Country Results  | View this page in:

Armenia

Which countries lead in budget accountability? Which ones need improvement? Explore our data and recommendations for each of the 125 countries assessed.
Open Budget Survey Results

Public Participation

11

Budget Oversight

59

Transparency

60

Open Budget Survey 2023

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 9th edition of the OBS covers 125 countries.

Summary
Country Specific Assessments
Country summary EN
pdf, 237.55 KB
Questionnaire EN
pdf, 1013.41 KB
60 /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 Armenia compared to others

Global Average
45
Georgia
87
Russia
66
Türkiye
64
Kazakhstan
63
Mongolia
62
Kyrgyz Republic
61
Armenia
60
Tajikistan
33
0
Insufficient
61
Sufficient
100

Armenia’s ranking: 41 of 125 countries

0
100

How has the transparency score for Armenia changed over time?

61
2021
60
2023
0
Insufficient
61
Sufficient
100

Public availability of budget documents in Armenia

Key
Available to the Public
Published Late, or Not Published Online, or Produced for Internal Use Only
Not Produced
Scroll
Document 2021 2023
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 Armenia 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. 2023 100
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. 2023 57
Enacted Budget The budget that has been approved by the legislature. 2023 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. 2022 33
In-Year Reports Include information on actual revenues collected, actual expenditures made, and debt incurred at different intervals; issued quarterly or monthly. 2022 85
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. 2022 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. 2021 74
Audit Report Issued by the supreme audit institution, this document examines the soundness and completeness of the government's year-end accounts. 2021 57

Armenia’s transparency score of 60 in the OBS 2023 is near its score in 2021.

What changed in OBS 2023?

Armenia has increased the availability of budget information by:

Publishing the Citizens Budget online in a timely manner.

Recommendations

Armenia should prioritize the following actions to improve budget transparency:

Produce and publish the Mid-Year Review online in a timely manner.
Include in the Executive's Budget Proposal data on the financial position of the government and information on performance and policy.
Include in the Executive's Budget Proposal a disaggregation presentation of revenues not just by law, but by GFS classification.
Improve the comprehensiveness of the Citizen's Budget by publishing contact information for follow-up by citizens and establishing a formal mechanism to identify the public's requirements for budget information in the Citizen's Budget.
11 /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.

Armenia has a public participation score of 11 (out of 100).

Public participation in Armenia compared to others

Global Average
15
Georgia
44
Kyrgyz Republic
35
Russia
33
Mongolia
19
Armenia
11
Kazakhstan
11
Tajikistan
7
Türkiye
0
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

33
/100
Formulation
(executive)
0
/100
Approval
(legislature)
0
/100
Implementation
(executive)
0
/100
Audit
(supreme audit institution)
Key
0-40: Few
41-60: Limited
61-100: Adequate

Recommendations

Armenia's Ministry of Finance has established public consultations during budget formulation but, to further strengthen public participation in the budget process, should also prioritize the following actions:

Pilot mechanisms to monitor budget implementation.
Expand mechanisms during budget formulation to engage any civil society organization or member of the public who wishes to participate.
Actively engage with vulnerable and underrepresented communities, directly or through civil society organizations representing them.
Upload the Executive's Budget Proposal (EBP) onto the e-draft platform a minimum of 3-4 weeks prior to sending it to the National Assembly. This approach ensures a more meaningful utilization of the platform and provides a better opportunity to collect comments and integrate public input effectively.
Publish a report on how citizens' inputs were used in the formulation of the budget.

Armenia's legislature, the National Assembly, should prioritize the following actions:

Allow members of the public or civil society organizations 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.
Allow members of the public or civil society organizations to testify during its hearings on the Year-End Report.

Armenia's Supreme Audit Institution, the Audit Chamber of the Republic of Armenia, 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.
59 /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 Armenia, together, provide limited oversight during the budget process, with a composite oversight score of 59 (out of 100). Taken individually, the extent of each institution’s oversight is shown below:

Legislative oversight

0
53
100
limited

Audit oversight

0
72
100
adequate
Key
0-40: Few
41-60: Limited
61-100: Adequate

Recommendations

Armenia's National Assembly provides adequate 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:

Legislative committees should produce and publish their findings after reviewing the Executive Budget Proposal, the In-Year Reports, the Year-End Report, and the Audit Report.
In practice, ensure that the legislature is consulted before the executive makes any shifts in funds specified in the Enacted Budget between administrative units, spends unanticipated revenue, or reduces spending due to revenue shortfalls during the budget year by sending justification for such shifts to the relevant legislative committee for approval.

To strengthen independence and improve audit oversight by the Audit Chamber of the Republic of Armenia, the following actions are recommended:

Ensure the Audit Chamber has adequate funding to perform its duties.
Ensure audit processes are reviewed by an independent agency.

The emerging practice of establishing independent fiscal institutions

Armenia does not have an independent fiscal institution (IFI). IFIs are increasingly recognized as valuable independent and nonpartisan information providers to the Executive and/or Parliament during the budget process.

*These indicators are *not* scored in the Open Budget Survey.

Methodology

Only documents published and events, activities, or developments that took place through 31 December 2022 were assessed in the OBS 2023.
 
The survey is based on a questionnaire completed in each country by an independent budget expert:
Varuzhan Hoktanyan
Transparency International Anti-corruption Center NGO
12 Saryan street, 5th floor, Yerevan 0002 Armenia
[email protected], [email protected]
To further strengthen the research, each country’s draft questionnaire is also reviewed by an anonymous independent expert, and in Armenia by a representative of the Ministry of Finance.
Past reports
Years
Language
Country summary EN
PDF, en
Questionnaire EN
PDF, en
Country summary HY
PDF, hy