International Budget Partnership OPEN BUDGET QUESTIONNAIRE Sweden, September 2009

Transcription

1 Interntionl Budget Prtnership OPEN BUDGET QUESTIONNAIRE Sweden, September 2009 Interntionl Budget Prtnership Center on Budget nd Policy Priorities 820 First Street NE, Suite 510 Wshington, DC This questionnire ws completed by: Nme: Ann Schnell Orgniztion: Melnder Schnell Consultnts (MSC) Address: Liljegtn 12, Uppsl, Sweden Telephone: +46-(0) E-mil:

2 Interntionl Budget Prtnership OPEN BUDGET QUESTIONNAIRE Section One: The Avilbility of Budget Documents... 3 Tble 1. Budget Yer of Documents Used in Completing the Questionnire... 4 Tble 2. Key Budget Documents Used: Full Titles nd Internet Links... 5 Tble 3. Distribution of Documents Relted to the Executive s Budget Proposl... 9 Tble 4. Distribution of the Encted Budget nd Other Reports Section Two: The Executive s Budget Proposl Estimtes for the Budget Yer nd Beyond Estimtes for Yers Prior to the Budget Yer Comprehensiveness The Budget Nrrtive & Performnce Monitoring Additionl Key Informtion for Budget Anlysis & Monitoring Section Three: The Budget Process Executive s Formultion of the Budget Legisltive Approvl of the Budget Executive s Implementtion of the Budget Yer-end Report nd the Supreme Audit Institution

3 Section One: The Avilbility of Budget Documents 3

4 Tble 1. Budget Yer of Documents Used in Completing the Questionnire Budget Documents Used in Completing the Questionnire Budget Yer Used Pre-Budget Sttement 2010 Budget Summry 2009 Executive s Budget Proposl 2009 Supporting Budget Documents 2009 Citizens Budget 2009 Encted Budget 2009 In-Yer Reports 2009 Mid-Yer Report Not Avilble Yer-End Report 2008 Audit Report

5 Tble 2. Key Budget Documents Used: Full Titles nd Internet Links* Budget Document Full Title, Dte, nd Internet Link Pre-Budget Sttement års ekonomisk vårproposition (The 2009 Spring Fiscl Policy Bill), Prop. 2008/09:100, 15 April Budget Summry - The Citizens Budget ws vlble on the web Ur budgetpropositionen för 2009: Finnspln och smmndrg, 22 September However it hs since been replced with the Citizens budget for the 2010 budget proposl - see The document bove ws lso vilble in English. - Budgetpropositionen för 2009 (Budget Proposl 2009), Prop. 2008/09:1, 22 September Executive s Budget Proposl - There ws webpge with ll the mjor Budget Proposl 2009 documents nd informtion mterils re gthered, ll dted 22 September Tht webpge hs since then been replced with the 2010 budget proposl, nd the min budget proposl documents for 2009 were moved to this webpge: Budget Document One in Support of the Executive s Budget Proposl - Pressmeddelnden relterde till Budgetpropositionen- ej dterde (Press releses - not dted) Budget Document Two in Support of the Executive s Budget Proposl Budget Document Three in Support of the Executive s Budget Proposl Citizens Budget - Så fördels budgeten (The wy the budget is divided), 22 September 2008 The budget summry for 2009 ws found on the web but hs now been replced by the budget summry for the budget proposl 2010: The summry for the 2009 budget ws presented in the sme wy. The webpge is clled Utgiftsområden utveckling (In English: Spending res development) 5

6 Encted Budget - Finnsutskottets betänknde 2008/09 (The Finnce Committee's report):fiu10, 19 December nde&bet=2008/09:fiu10 - Monthly reports on budget expenditures: Swedish Ntionl Finncil Authority (Ekonomistyrningsverket): - go to Sttens finnser (The Stte Finnces), Måndsutfll på Sttsbudgeten. (Monthly Reports on the Stte Finnces) In-Yer Reports - Monthly reports on the public debt: Swedish Ntionl Finncil Authority (Ekonomistyrningsverket): Is found on the sme web pges s the budget expenditures bove. Go to måndsutfll, then select month on the right hnd side, nd then press the + sign by Totl utgifter. The in yer reports re on the web (not on pper, nd re monthly updtes. The timelg is bout 2 months i.e. My is the ltest month displyed on the web tody (July 24th). Plese dvice. Mid-Yer Review - Not produced The executive does not relese one such mid-yer review. However, the Spring Fiscl Bill (Vårpropositionen) - the prebudget sttement - hs spects of mid-yer review but is not designed to specificlly show detiled budget performnce nd mcroeconomic dt of the pst 6 months (it does give some overview of such informtion though). Yer-End Report Audit Report Årsredovisning för stten 2008 (The Yer-End Report 2008), Skr. 2008/09:101, 16 April Riksrevisorerns årlig rpport 2009, (The Yerly Report of the Swedish Ntionl Audit Office covering 2008), 1 June spx 6

