2014年-世界发展银行全球_Bosnia_and_Herzegovina___Public_Expenditure_and_Financial_Accountability_Assessment_266页_6mb

Summary of the Bosnia and Herzegovina Public Expenditure and Financial Accountability Assessment (PEFA)

Core Content

The document presents the Public Expenditure and Financial Accountability Assessment (PEFA) of Bosnia and Herzegovina (BiH) conducted in May 2014 by the World Bank. The assessment is part of the Strengthening Accountability and the Fiduciary Environment (SAFE) initiative, which aims to improve public financial management (PFM) in the Europe and Central Asia region.

The report evaluates the PFM systems, processes, and institutions at the central government, Federation of BiH (FBiH), Republika Srpska (RS), and Brčko District (DB). It covers a wide range of indicators and metrics that assess the credibility of the budget, transparency, comprehensiveness, budget cycle, predictability and control in budget execution, and internal controls.

Main Objectives

• To assess the PFM systems in BiH, focusing on accountability, transparency, and efficiency.
• To identify strengths and weaknesses in the budgeting, execution, and reporting processes.
• To support reform efforts and improve fiscal management practices across different levels of government.

Methodology and Scope

The PEFA assessment uses a set of indicators to evaluate the PFM performance of BiH and its subnational entities. These indicators are grouped into:

1. PFM Out-turns: Assessing the credibility of the budget.
2. Key Cross-cutting Issues: Evaluating comprehensiveness and transparency.
3. Budget Cycle: Analyzing policy-based budgeting and predictability in budget execution.
4. Internal Controls: Reviewing payroll, procurement, and debt management systems.

The assessment includes data from 2009 to 2012 and focuses on legal and institutional frameworks, budget planning and execution, financial reporting, and donor practices.

Key Findings

A. PFM Out-turns: Credibility of the Budget

• PI-1 (Aggregate expenditure out-turn compared to original approved budget): BiH and RS show strong performance, while FBiH and DB have mixed results.
• PI-2 (Expenditure composition): FBiH and DB show more variance than BiH and RS.
• PI-3 (Aggregate revenue out-turn): BiH and RS perform better than FBiH and DB.
• PI-4 (Expenditure payment arrears): Only BiH has reliable data, while others are not reported.

B. Key Cross-cutting Issues: Comprehensiveness and Transparency

• PI-5 (Budget classification): All entities show moderate performance, with DB being the weakest.
• PI-6 (Comprehensiveness of budget documentation): BiH and DB are below average.
• PI-7 (Unreported government operations): BiH and DB have more unreported operations than FBiH and RS.
• PI-8 (Transparency of intergovernmental fiscal relations): Only RS shows good transparency.
• PI-9 (Oversight of fiscal risk): BiH and DB show moderate oversight, while RS is stronger.
• PI-10 (Public access to key fiscal information): BiH and RS have better access than FBiH and DB.

C. Budget Cycle

• PI-11 (Orderliness and participation in the annual budget process): RS performs best, while DB is the weakest.
• PI-12 (Multiyear perspective in fiscal planning): All entities show good multiyear planning.

D. Predictability and Control in Budget Execution

• PI-13 (Transparency of taxpayer obligations): BiH and DB are better than FBiH and RS.
• PI-14 (Effectiveness of taxpayer registration and assessment): BiH and DB are better than FBiH and RS.
• PI-15 (Effectiveness in collection of tax payments): Only DB has reliable data.
• PI-16 (Predictability of funds for expenditures): BiH and RS are more predictable than FBiH and DB.
• PI-17 (Recording and management of cash, debt, and guarantees): BiH and DB show moderate performance.
• PI-18 (Effectiveness of payroll controls): All entities show good performance, with DB being the weakest.
• PI-19 (Procurement controls): Only BiH has data; others are not reported.

Key Information

• The assessment highlights significant variations in PFM performance across different levels of government.
• BiH has the most comprehensive and transparent PFM system, with the highest scores in most indicators.
• RS and DB have weaker performance in several areas, particularly in budget comprehensiveness, transparency, and public access to fiscal information.
• FBiH shows good performance in most areas, with some exceptions in budget execution and public access.
• The donor practices section discusses the financial support from EU, World Bank, and other international donors.
• The legal and institutional framework for PFM is well established, but implementation and coordination remain challenges.
• Reforms are ongoing, particularly in tax legislation, budget planning, and internal controls.
• The report is organized into sections covering country context, PFM overview, four PEFA assessments, reform process, and annexes with tables, figures, and interviews.

Conclusion

The PEFA assessment provides a comprehensive overview of the public financial management systems in Bosnia and Herzegovina, highlighting areas of strength and weakness. It underscores the importance of strengthening accountability, enhancing transparency, and improving the efficiency of PFM processes to support sustainable fiscal management and public trust. The assessment serves as a baseline for future improvements and reforms in the country's financial systems.