The Legal Foundations Of Public Debt Transparency Aligning The Law With Good Practices

Debt opacity burdens the public and can exacerbate debt vulnerabilities in many countries. Both low-income and developing countries and emerging market economies have critical gaps in debt transparency, and the implementation of international standards and guidelines has lagged. The paper surveys the legal frameworks of sixty jurisdictions and reveals the critical weaknesses that hinder debt transparency, which include weak reporting obligations, limited coverage of public debt, inadequate monitoring, unclear borrowing and delegation processes, unfettered confidentiality arrangements and weak accountability mechanisms. Because laws entrench practices and bind the discretion of policy makers and debt managers alike, subjecting them to public scrutiny, legal reform is a necessary part of any solution to the problem of hidden debt, though it may entail a difficult and time intensive process in many jurisdictions.

The paper develops and assesses options to improve public debt transparency. It first makes the case, both conceptually and empirically, for greater public debt transparency. To guide the development and assessment of options, it examines the factors hindering transparency, including capacity and governance gaps, and borrower and creditor incentives. The paper then provides a high-level overview of existing initiatives to improve public debt transparency, identifying priorities for progress and policy gaps. Next, it presents and analyzes the merits of a range of options to improve public debt transparency, drawn from reform proposals gaining prominence in policymaking circles while reflecting Fund policy priorities. The IMF could contribute to these reforms with actions within its mandate but would need significant additional resources.

To produce timely and accurate debt reports at the central government level, it is essential to have a sound legal, administrative, and operational framework in place for debt data compilation, reconciliation, accounting, monitoring, and reporting. This note focuses on the arrangements for external project-based debt, which present distinctive challenges in debt reporting particularly in low-income and developing countries. The discussion complements existing literature and guidance on debt transparency by focusing on stages prior to the production of debt reports. The note also identifies the links between the management of project loans and other public financial management (PFM) processes, such as public investment management, budget preparation, fiscal and financial reporting. It shows that a comprehensive approach that considers these linkages can improve efficiency and transparency in fiscal and debt management. Although the focus is on the central government’s debt obligations, the ideas can be extended to cover government-guaranteed loans and public sector debt in general.

NULL

The Revised Guidelines for Public Debt Management have been developed as part of a broader work program undertaken by the IMF and the World Bank to strengthen the international financial architecture, promote policies and practices that contribute to financial stability and transparency, and reduce countries external vulnerabilities.

This supplement includes five background papers and provides background information on various aspects of capacity development (CD) for the main Board paper, Review of the Fund’s Capacity Development Strategy—Towards a More Flexible, Integrated, and Tailored Model. It is divided into five sections, each consisting of a different background paper. The five sections cover (1) CD Delivery Modalities; (2) Evaluation and Impact; (3) Regional Capacity Development Centers and Field Presence; (4) HR Policies; and (5) Mapping the Fund’s Position vis-à-vis Other CD Providers.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Portugal’s practices meet most of the principles of the revised Fiscal Transparency Code at good or advanced levels. A number of areas still present practices at a basic level, but in most of these cases this reflects reforms that have recently been launched and have not yet been fully implemented so as to affect current practices. Indeed, if measured against the practices observed prior to the recent financial crisis, there has been remarkable progress. The challenge is to press ahead with the reform agenda so that all fiscal transparency practices meet good or advanced levels, thus strengthening even further the management of public finances and the associated risks. The key findings of the present Fiscal Transparency Evaluation are: • Fiscal reporting is in line with good or advanced practices, particularly in compliance with EU requirements and ESA 95 standards, but still lacks a sound conceptual accounting framework based on internationally accepted standards. • Fiscal forecasting and budgeting have improved over the last three years, although investment evaluation only meets the basic standard of the Code. • Reporting of fiscal risks is in its infancy and in spite of numerous initiatives undertaken in the last few years, such as the publication of a fiscal risk statement, remains fragmented. The large amount and good quality of information available allows a very preliminary and partial estimate of the public sector net worth and total risk exposure. An estimated negative net worth position of 140 percent of GDP (including the liabilities of the main defined-benefits employment-related pension scheme) and a sizeable exposure to various contingent liabilities, although some of these have a low probability of crystallizing, are reminders of the still fragile status of Portugal’s public finances.

Conflicts of interest in both the public and private sectors have become a major matter of public concern world-wide. The OECD Guidelines define a conflict of interest as occurring when a public official has private-capacity interests which could improperly influence the performance of their official duties and responsibilities. However, identifying a specific conflict of interest in practice can be difficult. And resolving the conflicting interests appropriately in a particular case is something that most people find even more challenging. The Toolkit focuses on specific techniques, resources and strategies for: Identifying, managing and preventing conflict-of-interest situations more effectively; and Increasing integrity in official decision-making, which might be compromised by a conflict of interest. This Toolkit provides non-technical, practical help to enable officials to recognise problematic situations and help them to ensure that integrity and reputation are not compromised. The tools themselves are provided in generic form. They are based on examples of sound conflict-of-interest policy and practice drawn from various OECD member and non-member countries. They have been designed for adaptation to suit countries with different legal and administrative systems. FURTHER READING: Managing Conflict of Interest in the Public Service: OECD Guidelines and Country Experiences