7 års proposition om vårtilläggsbudget (The 2009 Bill on proposed supplementry budget), Prop. 2008/09:99, 15 April Other Documents Spring Fiscl Policy Bill relted mterils (from 15 April 2009): - Redovisning v sktteutgifter 2009 (Tx ccounts), Skr. 2008/09: Vår pengr - presenttionsmteril (Our money - presenttion mteril) - Vårproposition en nsvrsfull politik för tt värn välfärden (Spring Fiscl Policy Bill responsible policy to sfegrd the welfre - press sttement) Hitt rätt i vårpropositionen 2009 (Find your wy in the Spring Fiscl Policy Bill) - Budgetprocessen (The Budget Process - s described by the Government on webpge): - Budgetprocessen (The Budget Process - s described by the Swedish Ntionl Finncil Mngement Authority on webpge - more comprehensive thn the description bove): ce3ced html - Den sttlig budgetprocessen (The Budget Process - s described by the Government in booklet): - The Centrl Government Budget (the English trnsltion of the bove document). - Stte Budget Procedure: - The Centrl Government Budget Process: - Ordlist (List of explntions of budget relted words) 7

8 - Links to the Government Offices nd Ministries: in Swedish nd in English: - The Prliment: http: ( lrge prt is vilble in English nd more limited prt in rnge of other lnguges see spx ) - Swedish Ntionl Finncil Mngement Authority (Ekonomistyrningsverket) ( lrge prt is vilble in English) - Swedish Ntionl Audit Office Stte Audit Institution (Riksrevisionen): ( lrge prt is vilble in English) Relevnt Ministries & Deprtments - Swedish Ntionl Debt Office (Riksgäldskontoret): ( lrge prt is vilble in English) - Swedish Tx Agency (Sktteverket): (there is limited mount of informtion in other lnguges see tml ) - Swedish Centrl Bnk (Sveriges Riksbnk): ( lrge prt is vilble in English) - Ntionl Institute of Economic Reserch (Konjunkturinstitutet): ( lrge prt is vilble in English) - Sttistics Sweden (Sttistisk Centrlbyrån): ( lrge prt is vilble in English) * Government Comments for Tble 2 re vilble t the end of the Questionnire 8

9 Tble 3. Distribution of Documents Relted to the Executive s Budget Proposl* DISTRIBUTION OF BUDGET DOCUMENTS A. Not produced, even for internl purposes Min document Executive s Budget Proposl Budget summry* Supporting Document 1 Supporting Document 2 Citizens budget B. Produced for internl purposes, but not vilble to the public C. Produced nd vilble to the public, but only on request D. Produced nd distributed to the public (for exmple, in librries, posted on the Internet.) Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes For budget reports tht re produced nd distributed to the public, wht steps does the executive tke to distribute these reports nd to promote interest in them? Prebudget Prebudget Min document Executive s Budget Proposl Budget summry* Supporting Document 1 Supporting Document 2 Citizens budget 1. The relese dte is known t lest one month in Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes dvnce 2. Advnce notifiction of relese is sent to users, Yes Yes No No No No medi 3. Relesed to public sme dy s officil relese to Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes medi 4. Avilble on the Internet free of chrge Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 5. Free print copies vilble, limited distribution Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No 6. Free print copies vilble, mss distribution No No No No No Yes 7. Redily vilble outside cpitl nd/or big cities + Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 8. Written in more thn one lnguge No No Yes No No No 9. News conference is held to discuss relese Yes Yes No No No No *A budget summry should be stnd-lone document, which could include budget speech or seprtely published executive summry. + Mrk Yes if ccess by mil order or by Internet, if Internet service is redily vilble outside the cpitl nd/or big cities. * Government Comments for Tble 3 re vilble t the end of the Questionnire 9

10 Tble 4. Distribution of the Encted Budget nd Other Reports* A. Not produced, even for internl purposes B. Produced for internl purposes, but not vilble to the public C. Produced nd vilble to the public, but only on request DISTRIBUTION OF ENACTED BUDGET AND OTHER REPORTS Encted budget In-yer reports Mid-yer review Yes Yer-end report Audit report D. Produced nd distributed to the public (for exmple, in librries, posted on the Internet.) Yes Yes Yes Yes For budget reports tht re produced nd distributed to the public, wht steps does the executive tke to distribute these reports nd to promote interest in them? 1. The relese dte is known t lest one month in dvnce 2. Advnce notifiction of relese sent to users, medi 3. Relesed to public sme dy s officil relese to medi 4. Avilble on the Internet free of chrge 5. Free print copies vilble, limited distribution Encted budget In-yer reports Mid-yer review Yer-end report Audit report Yes Yes NA Yes Yes No No NA No Yes Yes Yes NA Yes Yes Yes Yes NA Yes Yes No Print copies cn be ordered t SEK 30 (4 USD) Yes NA Yes Yes 6. Free print copies vilble, mss distribution No No NA No No 7. Redily vilble outside cpitl/big cities + Yes Yes NA Yes Yes 8. Written in more thn one lnguge No No NA No No 9. News conference is held to discuss relese No No NA No Yes + Mrk Yes if ccess is vilble by mil order or by Internet, if Internet service is redily vilble outside the cpitl nd/or big cities. * Government Comments for Tble 4 re vilble t the end of the Questionnire 10

11 Section Two: The Executive s Budget Proposl Notes on bbrevitions: BY = budget yer (yer for which the budget proposls re being mde) BY+1 = one yer beyond the budget yer BY-1 = one yer before the budget yer Note 1: The Open Budget Survey reserch process ws crried out over 12-month period nd the finl version of the Open Budget Questionnires reflect decisions mde fter multiple rounds of discussions between Survey reserchers, peer reviewers, nd the Interntionl Budget Prtnership (IBP) (in severl countries these decisions lso considered comments received from governments). When peer reviewers or governments greed with the nswers provided by reserchers, they often provided no comment. Thus for mny questions, the section in the questionnire tht should contin peer reviewer comments is left blnk. However, if the government did not provide ny comments to question (becuse it did not dispute the nswer), the section within the questionnire tht is ment to reflect government comments specifies the nswer tht the government greed with (by defult). Since the IBP continued its discussions with the reserchers even fter receiving peer reviewer nd government comments, for some questions these discussions resulted in mutul decision to chnge the nswers, even if the peer reviewers nd governments greed with the originl nswer provided by the resercher. Such chnges my hve hppened s result of: 1. A more consistent ppliction of the Survey methodology; 2. New informtion identified by the resercher or by IBP tht hd bering on the nswer for prticulr question; or 3. Decisions mde to ensure cross-country comprbility of nswers. For more informtion on these chnges for ny question plese write to info@interntionlbudget.org. 11

