Serbia Inches Toward Accountability
For more than 25 years, Nemanja Nenadić has been committed to shining a light on public spending in Serbia, working to make it more transparent, accountable and responsive to its people. As Program Director of Transparency Serbia, he has advocated for and watched as the country has made some strides, partly due to overall reform efforts tied to EU accession. But technical improvements have not yet materialized into stronger accountability systems or meaningful public engagement.
As civil society advocates like Nenadić and others in the country work to turn reforms into real influence, Serbia’s experience shows both what is possible — and what still stands in the way of meaningful change.
Reforms improve transparency – but not accountability
“If you compare Serbia’s budget from 2000 to the one we have today, the difference is enormous,” says Nenadić. “The budget is much bigger and contains far more data. We now have program budgets, more detailed information on debt, audit reports and the Fiscal Council’s analyses of government proposals.”
In the last two decades many important laws for public finance monitoring were adopted, such as a law on public procurement. These reforms were linked with the government’s proclaimed goal of joining the EU.
Importantly, Serbia established an independent fiscal institution (IFI), or a Fiscal Council, which serves as a specialized, non-partisan body to monitor public finances and publish independent fiscal forecasts and cost estimates of major new policy proposals. It is one of only two fully operational fiscal councils in the Western Balkans, aiming to improve fiscal sustainability and transparency. Its independence is set in law, and it reports to both the government and the legislature.
However, these technical reforms have not yet brought “substantial progress when it comes to accountability in budget processes,” Nenadić says. Executive discretion is still prevalent in the budget process, and oversight remains limited in practice, despite mandates on paper.
Open Budget Survey reveals accountability gaps
Transparency Serbia has long partnered with the International Budget Partnership, conducting the research for the Open Budget Survey and leveraging its results to highlight where accountability falls short and to strengthen evidence-based advocacy.
“IBP’s methodology is serious, rigorous and highly relevant,” Nenadić says. “It gives us strong arguments when we speak to our government and allows us to compare Serbia with other countries.”
The OBS also helps civil society see where Serbia excels, where it lags and what concrete reforms are possible.
The survey has found that Serbia needs to provide more information and opportunities for public scrutiny during later stages of the budget cycle. For instance, a Mid-Year Review is not produced and insufficient information is provided around how decisions are made during the year, why plans change and whether public money delivers quality services. “Even if we have a much more detailed budget when adopted, during the budget year the government is spending an enormous amount of money contrary to what was approved by parliament using contingency funds,” explains Nenadić.
While audit oversight is adequate on paper, gaps remain in practice. Audit appointments are subject to political bargaining, and government officials can ignore the Fiscal Council’s recommendations, according to Nenadić. Legislative oversight is limited and particularly weak during the implementation stage. The government makes key spending decisions, including shifts in spending, with limited explanation or scrutiny by the National Assembly, and there is no redress when programs are not implemented as approved.
Public participation in Serbia’s budget process also remains largely symbolic. Civil society organizations are occasionally invited to parliamentary hearings, but these meetings often happen just hours before final votes. The timing leaves little room for meaningful input and reinforces the perception that participation is more window dressing than substantive.
Still, civil society groups persist. “Even when it feels fruitless, we use every channel that is open,” Nenadić says. “Any window for communication with government — we take it.”
Procurement poses big problems
Another glaring issue is how the government handles procurement. A law requires all public procurement to be processed and published online through a central portal, with strong oversight of procurement procedures.
But practice does not always match policy. Large infrastructure projects are often awarded through special bilateral arrangements that bypass competitive procurement. While legal, these shortcuts reduce transparency and often result in higher costs for the public.
Transparency Serbia and another partner, the National Convention on the European Union (EU Konvent), have been closely monitoring the massive public spending underway on Belgrade’s EXPO 2027, where much of the contracting has been exempt from standard procurement rules. The group fought back by submitting an initiative to the Constitutional Court, arguing that exempting EXPO contracts from the procurement law violates constitutional principles and opens the door to misuse of public funds. Already more than €330 million in contracts have been awarded, most with only a single bidder.
“We expect the government to spend billions of euros by using special rules and only committing to implement the (procurement) process after this big spend,” Nenadić said.
Government systems can track budget spending – it’s the political will that is missing
One tool that could shed more light on government spending and give civil society the information it needs to advocate for reforms already exists. Serbia’s fiscal management system has the built-in capacity to provide daily or monthly spending updates; the failure to do so is a choice, not a technical constraint, Nenadić says. Many governments around the world are already providing up to the minute spending data. In Serbia, however, detailed information on budget execution usually becomes available only long after the fiscal year ends. As a result, journalists and civil society organizations can’t follow spending in real time or assess whether programs are working as intended.
What makes this especially frustrating, Nenadić adds, is that better practices already exist inside Serbia itself. Some small municipalities — with far fewer resources than the national government — publish their spending data online in near real time. For example, Sokobanja municipality has historically published its adopted budget immediately on its website, as well as daily budget execution numbers.
Joining forces with other advocates
To drive changes that can address these accountability gaps, Nenadić recognizes that coalition-building is key. Transparency Serbia coordinates a growing network of domestic civil society organizations working on public finance issues together— from procurement monitoring to oversight of state-owned enterprises. Partnering with EU Konvent, for instance, provided rare opportunities to engage directly with senior officials, including the prime minister in past years. While imperfect, these spaces did allow civil society to raise concerns at the highest level of government.
Transparency Serbia is also part of IBP’s EU-funded advocacy and capacity development work in the Western Balkans, which has given the organization a valuable opportunity to exchange experiences with peers across the region, strengthening regional learning and solidarity.
It also works with international actors such as the European Union, IMF and the World Bank. Because these institutions provide financing and shape reform agendas, they offer another path for influencing policy.
Evolution, not revolution
Over time, Nenadić believes that sustained engagement is slowly shifting public expectations. “I truly believe we’ve helped people expect more from their government,” he says. But he does not underestimate the challenges ahead. Many advocacy efforts have not produced immediate results, and setbacks remain common. For example, in 2025 Serbia committed to improve transparency of contracting practices for bilateral agreements and to annul all “special laws” for infrastructure projects until 2027. In reality, contract information was published for only one out of dozens of projects and new “special laws” were adopted in the meantime.
Still, Nenadić is not deterred. “Step by step, we are building the foundations for a more accountable system,” he says.
