Serbia

Which countries lead in budget accountability? Which ones need improvement? Explore our data and recommendations for each of the 120 countries assessed.
Open Budget Survey Results

Public Participation

2

Budget Oversight

54

Transparency

46

Open Budget Survey 2021

Government budget decisions – what taxes to levy, what services to provide, and how much debt to take on – have important consequences for all people in society. When governments provide information and meaningful channels for the public to engage in these decisions, we can better ensure public money is spent on public interests.

Read more

 

The Open Budget Survey (OBS) is the world’s only independent, comparative and fact-based research instrument that uses internationally accepted criteria to assess public access to central government budget information; formal opportunities for the public to participate in the national budget process; and the role of budget oversight institutions, such as legislatures and national audit offices, in the budget process.

The survey helps local civil society assess and confer with their government on the reporting and use of public funds. This 8th edition of the OBS covers 120 countries.

Summary
Country Specific Assessments
Country summary EN
pdf, 311.17 KB
Questionnaire EN
pdf, 880.96 KB
46 /100

This part of the OBS measures public access to information on how the central government raises and spends public resources. It assesses the online availability, timeliness, and comprehensiveness of eight key budget documents using 109 equally weighted indicators and scores each country on a scale of 0 to 100. A transparency score of 61 or above indicates a country is likely publishing enough material to support informed public debate on the budget.

Transparency in Serbia compared to others

Global Average
45
Slovenia
66
Moldova
65
Croatia
64
Albania
52
Serbia
46
Bosnia and Herzegovina
32
0
Insufficient
61
Sufficient
100

Serbia’s ranking: 59 of 120 countries

0
100

How has the transparency score for Serbia changed over time?

54
2010
39
2012
47
2015
43
2017
40
2019
46
2021
0
Insufficient
61
Sufficient
100

Public availability of budget documents in Serbia

Key
Available to the Public
Published Late, or Not Published Online, or Produced for Internal Use Only
Not Produced
Scroll
Document 2010 2012 2015 2017 2019 2021
Pre-Budget Statement
Executive’s Budget Proposal
Enacted Budget
Citizens Budget
In-Year Reports
Mid-Year Review
Year-End Report
Audit Report

How comprehensive is the content of the key budget documents that Serbia makes available to the public?

Key
61-100 / 100
41-60 / 100
1-40 / 100
Scroll
Key budget document Document purpose and contents Fiscal year assessed Document content score
Pre-Budget Statement Discloses the broad parameters of fiscal policies in advance of the Executive's Budget Proposal; outlines the government's economic forecast, anticipated revenue, expenditures, and debt. 2021 Not Produced
Executive’s Budget Proposal Submitted by the executive to the legislature for approval; details the sources of revenue, the allocations to ministries, proposed policy changes, and other information important for understanding the country's fiscal situation. 2021 54
Enacted Budget The budget that has been approved by the legislature. 2021 89
Citizens Budget A simpler and less technical version of the government's Executive’s Budget Proposal or the Enacted Budget, designed to convey key information to the public. 2020 25
In-Year Reports Include information on actual revenues collected, actual expenditures made, and debt incurred at different intervals; issued quarterly or monthly. 2020 59
Mid-Year Review A comprehensive update on the implementation of the budget as of the middle of the fiscal year; includes a review of economic assumptions and an updated forecast of budget outcomes. 2020 Not Produced
Year-End Report Describes the situation of the government's accounts at the end of the fiscal year and, ideally, an evaluation of the progress made toward achieving the budget's policy goals. 2019 45
Audit Report Issued by the supreme audit institution, this document examines the soundness and completeness of the government's year-end accounts. 2019 52

Serbia’s transparency score of 46 in the OBS 2021 is moderately higher than its score in 2019.

What changed in OBS 2021?

Serbia has increased the availability of budget information by:

Publishing the Year-End Report online.

Recommendations

Serbia should prioritize the following actions to improve budget transparency:

Produce and publish the Pre-Budget Statement and Mid-Year Review online in a timely manner.
Include additional policy and fiscal risk information in the Executive's Budget Proposal.
Increase the comprehensiveness of the Year-End Report by including a narrative that explains the differences between original estimates of government expenditures, revenues, and debt for the fiscal year and their actual outcomes; comparisons between the original macroeconomic forecast and actual outcomes; and planned and actual non-financial (performance) outcomes.
Improve the comprehensiveness of the Audit Report and Citizens Budget.
2 /100

The OBS assesses the formal opportunities offered to the public for meaningful participation in the different stages of the budget process. It examines the practices of the central government’s executive, the legislature, and the supreme audit institution (SAI) using 18 equally weighted indicators, aligned with the Global Initiative for Fiscal Transparency’s Principles of Public Participation in Fiscal Policies , and scores each country on a scale from 0 to 100.