12 The Executive s Budget Proposl Estimtes for the Budget Yer nd Beyond 1. Does the executive s budget or ny supporting budget documenttion present expenditures for the budget yer tht re clssified by dministrtive unit (tht is, by ministry, deprtment, or gency)?. All expenditures re clssified by dministrtive unit. b. Expenditures re clssified by dministrtive unit, but some smll units re not shown seprtely. c. Expenditures re clssified by dministrtive unit, but significnt number of units re not shown seprtely. d. No expenditures clssified by dministrtive unit re presented. The letters of ppropritions (Regleringbrev) re found on the Swedish Ntionl Mngement Authority s (Ekonomistyrningsverket) homepge: b html The budget proposl is presented by 27 expenditure nd 48 policy res. Mny of those cn be linked to specific dministrtive unit bsed on their title, but they re not presented by ministry or gency. A clssifiction by gency is mde by the government in its letters of pproprition directions (regleringsbrev) to the gencies soon fter the budget proposl is pproved by Prliment, in December. Strictly speking the budget proposl's expenditure res re therefore not dministrtive units. However, lst yer IBP selected nswer b to mintin consistency with the criteri used for selecting nswer cross countries, bsed on the bove informtion. It is therefore resonble to rte the question the sme this time. Also, note tht the cutoff dte for the documents used in this OBI reserch ws 15 September This ment tht the budget proposl 2010, tht ws mde public just few dys fter the cutoff dte, could not be used. The budget proposl 2009 is the one in focus in the bove reserch. b Resercher Response to this Question ws b Peer Reviewer One Peer Reviewer Two A more pproprite response to this question would be tht the Tresury budget proposl to Prliment does not include full brekdown into dministrtive units, but it is nevertheless included in the executive s budget to certin degree, nd in the letters of pproprition tht re prt of the budget process. If the OBI, for consistency reson, hs determined tht the brekdown should be presented in the budget bill, nd does not llow for time-lg, perhps the question should be slightly rephrsed. Presently, the question ctully includes ny supporting document, nd clerly the letters of pproprition re, even if they re presented lter in the process. According to the Guide to the Open Budget Questionnire (p. 9), if I red it correctly, the budget document should be comprehensive, to llow for informed debte, nd I think the budget document should be rted higher thn b (67%). For the purpose of trnsprency nd 12

13 vilbility it is much closer to n. My suggestion is tht the rting should be. Government Government did not dispute resercher s nswer. Resercher Response: I chose nswer b becuse s mentioned by the Peer Reviewer Two, the question does not llow for the time lg. IBP Bsed on review of comments, IBP editors chose nswer b. 2. Does the executive s budget or ny supporting budget documenttion present expenditures for the budget yer tht re clssified by functionl clssifiction?. All expenditures re clssified by functionl clssifiction, nd the ctegoriztion is comptible with interntionl stndrds. b. All expenditures re clssified by functionl clssifiction, but the ctegoriztion is not comptible with interntionl stndrds. c. Some, but not ll, expenditures re clssified by function. d. No expenditures clssified by function re presented. See Appendix 1, pge 5-19, of the Executive's Budget Proposl (Specifiktion v sttsbudgetens utgifter) The ctegoriztion is not fully comptible with the Clssifiction of the Functions of the Government (COFOG - The Executive's Budget Proposl is broken down into 27 expenditure res (utgiftsområden) nd 48 policy res (politikområden). However, such clssifiction of the budget proposl is mde by Sttistics Sweden ex-post the relese of the proposl. See: cb&omrdekod=nr&huvudtbell=ofmkonsutgiftar&omrdetext=ntionl +ccounts&tbelltext=offentlig+myndigheters+konsumtionsutgifter+(e NS95)+efter+%E4ndm%E5l+COFOG.+%C5r&preskt=O&prodid=NR01 02&deltbell=&deltbellnmn=Offentlig+myndigheters+konsumtionsutg ifter+(ens95)+efter+%e4ndm%e5l+cofog.+%c5r&innehll=ofmkon sutgiftfpar&strttid=1993&stopptid=2006&fromwhere=m&lng=2&lng db=1 nd cb&omrdekod=nr&huvudtbell=ofmkonsutgiftar&omrdetext=ntionl r%e4kenskper&tbelltext=offentlig+myndigheters+konsumtionsutgift er+(ens95)+efter+%e4ndm%e5l+cofog.+%c5r&preskt=o&prodid= NR0102&deltbell=&deltbellnmn=Offentlig+myndigheters+konsumtio nsutgifter+(ens95)+efter+%e4ndm%e5l+cofog.+%c5r&innehll=of MKonsUtgiftFpAr&strttid=1993&stopptid=2006&Fromwhere=M&lng=1 &lngdb=1 b Resercher Response to this Question ws b 13

