COVID

Unfortunately, many governments have not heeded these calls, jeopardizing the effectiveness and impact of their response to the crisis. How do we know this? Near the end of 2020, we took a close look at how 120 governments managed their initial COVID-19 fiscal policy responses. Our goal was not just to assess how governments fared, but to generate lessons on how they can respond better, both to the ongoing COVID-19 crisis and to future ones. Our research focused on the three critical pillars of accountability that underpin the Open Budget Survey methodology: public access to relevant information, adequate oversight arrangements and opportunities for citizen engagement. Each pillar is essential to ensuring resources are used effectively, that peoples’ basic needs and priorities are adequately addressed and that governments can be held accountable for their choices.

Working with local researchers in 120 countries, we documented the introduction of almost 400 emergency fiscal policy packages—sets of policy initiatives aimed at addressing the impact of the COVID-19 emergency—in the period from March to September 2020. In each country, we selected the largest or most important of these packages, and assessed related transparency, oversight and participation arrangements. Our questionnaire was developed in collaboration with relevant international organizations—including the IMF, the Global Initiative for Fiscal Transparency (GIFT), the Open Contracting Partnership, and the INTOSAI Development Initiative, among others—and tested by both civil society groups and governments at country level (see the Annex for more detail on the methodology).

Comprehensive reporting, transparent procurement processes and expedited audits of crisis-related spending were promoted by the IMF, GIFT, IBP and others as essential to achieving adequate fiscal accountability during the crisis and beyond. Governments are falling short in all these areas. 

Accounting for gender impact: Another important area of accountability calls for keeping apprised of the differing needs of vulnerable groups in the population and taking targeted action accordingly. Despite the growing evidence on the disproportionate impact of the pandemic on women and girls, including on issues of employment, health and domestic violence, very few governments took action to ensure that their policy responses considered gender seriously, either by targeting women and girls directly or ensuring that gender-disaggregated information was made available for monitoring purposes. Among the 120 countries we covered, 22 published information on policy initiatives specifically targeted towards women (this includes pregnant or lactating women, female entrepreneurs, female heads of households, victims of domestic violence, etc.), but only three (Canada, the Philippines and Sweden) included a Gender Impact Assessment of their COVID-19 response.

In almost half of the countries in our assessment, governments are introducing fiscal policy measures through executive decrees of different kinds, sidestepping the normal legislative approval process. Although justified by the need for urgent action, this prevents public debate and ultimately adequate political support for the government’s fiscal policy decisions.

The role of legislatures can also be further curtailed when countries declare a state of emergency, giving the executive broader powers to bypass normal procedures, access special funds, and to act without adequate legislative checks and balances. A state of emergency was declared in about a half of the countries we surveyed. Moreover, only about a quarter of legislatures we assessed regularly received and debated reports on the implementation of COVID-19 response policies, and even fewer received and debated related audit reports.

Citizen participation in the formulation and execution of COVID-19 policy responses is virtually non-existent, excluding the public from having a voice in decisions on priority-setting during the pandemic, and depriving governments of contributions which could greatly improve the effectiveness of their actions. Ways that civic actors can enhance government responses can be seen in the work of IBP partners who engaged governments in various countries to provide information to better target and implement programs, protect spending allocations for critical sectors, as well as advocate for expanded relief for vulnerable groups whose lives and livelihoods were devastated by the pandemic.

One of the most successful and burgeoning examples of civil society/government collaboration is the Asivikelane initiative in South Africa which is giving an active voice to informal settlement residents in major cities who are faced with severe basic service shortages during the COVID-19 crisis. Through targeted advocacy and campaigns, the initiative has already secured improved access to water, sanitation and waste removal services from municipal governments affecting more than one million people; most recently, the group has entered into an unprecedented formal partnership with the government.

The job that governments have faced since the onset of the COVID-19 crisis has been tremendously complex, entailing tough choices and tradeoffs. Faced with such difficulties, many governments regard transparency and accountability arrangements as an unnecessary burden. Others are taking the opportunity to plan and implement their policy responses in a more open and collaborative way, keeping citizens informed and promoting more effective and equitable outcomes.

The examples of good practice we documented above come from a range of countries and demonstrate that a better approach is possible in all circumstances—and that speedy policy responses do not have to undermine accountability. They help to identify steps that governments can take, both immediately as the COVID-19 crisis continues to unfold and going forward in preparation for future crises.

Publishing monthly progress reports on policy implementation (or regularly updating implementation information on web portals) including data and analysis on budget execution and performance, disaggregated by impact on disadvantaged groups, including women and girls,

Disclosing all details related to procurement contracts linked to emergency spending, wherever possible in open formats,

Empowering and resourcing SAIs to conduct expedited audits on emergency spending programs, and ensuring governments take remedial measures in response to audit findings,

Restoring the role of legislatures as keepers of the public purse, including approving expenditures, consulting with the public and interest groups, monitoring policy implementation and following up on audit findings, and

Putting in place adequate mechanisms for citizen participation in the formulation, approval, and execution of additional emergency fiscal policy packages. These can include mechanisms used by the executive, legislature, and SAI.

Introduce and/or review and update the legal and regulatory framework to clarify roles, responsibilities and approaches to be adopted during times of crisis, for example in the areas of resource management, procurement, oversight and participation.

Integrate innovations and good practices that emerged during the COVID-19 crisis—such as user-centered information, enhanced procurement transparency or innovative monitoring and auditing practices—into regular budget processes and procedures going forward.

In the immediate future, incentivize and provide support to governments to adopt the urgent measures proposed in the recommendations listed above, and monitor country compliance with these measures.

Convene a multi-stakeholder process to develop and adopt international norms and standards on managing fiscal policy in times of crisis, including ensuring adequate levels of accountability, and supporting governments in putting such norms and standards into practice.