2017年-IMF国际货币组织全球_Georgia_Fiscal_Transparency_Evaluation_70页_1mb

Fiscal Transparency Evaluation of Georgia (2017)

Core Content

This evaluation assesses Georgia's fiscal transparency practices in line with the IMF's Fiscal Transparency Code. It identifies strengths and weaknesses in fiscal reporting, forecasting, budgeting, and risk management. The report also provides an estimate of Georgia's public sector financial position and offers eleven recommendations to improve transparency.

Main Findings

1. Fiscal Reporting

• Coverage of Institutions:

  • Georgia's public sector consists of 2,284 units, including central and local government, and public corporations.
  • Central government includes 731 units, of which 235 are budgetary and 496 are LEPL (Legal Entities of Public Law).
  • Local government includes 1,285 units, such as 78 municipalities and 2 autonomous regions.
  • Public corporations include 268 entities, of which 175 are controlled by central government and 91 by local government.

• Coverage of Stocks and Flows:

  • Fiscal reports are somewhat fragmented, with different levels of coverage across institutions, flows, and stocks.
  • Most reports do not include LEPL in their consolidation, leading to an underestimation of central government expenditure by about 4% of GDP.
  • Some reports exclude payments of prior period invoices, which may lead to underreporting of cash flows.

• Quality and Integrity:

  • Fiscal reports are generally comprehensive and follow international standards (GFSM 2001).
  • However, there is no independent and complete verification of the accuracy of fiscal statistics or annual financial statements.
  • The State Audit Office (SAO) does not provide a full audit opinion on the annual budget execution report, which is a significant shortcoming in ensuring the integrity of fiscal data.

• Recommendations:

  • Consolidate LEPL into general government financial reports and produce an annual consolidated financial report on an IPSAS basis.
  • Improve the quality of fiscal reporting by including prior period invoices and expanding the balance sheet to include all financial liabilities and assets.
  • Publish reconciliations of differences between fiscal aggregates in different reports.

2. Fiscal Forecasting and Budgeting

• Comprehensiveness and Policy Orientation:

  • Georgia has introduced a four-year medium-term budget framework (MTBF), formal fiscal objectives, and a program budget classification, improving the forward-looking nature of fiscal planning.
  • Fiscal forecasts are increasingly policy-oriented and consider macroeconomic scenarios.

• Orderliness and Credibility:

  • Budget documentation is timely and follows a clear organic budget law.
  • The Parliamentary Budget Office (PBO) provides independent scrutiny of the budget.
  • However, the accuracy of fiscal forecasts has not been consistently high, with forecast errors in the range of 0.5–1.5% of GDP in some cases.

• Recommendations:

  • Publish regular statements on performance against fiscal rules and provide detailed explanations of forecast errors.
  • Extend the time horizon of the Debt Sustainability Analysis (DSA) to ten years and incorporate anticipated public investment, PPPs, and PPAs.
  • Restrict access to contingency funds to unforeseeable and unavoidable expenditures.
  • Strengthen controls on loans and equity injections to public corporations (PCs) and set limits on PPP liabilities.

3. Fiscal Risks

• Disclosure and Analysis:

  • Georgia has made progress in fiscal risk disclosure, including the publication of a detailed statement on fiscal risks.
  • However, the management and control of fiscal risks remain weak, especially regarding public corporations and power-purchase agreements (PPAs).
  • The combined gross contingent liability exposure from these entities is 36% of GDP.

• Fiscal Risk Management:

  • There are weaknesses in the oversight of public corporations and PPAs.
  • Efforts are underway to develop a framework for managing fiscal risks from PPAs.

• Recommendations:

  • Enhance the management and control of fiscal risks from public corporations and PPAs.
  • Improve the transparency of fiscal risk disclosure by providing more detailed and consistent analysis.

Key Financial Indicators (2015)

Summary of Fiscal Transparency Levels

Conclusion

Georgia has made significant progress in improving fiscal transparency, particularly in fiscal forecasting and budgeting, and in the publication of fiscal risk statements. However, there are still gaps in the comprehensiveness and consistency of fiscal reporting, and the integrity of fiscal data remains a concern due to the lack of independent verification. The evaluation recommends a series of measures to enhance transparency, including the consolidation of LEPL, the extension of DSA to ten years, and the strengthening of fiscal risk management controls.