14 Peer Reviewer One I gree tht b is the nswer. Moreover, the links to Sttistics Sweden show finl public consumption with 3 yer lg, not n ex-post clssifiction of the budget proposl. Peer Reviewer Two In similr vein to the response under Q1, more pproprite rting would be, lthough the stndrd requirement for functionl clssifiction is not met. The clssifiction is fully functionl, comprehensive nd trnsprent to llow for nd informed debte nd the rting, in my opinion, should be bsed on tht, nd not on specific stndrd. I would suggest tht the question is slightly rephrsed nd the word comptible is chnged to fully comprble. Might be long shot, but this would void tht fully trnsprent, comprehensive system gets n inccurte b rting. Government Government did not dispute resercher s nswer. Resercher Response: I chose my nswer b in line with peer reviewer one's comment. Peer reviewer two is suggesting chnge to the question, not to the nswer. IBP Bsed on review of comments, IBP editors chose nswer b. 3. Does the executive s budget or ny supporting budget documenttion present expenditures for the budget yer tht re clssified by economic clssifiction?. All expenditures re clssified by economic clssifiction, nd the ctegoriztion is comptible with interntionl stndrds. b. All expenditures re clssified by economic clssifiction, but the ctegoriztion is not comptible with interntionl stndrds. c. Some, but not ll, expenditures re clssified by economic clssifiction. d. No expenditures clssified by economic clssifiction re presented. The expenditures re not clssified by economic clssifiction in the Executive s Budget Proposl (i.e. economic clssifiction s defined by the IMF in the Government Finnce Sttistics Mnul 2001). The stted reson for this is to give the gencies flexibility: To give the gencies the finncil flexibility which is necessry for performnce mngement, they receive yerly ppropritions which re not subdivided into different expenditure ctegories. The frmework ppropritions permit the gencies to crry forwrd unspent blnces from one fiscl yer to nother. They lso permit gencies to borrow ginst the following yer s pproprition which is stted on pge 5 in the Swedish Ntionl Finncil Mngement Authority s publiction Performnce Mngement in Swedish Centrl Government : ngementinswedishcentrlgovernment.5.e1666ffde6cee ht ml c 14

15 A clssifiction of finl public expenditures is mde by Sttistics Sweden with three yer timelg. For nlyticl purposes of the government there re some very highly ggregted presenttions of trnsfers, consumption nd investments in the budget proposl. However, it is not wht the IMF defines s economic clssifiction, nd the government gencies re not obligted to spend ccording to those figures. An exmple of such presenttion cn be found in the Executives Budget Proposl, expenditure re 26 (Sttsskuldsräntor), tble 2.3 pge 10: It should be dded the Swedish Ntionl Finncil Authority (Ekonomistyrningsverket) mkes n economic clssifiction of the Executive's Budget Proposl. The clssifiction is done in the yer fter the relese of the proposl in reltion to the Yer-end Report (in April), nd the publiction of budget expenditure outcomes. See the clssifiction in the Authority's report of Mrch 2009 on the budget outcomes 2008: pdf In June the Authority lso releses report on the time series of the outcome of the Executive's Budget Proposl. It is prt of the Officil Sttistics of Sweden. The sttistics describe revenues, expenditures nd blnce of the budget finl outcome in the form of sttisticl tbles round 12 yers bck in time. The following is the report of 2008: pdf Resercher Response to this Question ws d Peer Reviewer One Peer Reviewer Two I would perhps rte this question s e, rther thn d. The bsic rtionle for the present pproprition structure is to llow for flexibility, within cler limits, s the resercher points out. It would therefore be possible to rgue tht the present clssifiction is sufficient even in economic terms, nd rting d indictes otherwise. I suggest rting e would more relevnt. See lso comments under Q1 nd Q2. Government A more pproprite response might be c. First, period of 10 yers, included the forecsted yers, re presented by economic clssifiction in ppendix to the budget. Bilg 2, pge 12 Tble 16 following the link: (bilg 2: Secondly, in the specifiction documents for the different expenditure res, there is n overll distribution by economic clssifiction for the BY. Given the flexibility mentioned by the respondent bove, the distribution is bsed on historicl outcome dt, normlly the outcome for BY-2 (for exmple how much n gency will spend on wges, rents etc), but for ppropritions tht re only for investments or trnsfers, the ctul economic clssifiction is the one used (for lrge prt of the trnsfer system, for exmple to households nd locl governments, the full pproprited mount is trnsfer not for dministering the trnsfers. This is the cse lso for the pproprition for interest on 15

16 government debt). A clssifiction of government expenditures ccording to ntionl ccounts stndrds re lwys included in the budget. See pp in the Budget Bill of Resercher Response: I chose nswer c becuse I gree with the government's comment. IBP IBP editors chose nswer c in greement with the government s comment. 16

17 4. Does the executive s budget or ny supporting budget documenttion present expenditures for individul progrms for the budget yer?. Progrm-level dt re presented for ll expenditures. b. Progrm-level dt re presented for t lest two-thirds of, but not ll, expenditures. c. Progrm-level dt re presented, but for less thn two-thirds of expenditures. d. No progrm-level dt re presented. See Appendix 1, pge 5-19, of the Executive's Budget Proposl (Specifiktion v sttsbudgetens utgifter) As mentioned in question 2, the 27 expenditure res re divided into 48 policy res. The expenditures re presented in reltion to these policy res in the document mentioned in the cittion bove nd the subsequent more thn 500 ppropritions (nslg) to the gencies (myndigheter) re t progrm level. Peer Reviewer One Peer Reviewer Two Government Government did not dispute resercher s nswer. 5. In the executive s budget or ny supporting budget documenttion, re estimtes of the ggregte level of expenditure presented for multi-yer period (t lest two yers beyond the budget yer)?. Yes, multi-yer estimtes of ggregte expenditure re presented. b. No, multi-yer estimtes of ggregte expenditure re not presented. c. Not pplicble/other (plese comment). See section 7.4 of the min document of the Executives Budget Proposl. In the bove section expenditure dt is presented per expenditure re Peer Reviewer One Peer Reviewer Two Government Government did not dispute resercher s nswer. 17

