2018年-IMF国际货币组织全球_Former_Yugoslav_Republic_of_Macedonia_Fiscal_Transparency_Evaluation_67页_1mb

Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia Fiscal Transparency Evaluation Summary

Core Content

This report, prepared by the International Monetary Fund (IMF) in October 2018, evaluates the fiscal transparency practices of the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (FYROM) against the IMF's Fiscal Transparency Code. The assessment covers three main areas: fiscal reporting, fiscal forecasting and budgeting, and fiscal risk analysis and management.

Main Findings

Fiscal Reporting

• Coverage: Macedonia's fiscal reports cover 90% of general government activity, but some public units with net expenditures of around 3% of GDP are excluded and should be classified as extrabudgetary under international standards.
• Quality and Integrity: The reports are generally timely and accessible, with a focus on in-year execution and macroeconomic projections. However, they lack comprehensive coverage of financial assets, liabilities, and tax expenditures.
• Strengths:
  • Publication of extensive in-year reports on budget execution for central and local budgetary units and the three Social Security Funds (SSFs).
  • Medium-term macroeconomic and fiscal projections, combined with a clear legal framework for budget formulation and timely budget submission.
  • Disclosure of public debt and explicit guarantees, along with sound management frameworks.
• Weaknesses:
  • The State Audit Office does not provide an opinion on the fairness of the annual budget report.
  • Differences in fiscal aggregates between fiscal and statistical reports are not explained.
  • The budget excludes some tax revenues allocated to specific entities like the Public Enterprise for State Roads (PESR) and the Deposit Insurance Fund (DIF).
  • Limited reporting on performance against fiscal objectives and lack of reconciliation between fiscal plans.

Fiscal Forecasting and Budgeting

• Comprehensiveness: Budget documentation includes most general government revenues and expenditures but excludes certain tax revenues and financial assets.
• Orderliness and Policy Orientation: While efforts are made to improve policy orientation, the budget remains input-based, and performance against fiscal objectives is not adequately reported.
• Credibility: There is limited reconciliation of fiscal forecasts and no independent evaluation of forecasts.

Fiscal Risks

• Disclosure and Analysis: Information on key fiscal risks is presented in different documents, but no comprehensive report exists.
• Risk Management: There is limited central oversight of public-private partnerships (PPPs) and public corporations, and no long-term fiscal sustainability analysis is provided.

Key Recommendations

1. Expand Institutional Coverage: Include all public sector units classified as general government in fiscal and statistical reports.
2. Enhance Quality of Reporting: Publish data on government assets and financial liabilities, reconcile changes in debt and budget deficits, and explain differences in fiscal aggregates.
3. Publish Revenue from Tax Expenditures: Regularly disclose estimates of revenues forgone from tax expenditures.
4. Improve Audit Scope: Require audits of the entire budget, including own-source revenue, loans, and grants, and expand the number of financial audits conducted by the State Audit Office.
5. Improve Budget Comprehensiveness: Include tax revenues allocated to PESR and DIF, and provide complete information on extrabudgetary funds.
6. Strengthen Budget Credibility: Present multi-annual expenditure plans, reconcile fiscal forecasts, and encourage independent evaluation.
7. Enhance Policy Orientation: Regularly report on compliance with fiscal objectives and performance indicators.
8. Publish Total Investment Costs: Disclose total costs of investment projects and develop methodological guidelines for project appraisal.
9. Improve Fiscal Risk Disclosure: Publish a comprehensive fiscal risks report and long-term public debt projections.
10. Strengthen Risk Oversight: Enhance monitoring and oversight of fiscal risks from PPPs and public corporations.

Key Data from 2016

• Public Sector Expenditure: 38.6% of GDP.
  • General Government Expenditure: 34.5% of GDP (86% by central government, 14% by local government).
  • Public Corporations Expenditure: 4.8% of GDP, mostly by nonfinancial corporations.
• Public Sector Assets and Liabilities:
  • Assets: 106.8% of GDP (65.2% nonfinancial, 41.6% financial).
  • Liabilities: 79.8% of GDP (50.2% debt securities and loans).
  • Net Worth: 27.0% of GDP.

Conclusion

The evaluation highlights that while FYROM has made progress in fiscal transparency, there are significant areas for improvement, particularly in the comprehensiveness of fiscal reports, the credibility of fiscal forecasts, and the management of fiscal risks. Implementing the recommendations would lead to a more complete and informative fiscal account, enhancing accountability and public trust in government financial management.