Key findings from 11 countries
1
executive government provided information linking debt and borrowing plans to service delivery. Most debt strategies had borrowing targets, but none informed on projects to be financed.
5
executive governments published a debt management strategy that is timely and connected with the annual budget planning process.
5
legislatures reviewed the debt strategy during budget planning, and only 1 reviewed a debt report during budget review, despite most having the authority to do so.
1
Supreme Audit Institution (Indonesia) conducts and publishes its audits on public debt annually.
3
countries (Kenya, Nigeria and Benin) had civil society groups produce debt analysis and raise public awareness of debt service costs, in the absence of functioning independent fiscal institutions.
When governments borrow, someone eventually pays, and it is rarely those who made the decision. The cost of debt shows up downstream: in health budgets stretched thin, in education spending crowded out, in crisis responses that never quite materialize. In many contexts, rising debt is already crowding out essential public spending: approximately 3.4 billion people live in developing countries that spend more on public debt payments than on health or education. As debt burden continues to grow and constrain fiscal space, decisions about borrowing raise critical accountability questions: Who authorizes borrowing? What information is disclosed? And how effective is oversight?
The budget cycle is the primary accountability infrastructure for public financial management. Through it, legislatures authorize spending, audit institutions examine execution, and public consultation creates at least the possibility of citizen input. Debt management, however, frequently operates at the margins of this cycle, governed by frameworks that may limit legislative involvement to rubber-stamping, restrict audit access to borrowing records or provide no structured pathway for public engagement. The consequence is that decisions with long-term fiscal and distributional consequences are made with limited scrutiny from the institutions mandated to provide it.
To help address these issues, the Open Budget Survey (OBS) Debt Accountability Module was piloted alongside the OBS 2025 assessment across 11 countries: Benin, Cameroon, Ethiopia, The Gambia, Indonesia, Kenya, Malawi, Nigeria, Rwanda, Senegal and Tanzania. It examines whether countries have the transparency, participation and oversight conditions needed for the public to hold governments accountable for the management of public debt.
The assessment offers a comprehensive picture of how governments are managing and accounting for public debt. Country reports examine the legal frameworks governing borrowing, the transparency of debt information, the effectiveness of legislative and audit oversight and the extent to which civil society and citizens have meaningful opportunities to participate in debt decisions. The findings highlight where accountability is working, where it is breaking down in the budget process and what needs to change to ensure borrowing decisions are subject to informed scrutiny, aligned with public priorities and accountable to the people they affect the most.