18 6. In the executive s budget or ny supporting budget documenttion, is more detil thn just the ggregte level presented for expenditure estimtes tht cover multi-yer period (for t lest two yers beyond the budget yer)?. Yes, multi-yer expenditure estimtes re presented for ll individul progrms, nd for one or more expenditure clssifiction (such s functionl, economic, or dministrtive). b. Yes, multi-yer estimtes re presented for one or more expenditure clssifiction (such s functionl, economic, or dministrtive), but only for some individul progrms. c. Yes, multi-yer estimtes re presented, but only for portion of one or more of the expenditure clssifictions (such s some functions, or some dministrtive units) nd/or for only some individul progrms. d. No, multi-yer estimtes re presented for ggregte expenditure only, or they re not presented t ll. Expenditure re: See the min document of the Executive's Budget Proposl tble 7.3 in section 7.1.2, pge Policy re: See ech policy re document of the Executive's Budget Proposl. An exmple: section 2.2, tble 2.1, pge 9, of the expenditure re 12 document Ekonomisk trygghet för fmiljer och brn. The tble presents expenditures of tht expenditure re for Yes, detils for re provided for progrms (e.g. policy res) nd expenditure res. Estimtes for the full period (in the budget mentioned for 2009) nd estimtes for pproprition level (the lowest level tht re decided by prliment) for the period 2009 to 2011 re provided. Peer Reviewer One Peer Reviewer Two Government Agree with. Estimtes for the full period (in the budget mentioned by the respondent for 2009) nd estimtes for pproprition level (the lowest level tht re decided by prliment) for the period 2009 to 2011 re provided. 18

19 7. Does the executive s budget or ny supporting budget documenttion identify the different sources of tx revenue (such s income tx or VAT) for the budget yer?. All sources of tx revenue re identified individully. b. Sources of tx revenue mounting to t lest two-thirds of, but not ll, tx revenues re identified individully. c. Sources of tx revenue mounting to less thn two-thirds of ll tx revenues re identified individully. d. No sources of tx revenue re identified individully. See Appendix 1, pge The sources of tx revenue re identified individully. Peer Reviewer One Peer Reviewer Two Government Government did not dispute resercher s nswer. 8. Does the executive s budget or ny supporting budget documenttion identify the different sources of non-tx revenue (such s grnts, property income, nd sles of goods nd services) for the budget yer?. All sources of non-tx revenue re identified individully. b. Sources of non-tx revenue mounting to t lest two-thirds of, but not ll, non-tx revenues re identified individully. c. Sources of non-tx revenues mounting to less thn two-thirds of ll non-tx revenue re identified individully. d. No sources of non-tx revenues re identified individully. See Appendix 1, pge The sources of non-tx revenue re identified individully. Peer Reviewer One Peer Reviewer Two Government Government did not dispute resercher s nswer. 19

20 9. In the executive s budget or ny supporting budget documenttion, re estimtes of the ggregte level of revenue presented for multi-yer period (t lest two yers beyond the budget yer)?. Yes, multi-yer estimtes of ggregte revenue re presented. b. No, multi-yer estimtes of ggregte revenue re not presented. c. Not pplicble/other (plese comment). See section 6.3, tble 6.14, pge (Offentlig sektorns sktteintäkter och sttsbudgetens inkomster) in the min document of the Executive's Budget Proposl. Yes, estimtes of revenue re presented in the tble mentioned bove for (including ctul revenue for ). Peer Reviewer One Peer Reviewer Two Government Government did not dispute resercher s nswer. 20

21 10. In the executive s budget or ny supporting budget documenttion, is more detil thn just the ggregte level presented for revenue estimtes tht cover multi-yer period (for t lest two yers beyond the budget yer)?. Yes, multi-yer revenue estimtes re presented for individul sources of revenue, nd by revenue clssifiction (such s tx nd non-tx). b. Yes, multi-yer estimtes re presented by revenue clssifiction (such s tx nd non-tx), but only for some individul sources of revenue. c. Yes, multi-yer estimtes re presented, but only for some individul sources of revenue. d. No, multi-yer estimtes re presented for ggregte revenue only, or they re not presented t ll. See section 6.3, tble 6.14, pge (Offentlig sektorns sktteintäkter och sttsbudgetens inkomster) in the min document of the Executive's Budget Proposl. Yes, more detil thn the ggregte level is presented for in the document mentioned bove. Peer Reviewer One Peer Reviewer Two Government Government did not dispute resercher s nswer.

