2009年-世界发展银行全球_Kingdom_of_Thailand_-_Public_Expenditure_and_Financial_Accountability___Public_Financial_Management_Assessment_122页_2mb

Summary of the Thailand Public Expenditure and Financial Accountability (PEFA) Assessment (October 2009)

Core Content

This report presents the results of the Public Financial Management (PFM) Performance Report (PFMPR) for Thailand, conducted by the World Bank in collaboration with the Government of Thailand. It evaluates the PFM system across six core dimensions: Budget Credibility, Comprehensiveness and Transparency, Policy-Based Budgeting, Predictability and Control, Accounting, Recording and Reporting, and External Scrutiny and Audit. The assessment is based on 28 high-level indicators, excluding donor practices indicators, and aims to provide an objective and standardized evaluation of the PFM system.

Main Points and Key Information

1. Country Background

• Thailand is a middle-income country with a population of 64 million and an average income per person of US$4,450 in 2008.
• The economy has experienced rapid growth, averaging 5.0% GDP growth between 1998-2007, but slowed to 2.6% in 2008 due to the global financial crisis.
• Economic development is driven by manufactured exports and labor movement from agriculture to manufacturing and services.
• The majority of economic activity is in the private sector, while most utility services are provided by state-owned enterprises (SOEs).

2. PFM Reforms

• The Government of Thailand has implemented wide-ranging PFM reforms since 1999, focusing on the six core dimensions of PFM performance.
• Key reforms include:
  • Deployment of the Government Fiscal Management Information System (GFMIS).
  • Implementation of Strategic Performance Based Budgeting (SPBB).
  • Adoption of International Public Sector Accounting Standards (IPSAS).
  • Conducting financial, procurement, performance, and risk-based audits.
  • Introduction of Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) to improve service delivery responsiveness.

3. Assessment Findings

(i) Budget Credibility

• The PFM system in Thailand performs well in terms of budget credibility.

• Actual expenditure deviated from the approved budget by more than 10% in only one of the last three years.

• Expenditure composition variance was less than 2.5%.

• Domestic revenue collection exceeded budgeted amounts consistently.

• Arrears in central government expenditure have been negligible.

• However, the Central Fund allows for significant flexibility, potentially leading to misuse.

(ii) Comprehensiveness and Transparency

• Budget and fiscal risk oversight are comprehensive, but transparency of inter-governmental fiscal relations is weak.
• Local governments receive about 25% of total revenues but lack systematic reporting and consolidation.
• Oversight of local governments is fragmented across agencies.
• There is no consistent reporting of local government expenditure since 1996.
• The lack of a unified chart of accounts (COA) and budget carry-over provisions complicates budget-to-actual comparisons.

(iii) Policy-Based Budgeting

• The budget calendar is clear and aligned with the Government's policies as outlined in the Government Administrative Plan (GAP).
• The Medium Term Expenditure Framework (MTEF) is used to plan over a four-year horizon.
• Outer year estimates are indicative, not binding.
• Strategic allocation of resources is not fully translated into costed strategies at the sector level.

(iv) Predictability and Control

• The budget is implemented in an orderly and predictable manner.
• The Comptroller-General's Department (CGD) manages budget execution through the Treasury Reserve Accounts (TRA).
• Cash flow is managed through cash reserves and T-Bill issuance.
• Internal controls and audits are consistent with international standards, but there is a lack of systematic follow-up on audit findings.
• Procurement controls can be further strengthened, with some areas needing better transparency and competitiveness in the bidding process.

(v) Accounting, Recording and Reporting

• Consolidated central government financial statements cover revenue, expenditure, and financial assets/liabilities.
• Since the introduction of GFMIS in 2005, there have been reconciliation difficulties, preventing certification of financial reports by the Office of the Auditor-General (OAG).
• Efforts are ongoing to address these issues and ensure accurate and timely reporting.

(vi) External Scrutiny and Audit

• The OAG performs audits in various areas, including financial, performance, procurement, and tax collection.
• The annual audit report is presented to the National Assembly, but there is no established process for detailed review by specialized committees.
• Legislative scrutiny of audit reports is lacking, and no recommendations have been issued by the National Assembly in response to audit findings.

Key Recommendations for Reform

• Unification of the Chart of Accounts (COA) to ensure accurate budget-to-actual reporting.
• Enhancing the operational effectiveness of GFMIS through staff training, integration with the e-Budget system, and implementation of a unified COA.
• Operationalizing internal control and internal audit regulations by mandating departments to integrate audit findings into their core processes.

Conclusion

The PFM system in Thailand is generally well-structured and has made significant progress in improving macro-fiscal discipline, resource allocation, and service delivery efficiency. However, there are areas that require reform, particularly in transparency, consolidation of financial data, and strengthening internal and external oversight mechanisms. The report serves as a comprehensive diagnostic tool to guide future reforms and improve the overall fiscal accountability and public financial management in Thailand.