Serbia has a public participation score of 2 (out of 100).

Public participation in Serbia compared to others

Global Average
14
Croatia
17
Moldova
11
Slovenia
11
Bosnia and Herzegovina
9
Albania
6
Serbia
2
0
Insufficient
61
Sufficient
100

For more information, see here  for innovative public participation practices around the world.

Extent of opportunities for public participation in the budget process

0
/100
Formulation
(executive)
11
/100
Approval
(legislature)
0
/100
Implementation
(executive)
0
/100
Audit
(supreme audit institution)
Key
0-40: Few
41-60: Limited
61-100: Adequate

Recommendations

To further strengthen public participation in the budget process, Serbia's Ministry of Finance should prioritize the following actions:

Pilot mechanisms to engage the public during budget formulation and to monitor budget implementation.
Actively engage with vulnerable and underrepresented communities, directly or through civil society organizations representing them.

Serbia's National Assembly has established public hearings related to the approval of the annual budget, but should also prioritize the following actions:

Allow any member of the public or any civil society organization to testify during its hearings on the budget proposal prior to its approval.
Allow members of the public or civil society organizations to testify during its hearings on the Audit Report.

Serbia's State Audit Institution should prioritize the following actions to improve public participation in the budget process:

Establish formal mechanisms for the public to assist in developing its audit program and to contribute to relevant audit investigations.
54 /100

The OBS examines the role that legislatures and supreme audit institutions (SAIs) play in the budget process and the extent to which they provide oversight; each country is scored on a scale from 0 to 100 based on 18 equally weighted indicators. In addition, the survey collects supplementary information on independent fiscal institutions (see Box).

The legislature and supreme audit institution in Serbia, together, provide limited oversight during the budget process, with a composite oversight score of 54 (out of 100). Taken individually, the extent of each institution’s oversight is shown below:

Legislative oversight

0
39
100
weak

Audit oversight

0
83
100
adequate
Key
0-40: Few
41-60: Limited
61-100: Adequate

Recommendations

Serbia's National Assembly provides weak oversight during the planning stage of the budget cycle and weak oversight during the implementation stage. To improve oversight, the following actions should be prioritized:

The legislature should debate budget policy before the Executive’s Budget Proposal is tabled and approve recommendations for the upcoming budget.
The Executive’s Budget Proposal should be submitted to legislators at least two months before the start of the budget year. Timely submission of the budget proposal will give the legislature and its committees sufficient time to examine the document, and to publish reports with their analysis online.
A legislative committee should examine in-year budget implementation and publish reports with their findings online.
In practice, the legislature (either in its plenary or within its specific finance-related committees) should be consulted before the executive shifts funds specified in the Enacted Budget between administrative units during the budget year. Currently, up to 4% of the total budget can be shifted from one administrative unit to another via the "Budget reserve" (i.e., contingency) fund, and significant part of these funds is transferred to other users selected in an arbitrary manner and without an explanation.
A legislative committee should examine the Audit Report and publish a report with their findings online.

To strengthen independence and improve audit oversight by the Serbia State Audit Institution, the following actions are recommended:

Ensure audit processes are reviewed by an independent agency.

The emerging practice of establishing independent fiscal institutions

Serbia’s independent fiscal institution (IFI) is the Fiscal Council. Its independence is set in law, and it reports to the legislature. It publishes its own fiscal forecasts, and its own cost estimates of major new policy proposals.

The indicators on IFIs are not scored in the Open Budget Survey.

Methodology

  • Only documents published and events, activities, or developments that took place through 31 December 2020 were assessed in the OBS 2021.
     
  • The survey is based on a questionnaire completed in each country by an independent budget expert:
    Zlata Djordjevic; Nemanja Nenadic
    Transparentnost Srbija

    [email protected]; [email protected]
  • To further strengthen the research, each country’s draft questionnaire is also reviewed by an anonymous independent expert, and in Serbia by a representative of the Ministry of Finance.
Past reports
Years
Language
Country summary EN
PDF, en
Questionnaire EN
PDF, en
Country summary SR
PDF, sr
Country summary EN
PDF, en
Questionnaire EN
PDF, en
Questionnaire EN
PDF, EN
Country summary EN
PDF, EN
Questionnaire EN
PDF, EN
Country summary EN
PDF, EN
Country summary EN
PDF, EN
Questionnaire EN
PDF, EN
Country summary EN
PDF, EN
Questionnaire EN
PDF, EN
Questionnaire EN
PDF, EN
Country summary EN
PDF, EN