22 11. Does the executive s budget or ny supporting budget documenttion present dt on the totl government debt outstnding for the budget yer?. Yes, the dt reflect the outstnding debt both t the strt of the budget yer nd t the end of the budget yer (nd thereby reflect the net borrowing requirement of the budget). b. Yes, the dt reflect the outstnding debt t the end of the budget yer. c. Yes, the dt reflect the outstnding debt t the strt of the budget yer. d. No, dt on the outstnding debt re not presented. Section of expenditure re 26 ( Sttsskuldsräntor ) gives informtion on the government debt t the end of 2000 nd 2007, nd prognosis for See lso section 8 in the min document of the Executive's budget proposl which gives dt on the government debt Refer to tble 8.1, pge 239 for detils. Yes, the dt reflect the outstnding debt. Peer Reviewer One Peer Reviewer Two Government Government did not dispute resercher s nswer.

23 12. Does the executive s budget or ny supporting budget documenttion present interest pyments on the debt for the budget yer?. Yes, interest pyments on the debt re presented. b. No, interest pyments on the debt re not presented. c. Not pplicble/other (plese comment). Section 3.2, of expenditure re 26 (Sttsskuldsräntor) gives informtion on the interest pyment on the debt which cn be found in tble 3.2 of pge 12 (Utgiftsmässig sttsskuldsräntor). Refer to section 8 (section 8.1, pge 239) in the min document of the Executive's budget proposl for dt on government debt Yes, interest pyments re presented. Peer Reviewer One Peer Reviewer Two Government Government did not dispute resercher s nswer.

24 13. Does the executive s budget or ny supporting budget documenttion present informtion relted to the composition of government debt (such s interest rtes on the debt, mturity profile of the debt, currency denomintion of the debt, or whether it is domestic nd externl debt) for the budget yer?. Yes, extensive informtion relted to the composition of government debt is presented. b. Yes, key dditionl informtion is presented, but some detils re excluded. c. Yes, some dditionl informtion is presented, but it lcks importnt detils. d. No, dditionl informtion relted to the composition of government debt is not presented. Refer to section 3 of expenditure re 26 (Sttsskuldsräntor). Yes, extensive informtion is presented. Peer Reviewer One Peer Reviewer Two Government Government did not dispute resercher s nswer. 24

25 14. Does the executive s budget or ny supporting budget documenttion present the mcroeconomic forecst upon which the budget projections re bsed?. Yes, n extensive discussion of the mcroeconomic forecst is presented, nd key ssumptions (such s infltion, rel GDP growth, unemployment rte, nd interest rtes) re stted explicitly. b. Yes, the mcroeconomic forecst is discussed nd most of the key ssumptions re stted explicitly, but some detils re excluded. c. Yes, there is some discussion of the mcroeconomic forecst (nd/or the presenttion of key ssumptions), but it lcks importnt detils. d. No, informtion relted to the mcroeconomic forecst is not presented. Refer to section 7 in the min document of the Executive s Budget Proposl. nd Appendix 2 of the min document of the Executive's Budget Proposl. It should be dded tht the Spring Fiscl Policy Bill is the min document presenting the mcroeconomic forecst. Peer Reviewer One Peer Reviewer Two Government Government did not dispute resercher s nswer. 15. Does the executive s budget or ny supporting budget documenttion show the impct of different mcroeconomic ssumptions (i.e., sensitivity nlysis) on the budget (including expenditures, revenues, nd debt)?. Yes, extensive informtion on the impct of mcroeconomic ssumptions on the budget is presented, including both nrrtive discussion nd quntittive estimtes. b. Yes, informtion is presented, highlighting the impct of the mjor mcroeconomic ssumptions, but some detils re excluded. c. Yes, some informtion is presented, but it lcks importnt detils. d. No, informtion on the impct of different mcroeconomic ssumptions on the budget is not presented. b The min document of the Executive's Budget Proposl contins certin sensitivity nlysis (see for exmple section ). Appendix 3 of the min document of the Executive's Budget Proposl contins sustinbility nd sensitivity nlyses.

26 In section 3.4. in the document on expenditure re 26 (Sttsskuldräntor) of the Executive's Budget Proposl, sensitivity nlysis is presented in reltion to the government debt. Sensitivity nlysis in reltion to the pension system is found in the Appendix of the budget proposl tht reltes to the pension system. The pension system is n extr budgetry fund (Ålderspensionssystemet vid sidn v sttsbudgeten), pge The OBI 2008 (which ws bsed on the budget proposl of the budget yer 2008) hd the nswer c to this question. No sensitivity nlysis of the ggregte level ws presented in the min document of the Executive's Budget Proposl. However, sensitivity nlyses were presented in the documents of expenditure re 26 nd the extr budgetry fund referred to bove. Additions to the Executive's Budget Proposl 2009 (on which the Swedish OBI 2010 is bsed) is tht it the min document contins certin sensitivity nlysis (see for exmple section ), nd so does its Appendix 3. I would therefore like to upgrde this question to b. It should lso be noted tht in the min document of the Government's Budget Proposl the Government comments the Audit Report of 2008 (Riksrevisionens årlig rpport 2008). The Audit Report, mong other, sys tht the Government needs to present more sensitivity nlyses nd lterntive clcultions in order to show more clerly wht uncertinties there re in reltion to the budget proposls. The Government, mong other, sys the following in footnote 66 of the min document of the Executive's Budget Proposl: The Government's mbition is to progressively present further lterntive scenrios nd sensitivity nlyses in coming proposls. Resercher Response to this Question ws b Peer Reviewer One Section includes sensitivity nlyses of the long-term sustinbility of public finnces, not the specific budget proposl. Plese review gin. In my opinion, given tht the question is bout the budget it still merits c. Peer Reviewer Two A more pproprite response to this question would be tht severl mcro nlyses re presented nd the budget process includes reporting on min trgets two times yer. The nnul budget includes two core fiscl trgets; one is the ggregted expenditure ceiling nd the other is defined s surplus of 1% in the public sector (including municipl nd regionl expenditure) over the business cycle. In ddition, the surplus trget hs three specific indictors to fcilitte monitoring. These trgets re closely monitored, widely discussed nd this would imply tht the rting should be chnged from b to. For reference Also see item 6 under or bilg 3 in the budget

