Croatia

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

17

Budget Oversight

63

Transparency

67

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, 237.12 KB
Questionnaire EN
pdf, 1.04 MB
67 /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 Croatia compared to others

Global Average
45
Croatia
67
Slovenia
64
Albania
57
Serbia
51
North Macedonia
35
Bosnia and Herzegovina
27
Hungary
22
0
Insufficient
61
Sufficient
100

Croatia’s ranking: 24 of 125 countries

0
100

How has the transparency score for Croatia changed over time?

61
2012
53
2015
57
2017
68
2019
64
2021
67
2023
0
Insufficient
61
Sufficient
100

Public availability of budget documents in Croatia

Key
Available to the Public
Published Late, or Not Published Online, or Produced for Internal Use Only
Not Produced
Scroll
Document 2012 2015 2017 2019 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 Croatia 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 67
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 42
In-Year Reports Include information on actual revenues collected, actual expenditures made, and debt incurred at different intervals; issued quarterly or monthly. 2021-22 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. 2022 33
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 71

Croatia’s transparency score of 67 in the OBS 2023 is near its score in 2021.

What changed in OBS 2023?

Croatia has increased the availability of budget information by:

Increasing the information provided in the Pre-Budget Statement.

Recommendations

Croatia should prioritize the following actions to improve budget transparency:

Improve the comprehensiveness of the Mid-Year Review by providing an updated macroeconomic forecast for the budget year underway, updated revenue estimates by category and individual sources, and updated estimates of government borrowing and debt.
Expand on the participatory nature of the Citizens Budget, for example by identifying the public's requirements for budget information prior to the release of the document, including contact information for follow-up by citizens, publicizing it via additional methods of dissemination (e.g., billboards, radio programs), and publishing simplified budget documents covering the formulation and audit phases of the budget cycle.
Supplement the data included in In-Year Reports by publishing relevant methodology, including explanations of breaks in time series due to policy changes.
17 /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.

Croatia has a public participation score of 17 (out of 100).

Public participation in Croatia compared to others

Global Average
15
Croatia
17
Albania
9
Slovenia
9
Bosnia and Herzegovina
7
North Macedonia
7
Hungary
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)
55
/100
Approval
(legislature)
25
/100
Implementation
(executive)
0
/100
Audit
(supreme audit institution)
Key
0-40: Few
41-60: Limited
61-100: Adequate

Recommendations

Croatia's Ministry of Finance has established hearings where members of the public, civil society organizations, and private organizations can engage with the Economic and Social Council during budget implementation but, to further strengthen public participation in the budget process, should also prioritize the following actions:

Pilot mechanisms to engage the public during budget formulation.
Expand mechanisms during budget implementation 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.

Croatia's Parliament has established public hearings related to the approval of the annual budget and public hearings related to the review of the Audit Report, 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 any member of the public or any civil society organization to testify during its hearings on the Audit Report.

Croatia's State Audit Office 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.
63 /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 Croatia, together, provide adequate oversight during the budget process, with a composite oversight score of 63 (out of 100). Taken individually, the extent of each institution’s oversight is shown below:

Legislative oversight

0
50
100
limited

Audit oversight

0
89
100
adequate
Key
0-40: Few
41-60: Limited
61-100: Adequate

Recommendations

Croatia's Parliament 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:

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.
In practice, ensure the legislature is consulted before the executive shifts funds specified in the Enacted Budget between administrative units; spends any unanticipated revenue; or reduces spending due to revenue shortfalls during the budget year, at least when the change is larger than a specified threshold.

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

Ensure audit processes are reviewed by an independent agency.

The emerging practice of establishing independent fiscal institutions

Croatia’s independent fiscal institution (IFI) is the Fiscal Policy Commission. Its independence is set in law, and it reports to the legislature. It publishes an assessment of the official macroeconomic and fiscal forecasts produced by the executive.

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 2022 were assessed in the OBS 2023.
 
The survey is based on a questionnaire completed in each country by an independent budget expert:
Mihaela Bronic; Josip Franic
Institut za javne financije - Institute for Public Finance (IPF)
Smičiklasova 21 10000 Zagreb Croatia
[email protected]; [email protected]
To further strengthen the research, each country’s draft questionnaire is also reviewed by an anonymous independent expert, and in Croatia by a representative of the Ministry of Finance.
Past reports
Years
Language
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
Questionnaire EN
PDF, EN
Country summary EN
PDF, EN
Questionnaire EN
PDF, EN
Country summary 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