Poland
Open Budget Survey Results
Public Participation
20
Budget Oversight
82
Transparency
59
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.
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.
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 Poland compared to others
How has the transparency score for Poland changed over time?
Public availability of budget documents in Poland
| 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 Poland makes available to the public?
| 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 | 39 |
| 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. | 2022 | 95 |
| 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. | 2023 | Not Produced |
| In-Year Reports | Include information on actual revenues collected, actual expenditures made, and debt incurred at different intervals; issued quarterly or monthly. | 2022 | 89 |
| 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 | Hard Copy |
| 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 | 88 |
| Audit Report | Issued by the supreme audit institution, this document examines the soundness and completeness of the government's year-end accounts. | 2021 | 71 |
Poland’s transparency score of 59 in the OBS 2023 is near its score in 2021.
Recommendations
Over the past four rounds of the OBS, Poland has consistently scored similarly with minimal advancements in the specified areas. To enhance budget transparency, Poland should prioritize the following actions:
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.
Poland has a public participation score of 20 (out of 100).
Public participation in Poland compared to others
For more information, see here for innovative public participation practices around the world.
Extent of opportunities for public participation in the budget process
(executive)
(legislature)
(executive)
(supreme audit institution)
Recommendations
Poland's Ministry of Finance has established pre-budget deliberations during budget formulation but, to further strengthen public participation in the budget process, should also prioritize the following actions:
Poland's Parliament has established public hearings related to the review of the Audit Report, but should also prioritize the following actions:
Poland's Supreme Audit Office has established mechanisms for the public to assist in developing its audit program. It should prioritize the following actions to improve public participation in the budget process:
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 Poland, together, provide adequate oversight during the budget process, with a composite oversight score of 82 (out of 100). Taken individually, the extent of each institution’s oversight is shown below:
Legislative oversight
Audit oversight
Recommendations
Poland's Parliament provides adequate oversight during the planning stage of the budget cycle and adequate oversight during the implementation stage. To further improve oversight, the following actions should be prioritized:
To strengthen independence and improve audit oversight by the Poland Supreme Audit Office, the following actions are recommended:
The emerging practice of establishing independent fiscal institutions
Poland 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
Pawel Bialynicki-Birula
Consultant
Krakow University of Economics, College of Public Economy and Administration, Cracow, Poland
[email protected]; https://uek.krakow.ol; tel: +48 12 293 57 31