27 Government Government did not dispute resercher s nswer. Resercher Response: I chose my nswer becuse it is question of judgment nd my nswer is between the two peer reviewers' comments. IBP IBP editors gree with nswer b in line with the resercher s comment. 16. Does the executive s budget or ny supporting budget documenttion present informtion for t lest the budget yer tht shows how policy proposls in the budget, s distinct from existing policies, ffect expenditures?. Yes, extensive informtion on the impct of policy proposls on expenditures is presented, including both nrrtive discussion nd quntittive estimtes. b. Yes, informtion is presented, highlighting the impct of key policy proposls on expenditures, but some detils re excluded. c. Yes, some informtion is presented, but it lcks importnt detils. d. No, informtion on the impct of policy proposls on expenditures is not presented. Section in the min document of the Executive's Budget Proposl. Resercher Response to this Question ws Peer Reviewer One Peer Reviewer Two A more pproprite response to this question would be tht the Budget includes n extensive presenttion nd discussion on the fiscl sitution (which includes ggregted effects of policy proposls on the budget), see chpter 4 in Finnspln. The bsic structure of the budget with cler presenttion of expenditure res lso inform the discussion on policy chnges in the budget, but I m not sure how cler this presenttion is in the budget document? For instnce, does the budget document include quntittive estimtes on chnges to the Unemployment benefits? I still think the scoring should be, but the resercher might wnt to look into this. Government Government did not dispute resercher s nswer. Resercher Response: I chose nswer becuse I think it holds in n interntionl comprison. IBP Bsed on review of comments, IBP editors chose nswer. 27

28 17. Does the executive s budget or ny supporting budget documenttion present informtion for t lest the budget yer tht shows how policy proposls in the budget, s distinct from existing policies, ffect revenues?. Yes, extensive informtion on the impct of policy proposls on revenues is presented, including both nrrtive discussion nd quntittive estimtes. b. Yes, informtion is presented, highlighting the impct of key policy proposls on revenues, but some detils re excluded. c. Yes, some informtion is presented, but it lcks importnt detils. d. No, informtion on the impct of policy proposls on revenues is not presented. Refer to section in the min document of the Executive's Budget Proposl. Peer Reviewer One Peer Reviewer Two Government Government did not dispute resercher s nswer.

29 Estimtes for Yers Prior to the Budget Yer 18. Does the executive s budget or ny supporting budget documenttion present expenditures for the yer preceding the budget yer (BY-1) tht re clssified by dministrtive unit (tht is, by ministry, deprtment, or gency)?. All expenditures re clssified by dministrtive unit for BY-1. b. Expenditures re clssified by dministrtive unit for BY-1, but some smll units re not shown seprtely. c. Expenditures re clssified by dministrtive unit for BY-1, but significnt number of units re not shown seprtely. d. No expenditures clssified by dministrtive unit re presented for BY-1. The min Executive's Budget Proposl section 7. Expenditures by dministrtive unit res re presented for , however strictly speking expenditure res re not dministrtive units. Resercher Response to this Question ws c c Peer Reviewer One Peer Reviewer Two A more pproprite response to this question would be tht the budget documents present the relevnt informtion, which is on expenditure re level, which includes brekdown into detiled spending. For instnce, look the Budget for 2009, re 5 interntionl development, tble 2.2 where yer is presented t ceiling level, which I think would be sufficient to meet the bsic rtionle for the question, nmely relevnt nd comprehensive informtion to enble independent scrutiny from the public. The rting should chnge to or possibly e. See lso Q1-3. Government Government did not dispute resercher s nswer. Resercher Response: I chose nswer c becuse of the sme resons stted in my comments to Peer Reviewer Two's comments to Q1-3. IBP Bsed on review of comments, IBP editors chose nswer c.

30 19. Does the executive s budget or ny supporting budget documenttion present expenditures for the yer preceding the budget yer (BY-1) tht re clssified by functionl clssifiction?. All expenditures re clssified by functionl clssifiction for BY-1, nd the ctegoriztion is comptible with interntionl stndrds. b. All expenditures re clssified by functionl clssifiction for BY-1, but the ctegoriztion is not comptible with interntionl stndrds. c. Some, but not ll, expenditures re clssified by function for BY-1. d. No expenditures clssified by function re presented for BY-1. See for exmple tble 3.1, pge 22, of expenditure re 6 (Försvr smt beredskp mot sårbrhet). b Peer Reviewer One Peer Reviewer Two Plese refer to the question bove. Also, see Q1-Q-3. Government Government did not dispute resercher s nswer.

