ULLOA-SUAREZ Carolina, BARBIER-GAUCHARD Amélie, ABA Mede Rebecca, GOITIA-CONLEY Andres Alberto , HAUWERT-RUEDA Marco Antonio, REBBAH Manal

With rating agencies and markets keeping a close eye on how public finances are managed, government transparency has become a key factor for fiscal credibility across OECD countries. In simple terms, government transparency refers to how clearly governments explain their goals, justify their policy choices, and report the results of their actions. It is not only about publishing data or documents, but about communicating decisions in a way that helps citizens understand and assess public policy.

This blog explores how transparency is perceived and practiced across OECD countries, focusing on four cases: Ireland, Germany, Spain, and Chile. It looks at how governments disclose information, justify fiscal choices, and engage citizens and institutions in evaluating results.

In most OECD countries, interest in government transparency grew rapidly during the 2000s, although some countries had already launched earlier initiatives. This momentum reflected a broader international movement toward New Public Management, which brought private-sector-inspired performance tools into public administration. The focus shifted toward efficiency, measurable results, and citizen satisfaction rather than procedures and compliance. The movement first took shape in the late 1970s and 1980s in countries such as the United Kingdom (under Margaret Thatcher), New Zealand (through its radical administrative reforms), and the United States (with the Reagan administration and the later Clinton–Gore “Reinventing Government” initiative).

Among Eurozone countries, fiscal discipline has been reinforced through successive reforms (2005, 2012, and 2024) of the Stability and Growth Pact introduced in 1996. Member States must submit multiannual programs outlining the trajectory of their public finances to the European Commission. As a result, these countries tend to share similar characteristics in economic, procedural, and political transparency—particularly in the publication of macroeconomic forecasts and government revenue and expenditure projections. However, differences emerge in policy and operational transparency, which relate to how governments report on the implementation and results of their fiscal policies.

The following examples illustrate how these approaches to transparency materialize in practice. While all OECD countries share a broad commitment to openness and accountability, their institutional traditions, fiscal frameworks, and policy priorities shape how transparency is defined, communicated, and used. Ireland, Germany, Spain, and Chile offer distinct experiences that show both the progress made and the ongoing challenges in turning transparency from a reporting requirement into a meaningful tool for public accountability and policy learning.

Fiscal Governance and Performance Budgeting in Ireland: Transparency with Limited Impact

Ireland has built a robust framework for fiscal transparency and accountability. The Department of Finance regularly publishes detailed macroeconomic forecasts and fiscal projections through the Stability Programme Update, the Economic Outlook, and the annual Budget Day documents, which guide the national budget each year. These forecasts are independently reviewed by the Irish Fiscal Advisory Council (IFAC), the country’s fiscal watchdog, which monitors compliance with fiscal rules and publishes formal evaluations that the Ministry of Finance publicly acknowledges and responds to. Budget proposals are also debated in the Oireachtas (Parliament), with full access to supporting materials for legislators and citizens.

Ireland introduced performance budgeting in 2012, coordinated by the Department of Public Expenditure, Infrastructure, Public Service Reform and Digitalisation. Each year, government departments define public service performance targets linked to their strategic programmes and report on both outputs and outcomes. This information is compiled in the Public Service Performance Report (PSPR), which allows for the review and discussion of performance results. Departments also publish analytical work, such as Spending Reviews, to support evidence-based budgeting and policy design.

Despite these efforts, Ireland’s performance framework remains limited in scope and impact. The PSPR relies on a small number of indicators—around 100 in total—many of which are output-based rather than outcome-oriented. Links between performance findings, funding decisions, and strategic priorities remain weak, and the presentation of results can be overly technical and difficult to interpret. As a result, while transparency in fiscal reporting is strong, its contribution to improving performance and policy learning remains modest.

Germany: Accountability Through Auditing More Than Performance

Germany’s approach to fiscal transparency and performance assessment remains cautious and highly decentralised. Rooted in a strong tradition of Rechtsstaatlichkeit (rule of law), public finance management has long focused on legality and compliance rather than performance outcomes. There is no unified legal framework requiring ministries to adopt performance-based reporting, and the system relies primarily on the Federal Budget Code (Bundeshaushaltsordnung, BHO), guidelines from the Federal Ministry of Finance (Bundesministerium der Finanzen, BMF), and voluntary initiatives for Wirkungsorientierte Steuerung (results-oriented management). Since the mid-2000s, several federal ministries have experimented with pilot projects and evaluation units to test output and outcome indicators, but the overall framework remains fragmented and non-standardised.

