A new report conducted by the Caribbean Policy Research Institute (CAPRI) has highlighted that Jamaica’s budget transparency score improved from 42 to 50 out of the 100, placing it above the global average.

The report noted that while Jamaica’s score is above the global average, it is well below those in the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), a group of 38 mostly high-income developed countries, which can serve as a benchmark that Jamaica should seek to emulate.

Based on the standard established by those countries, in order to be considered sufficiently transparent in fiscal matters, Jamaica still has room for improvement.

In measuring the Government of Jamaica’s transparency in the budget process, the survey considers the public availability of documents that states how public resources are raised and spent, and the comprehensiveness of the information presented in these documents.

A document is considered to be publicly available if it is published on the website of the Ministry of Finance and the Public Service (MOFPS) in a timely manner, and is free of charge. Comprehensive budget documents should provide a clear disaggregation of expenditure classifications (that is, who spends the money, on which goods and services, and for what purpose) and revenue (who is paying and for which activity), along with information on the assumptions underlying the estimation.

Of the eight key budget documents relevant to Jamaica, seven were published in a timely manner on the website of the ministry, and all seven can be accessed without cost. The exception is the pre-budget statement, which presents the finance ministry’s economic and fiscal policy plan for the forthcoming budget year. Currently, the pre-budget statement is a document produced only for internal usage, although it was not produced at all for the 2020/21 fiscal year.

The Government’s statement of fiscal intent is contained in the ministry’s budget proposal. Jamaica’s budget proposal is not contained in a single document but rather, it is spread over seven documents. Taken together as a proposal, there are adequate details of the sources of revenues, allocations to ministries, proposed policy changes, and other pertinent information used to understand the country’s fiscal affairs.

The allocations to the various ministries, departments, and agencies (MDAs), the programmatic purpose, and the nature of expenditures in a consolidated multi-year period were comprehensively outlined. Estimates related to borrowing and debt (domestic and external), donor assistance (both financial and in-kind), and estimates of transfers between public corporations were clearly delineated. Individual sources of tax and non-tax revenue (multi-year period), the presentation of extra-budgetary information, and estimates of expenditure for policies directed at the most vulnerable population, such as the Programme of Advancement Through Health and Education (PATH), were accounted for in the documents.

The budget proposal was scored as “sufficient”; however, important information remained missing. Improvements were made, such as data presented on financial and policy information. Expenditure arrears, financial and non-financial assets owned by the government, sensitivity analysis of the impact of macroeconomic assumptions, and a budget calendar were not presented, as they ought to have.