31 20. Does the executive s budget or ny supporting budget documenttion present expenditures for the yer preceding the budget yer (BY-1) tht re clssified by economic clssifiction?. All expenditures re clssified by economic clssifiction for BY-1, nd the ctegoriztion is comptible with interntionl stndrds. b. All expenditures re clssified by economic clssifiction for BY-1, but the ctegoriztion is not comptible with interntionl stndrds. c. Some, but not ll, expenditures re clssified by economic clssifiction for BY-1. d. No expenditures clssified by economic clssifiction re presented for BY-1. See the comment to question 3. Resercher Response to this Question ws d Peer Reviewer One c Peer Reviewer Two Plese see the question bove nd lso see Q1-3. Government A more pproprite response to this question would be b or c. A period of 10 yers included the forecsted yers is presented by economic clssifiction in ppendix to the budget. This is done on n ggregted level but d signls tht the Budget Bill lcks ll forms of economic clssifiction. Bilg 2, pge 12 Tble 16 following the link or rther for Bilg 2. Also, see comment to question 3. Resercher Response: I chose nswer c becuse I gree with the government comment. IBP IBP editors gree with nswer c s suggested by the resercher nd in line with the government s comments.

32 21. Does the executive s budget or ny supporting budget documenttion present expenditures for individul progrms for the yer preceding the budget yer (BY-1)?. Progrm-level expenditure dt re presented for ll expenditures for BY-1. b. Progrm-level expenditure dt re presented for t lest two-thirds of, but not ll, expenditures for BY-1. c. Progrm-level expenditure dt re presented, but for less thn twothirds of expenditures for BY-1. d. No progrm-level expenditure dt re presented for BY-1. See for exmple the policy re Brnpolitik expenditure re 9 document (Hälsovård, sjukvård och socil omsorg), tble 3.2, pge Peer Reviewer One Peer Reviewer Two Government Government did not dispute resercher s nswer.

33 22. In the executive s budget or ny supporting budget documenttion, how mny months of ctul dt re reflected in the expenditure estimtes of the yer prior to the budget yer (BY-1)?. All BY-1 estimtes hve been updted from the originl encted levels to reflect six or more months of ctul expenditure. b. All BY-1 estimtes hve been updted from the originl encted levels, but reflect less thn six months of ctul expenditure. c. Some BY-1 estimtes hve been updted from the originl encted levels to reflect ctul expenditure. d. The BY-1 estimtes hve not been updted from the originl encted levels, or no BY-1 estimtes re presented. See tble 7.3 on pge 194, in the min document of the Executive's Budget Proposl. Resercher Response to this Question ws Peer Reviewer One It is true tht the tble is built on projection of the previous yer s budget, but it doesn t sy here how tht projection is formed. Peer Reviewer Two Government Government did not dispute resercher s nswer. Resercher Response: I chose my nswer becuse it is in line with the peer reviewer s comment. IBP Bsed on review of comments, IBP editors chose nswer. 33

34 23. In the executive s budget or ny supporting budget documenttion, re estimtes of the ggregte level of expenditure presented for yers tht precede the budget yer by more thn one yer (tht is, BY-2 nd prior yers)?. Yes, such prior-yer estimtes of ggregte expenditure re presented. b. No, such prior-yer estimtes of ggregte expenditure re not presented. c. Not pplicble/other (plese comment). See tble 7.3, pge 194, in the min document of the Executive's Budget Proposl. Peer Reviewer One Peer Reviewer Two Government Government did not dispute resercher s nswer.

35 24. In the executive s budget or ny supporting budget documenttion, is more detil thn just the ggregte level presented for expenditure estimtes tht cover yers preceding the budget yer by more thn one yer (tht is, BY-2 nd prior yers)?. Yes, such prior-yer expenditure estimtes re presented for ll individul progrms, nd for one or more expenditure clssifiction (such s functionl, economic, or dministrtive). b. Yes, such prior-yer estimtes re presented for one or more expenditure clssifiction (such s functionl, economic, or dministrtive), but only for some individul progrms. c. Yes, such prior-yer estimtes re presented, but only for portion of one or more of the expenditure clssifictions (such s some functions, or some dministrtive units) nd/or for only some individul progrms. d. No, such prior-yer estimtes re presented for ggregte expenditure only, or they re not presented t ll. See for exmple tble 2.1, pge 10, in the expenditure re 8 (Migrtion) document. Peer Reviewer One Peer Reviewer Two Government Government did not dispute resercher s nswer. 35

36 25. In the executive s budget or ny supporting budget documenttion, wht is the most recent yer presented for which ll expenditures reflect ctul outcomes?. Two yers prior to the budget yer (BY-2). b. Three yers prior to the budget yer (BY-3). c. Before BY-3. d. No ctul dt for ll expenditures re presented in the budget or supporting budget documenttion. See for exmple tble 2.1, pge 10, in the expenditure re 8 (Migrtion) document. Actul expenditure outcomes re presented for Peer Reviewer One Peer Reviewer Two Government Government did not dispute resercher s nswer.

37 26. Are the expenditure estimtes for the yers prior to the budget yer djusted, s needed, to be comprble with the budget-yer estimtes in terms of clssifiction nd presenttion?. Yes, prior-yer dt re lwys djusted to be comprble to the budget yer dt. b. Yes, in most cses, prior-yer dt re djusted to be comprble. c. Yes, in some cses, prior-yer dt re djusted to be comprble, but significnt devitions between prior-yer nd budget-yer clssifictions exist. d. No, prior-yer dt re not djusted to be comprble, or no prioryer estimtes re presented. See tble 7.3 on pge 194, in the min document of the Executive's Budget nd its footnote 1, which sys: The ppropritions re distributed to the expenditure re they belong ccording to the budget proposl (In Swedish: Anslgen är fördelde till de utgiftsområden de tillhör i sttsbudgeten för 2009). I.e.: The expenditures of previous yers re djusted to the method of clssifiction nd presenttion used in the most recent yer presented (2009). Peer Reviewer One Peer Reviewer Two Government Government did not dispute resercher s nswer. 37