2014年-世界发展银行全球_Vietnam_Fiscal_Transparency_Review___Analysis_and_Stakeholder_Feedback_on_State_Budget_Information_in_the_Public_Domain_138页_7mb

Vietnam Fiscal Transparency Review Summary

Core Content

This report provides an analysis of Vietnam's fiscal transparency practices, focusing on the availability, accessibility, and comprehensiveness of fiscal information in the public domain. It also includes stakeholder feedback and recommendations for improving transparency as part of the Public Financial Management (PFM) reform program. The review highlights both progress made and areas requiring further enhancement.

Main Points and Recommendations

1. Fiscal Transparency Progress and Challenges

• Progress: Vietnam has made significant strides in fiscal transparency since the late 1990s, with budget data increasingly available to the public. This has supported improved macroeconomic management and public accountability.
• Challenges: Despite progress, the report notes that the content and presentation of budget documents can be improved. There is a lack of detailed economic breakdowns, limited transparency on capital spending, and a complex carry-over system that undermines credibility and accuracy.
• Stakeholder Interest: Key stakeholders, including civil society organizations (CSOs) and the media, show strong interest in fiscal information. However, access and awareness remain limited at the sub-national level, and financial data alone may not be sufficient for meaningful public understanding.

2. Improving Coverage and Presentation of Fiscal Information

• Mid-Year Budget Updates: The report recommends publishing mid-year budget updates to communicate policy changes and developments effectively.
• Budget Proposal Publication: Publishing the Budget Proposal at the time of submission to the National Assembly is suggested to enhance citizen participation and transparency.
• User-Friendly Reports: Developing user-friendly reports such as "Citizens Budgets" is recommended to better communicate budget priorities and achievements, especially in service delivery.
• Economic Breakdowns: Including detailed economic breakdowns (e.g., wages, goods and services, transfers) in budget reports is essential for transparency and informed public discourse.
• Capital Spending: The report emphasizes the need for more granular information on capital spending, including its allocation across administrative units and functions.

3. Activities Beyond Core Budgetary Activities

• Extra-Budgetary Funds and Off-Budget Capital Spending: These activities have significant fiscal implications but are not fully integrated into the main budget process. The report recommends including summary reports on these activities in core budget documents.
• State-Owned Enterprises (SOEs): SOEs' impact on the state budget is not currently analyzed in a consolidated manner. The report suggests developing a framework to assess SOEs' fiscal linkages and risks.

4. Fiscal Transparency Reforms and Suggested Directions

• Regulatory Reforms: The report outlines several regulatory changes to the State Budget Law (SBL) and related decrees to enhance transparency and accountability.
• Key Recommendations:
  • Align the definition of fiscal balance with GFSM 2001 standards.
  • Clarify the relationship between oversight agencies (e.g., SAV and FBC) to improve coordination.
  • Strengthen reporting coverage and accountability, including sub-national and PFF (Public Financial Funds) reporting.
  • Include a consolidated risk statement in budget presentations.
  • Integrate tax expenditure reports into the budget process.
  • Put donor accounts on treasury systems to improve aid management and fiscal reconciliation.
  • Review and align PFF reporting standards with GFSM 2001 classification.
  • Strengthen the oversight functions of the Supreme Audit Institution (SAV).
  • Engage more closely with CSOs and the media to improve communication and monitoring capacity.

5. Timeframe for Implementation

• Short-Term: Recommendations include publishing the Budget Proposal, aligning with GFSM 2001, and improving reporting on fiscal risks and tax expenditures.
• Medium-Term: Focus is on updating PFF reporting standards, integrating off-budget capital spending into the budget, and improving data collection and analysis systems.
• Long-Term: Involves institutional reforms such as a decentralization law, comprehensive integration of SOEs and extra-budgetary funds into the budget process, and in-depth review of oversight functions.

Key Information

• Legal Framework: The State Budget Law (2002) is a central document for fiscal transparency reforms. Several related laws and decrees, such as the State Audit Law (SAL) and Decree 60 (2003), are also reviewed.
• Institutional Involvement: The Ministry of Finance (MOF), the Finance and Budget Committee (FBC), and the Supreme Audit Institution (SAV) are key players in fiscal transparency.
• Tools and Frameworks: The report references the Open Budget Index (OBI), Public Expenditure and Financial Accountability (PEFA), and the Global Initiative on Fiscal Transparency (GIFT) as tools to assess and improve transparency.
• Stakeholder Engagement: Civil Society Organizations (CSOs) and the media play a crucial role in promoting budget transparency and public understanding, particularly at the sub-national level.

Conclusion

The report concludes that Vietnam has made notable progress in fiscal transparency but requires further reforms to ensure comprehensive, consistent, and meaningful disclosure of fiscal information. These reforms are expected to enhance public trust, support macroeconomic stability, and improve the effectiveness of public service delivery. The recommendations are summarized in Table A and are aligned with the ongoing PFM reform program.

References and Annexes

• The report includes annexes detailing different approaches to reviewing fiscal transparency, survey results on budget transparency, good practices for disclosure, and legal provisions related to public disclosure.
• It is part of the World Bank Vietnam Programmatic Public Finance Review (PPFR) and supported by Development Partners such as DFAT-Australia and DFID.

Summary of Recommendations