with budgeting documents or other government documents but is included as background information for the purposes of accountability and dialogue with legislators and citizens on public policy issues and government direction. Performance information does not play a significant role in decision making on allocations nor is it intended to do so.

2. Performance-informed budgeting

Performance information is presented alongside the financial information and is expected to play a role in spending decisions; however, resources are related either to proposed future performance or to performance results in an indirect manner. There is no automatic linkage between performance and funding levels. The weight given to performance information depends on particular circumstances.

Types of performance budgets 23. Managerial performance budgeting

Using the system of performance information developed in the context of the budget process primarily as a tool of performance management and accountability at an organizational and management level, rather than primarily as a tool of resource allocation.

4. Direct performance budgeting

There are explicit links between budget allocations to units of performance (e.g. outputs). Funding is directly linked with results achieved. Appropriations can thus be based on a formula/contract with specific performance or activity indicators.

Expected and actual benefits from PB

Fiscal risk management Fiscal risks – deviations from the established fiscal targets

Most severe challenges here would be from underestimating the economic conditions adversely impacting government finance

Primarily – all past deviations from the fiscal estimates should be assessed and explained

Recurring deviations significantly impacting the government’s capacity to achieve the fiscal objectives should be measures and risk mitigation strategies assessed and adopted

Provisioning is a practice to consider

Some types of fiscal risks Debt

Macro economy

Contingent liabilities

Demography

Financial sector

Litigation

Public financial institutions

State-owned enterprises

Local governments

Natural disasters

The role of the Parliament The OECD Recommendation on Budgetary Governance (2015) states that “parliament has a fundamental role in authorizing budget decisions and holding government to account” and that governments should “provide for an inclusive, participative and realistic debate on budgetary choices, by offering opportunities for the parliament and its committees to engage with the budget process at all key stages of the budget cycle, both ex ante and ex post…”.

Budgetary oversight culture The budgetary oversight culture of the legislature also reflects factors such as the constitutional division of responsibilities, party and electoral systems, whether governments traditionally have large majorities or whether coalition governments are the norm, and constraints related to the level of mandatory spending and available fiscal space. Moreover, it is important to keep in mind that a parliament is not a monolithic institution but a collection of actors with diverse and changing strategies and incentives in the budgetary process.

Encouraging fiscal responsibility A realistic debate on budgetary choices takes into account overall fiscal constraint, including in the medium and longer-term.

A budgetary process that informs and consults the legislature on fiscal policy and medium-term budget policy, and that takes the views of the legislature into account during the budget formulation phase, promotes transparency and encourages fiscally responsible legislative decision-making.

Such a process may ultimately lead to less need for amendments in the budget approval phase.

Specific features of parliamentary oversight Pre-budget debate: debate the broad direction of fiscal policy, as well as budgetary priorities and trade-offs before the annual budget is submitted for approval.

Legislative scrutiny of medium-term budget frameworks

Legislative scrutiny of long-term sustainability (10-50 years)

Time allocated for legislative debate

Other Separate vote of the legislative on budget totals

The powers of the legislative to amend the budget submitted for review

Role of parliamentary committees

In-year and ex-post review

Analytical support (the staff of the Committee, specialized services, of independent fiscal institution)

Openness and public participation

Thank you! Questions or comments?