Oversight in Germany is largely driven by the Bundesrechnungshof (Federal Court of Audit), which ensures the legality, economy, and efficiency (Wirtschaftlichkeit) of federal spending. It publishes an annual report highlighting waste, inefficiency, or policy failures and recommending improvements, though it does not develop or monitor performance indicators itself. In this sense, performance accountability is achieved primarily through auditing and evaluation rather than through an integrated performance budget.

Fiscal discipline and macroeconomic monitoring are complemented by the Independent Advisory Board (Unabhängiger Beirat) of the German Stability Council, established in 2010. This body functions as Germany’s fiscal watchdog, monitoring compliance with the constitutional debt brake (Schuldenbremse) and publishing annual reports on the sustainability of public finances.

Performance-oriented budgeting is more advanced at the state (Länder) level than at the federal (Bund) level, particularly in sectors such as education and health, where regional governments play a leading role in implementation and service delivery. Overall, Germany’s framework remains primarily expenditure-oriented, but growing experimentation at both federal and regional levels suggests a gradual shift toward integrating performance and evaluation into fiscal management.

From Budget Reform to Spending Reviews: Spain’s Path to Performance

Spain began modernising its public finance management system in the early 2000s with the reform of the Ley General Presupuestaria (General Budget Law) in 2003, which introduced for the first time the concept of programme budgeting. The reform required ministries to define objectives and performance indicators for each spending programme, under the coordination and oversight of the Ministry of Finance and Civil Service. The goal was to strengthen the link between budget allocations, policy priorities, and measurable outcomes.

To reinforce this approach, Spain launched the Spending Review Programme in 2018, developed in collaboration with the Independent Authority for Fiscal Responsibility (AIReF). AIReF now carries out systematic reviews of major expenditure areas—such as education, health, infrastructure, and employment—assessing efficiency, effectiveness, and the impact of public spending. These analyses have become a key reference for evidence-based policy discussions and have helped position evaluation as an integral part of Spain’s fiscal governance culture.

Nonetheless, the use of performance information in budget decision-making remains uneven. Indicators are applied inconsistently across ministries, and parliamentary engagement with evaluation results is still limited. In a decentralised system where regional governments manage a large share of public spending, particularly in health and education, performance frameworks differ widely across territories. Spain’s experience highlights both the institutional progress achieved and the continuing challenge of transforming transparency and evaluation into everyday tools for accountability and learning.

Chile’s Road from Fiscal Rules to Accountability in Action

Chile began modernising its fiscal governance framework in the early 2000s, strengthening disclosure and accountability mechanisms as part of a broader commitment to macroeconomic stability. The Budget Directorate (Dirección de Presupuestos, DIPRES) within the Ministry of Finance prepares and publishes key fiscal documents, including the Budget Bill, the Informe de Finanzas Públicas (Public Finance Report), and macroeconomic forecasts that support the government’s annual budget submission to Congress. These documents, released publicly each year, detail assumptions, projections, and policy priorities.

Fiscal discipline is anchored in the structural balance rule, introduced in 2001, which adjusts expenditure according to the economic cycle and long-term copper price assumptions. Independent expert committees advise on these parameters, and their reports are made public. Since 2019, the Autonomous Fiscal Council (Consejo Fiscal Autónomo, CFA) has reinforced oversight by monitoring compliance with the rule, evaluating fiscal policy, and issuing public recommendations and government responses. Transparency has also been enhanced through the Presidential Public Account, an annual address that reviews results and outlines future priorities.

DIPRES also coordinates a performance evaluation system that assesses institutional effectiveness and supports evidence-based budgeting. Ministries define strategic objectives and track progress through indicators of efficiency, effectiveness, and quality. While these indicators vary across institutions, they help connect budget allocations with measurable results. National priorities are framed within Agenda Chile 2030, which aligns fiscal and social objectives with the UN Sustainable Development Goals.

Overall, Chile’s experience illustrates a mature approach to fiscal transparency—one that combines fiscal rules, independent oversight, and performance evaluation to strengthen credibility, accountability, and public trust.

Across these cases, transparency emerges as an institutional practice rather than a purely administrative goal. Independent fiscal councils, audit bodies, and budget offices play a decisive role in ensuring that fiscal information is not only published but also scrutinized and used. In each country, transparency is sustained by institutions that formalize disclosure, evaluate performance, and keep governments accountable for results. Although the instruments differ, whether through fiscal rules, spending reviews, public accounts, or performance frameworks, they all reinforce the same principle: transparent governance depends on the capacity of institutions to turn information into accountability.