The funniest, and maybe most useful, is from last weekend’s Financial Times. Always wondered how to max your hand luggage? – Here is the solutionn – the Dutch version of ‘wearable luggage’. This is a coat into which you can put up to 10kg of luggage and later (e.g. after check-in) fold into a bag. Very handy for flying with hand luggage only! Find out more at their website www.jaktogo.com. (Note that they are selling with 25% discounts until end of October).

Spiegel Online ran a nice article (unfortunately only in German) on how the freak travellers (backpackers) minimise the weight of their luggage. The bottom line is to buy a scale. But not the one you think. We are talking about the ones you normally use for food or letters etc., i.e. one to measure the 50 grams some stuff weighs too much. More in this (how to pack) and this article (how to spread in your backpack).

Read this blog if you consider a longer stay-over in an airport (or an overnighter). Nice reviews of experiences of sleeping over in various airports world wide. A particularly relevant read for Ryanair & co travellers. – My Facebook agreement with Manila having been voted the world’s worst airport has created a debate among friends, and it turns out that some Asian airports have probably not (yet?) received the (negative) attention they deserve. But Manila is a seriously crappy airport, with no proper connections between the four terminals and clueless staff all around. Point made.

Singapore (for once) trailing global cities in life quality?

After having spent a bit of time in Singapore, I wonder why this city is not investing far more attention and infrastructure to cycling. Surely, the all-year humid climate and temperatures for 30 degress during the day are not permitting a cool 10-minute bike-ride to university as relaxed as in Berlin. But then again, the government is very keen to emphasise health issues and constraining car traffic with some of the highest obstacles (i.e. prices) to car driving in the world. Would it not make more sense to start providing bike lanes on at least the big roads? Nowadays, you do not even know where to go as a cyclist in Singapore because roads are crowded and dangerous – and pavements are often too narrow even to walk.

Just like in other business metropolis, many offices (read: banks) and public institutions (read: schools, universities or even ministries) already have showers and changing rooms so that even longer bike rides to work or school should pose no major obstacle. I just do not know why Singapore politicians do not see cycling as such a big chance to ramp up the ‘green’ image of their city?

A particularly positive cultural side-effect of opening Singapore to cycling would be that its citizens would regain a more natural affiliation to their city. While the typical Singaporean today is avoiding even the 5-minute walk to the super market around the corner, creating a ‘hipness’ about biking and bikes might also allow them to appreciate the physical nature and spacial use of their city much more.

Ironically, I remember several interesting discussions with my Italian federalist friends who have always lobbied within JEF and UEF to support the introduction of Eurobonds – to allow the EU (budget) to run deficits primarily for EU-wide infrastructure projects. I have always (and continue to) oppose this idea because I think we do not need another layer of debt  in the EU while there is sufficient room for mobilising funds to invest in EU-wide infrastructure projects from the ineffective CAP and structural policy – and where necessary also from national coffers. While the financing mechanism for these Eurobonds would be the same, the current discussion is promoting Eurobonds on a very different level.

Eurobonds to solve the debt crisis

Eurobonds as advocated these days are seen as a tool to lower borrowing costs for peripheral Eurozone countries (Greece, Ireland etc.) who struggle with run-away interest rates on newly issued debt. They are practically cut off from the market, hence EU intervention mechanisms like the EFSF are now used to finance their debt. In some ways the EFSF is not so much different from the Eurobonds discussed today except the fact that the EFSF is primarily seen as a crisis intervention – and not a permanent – vehicle. Because (just like with the EFSF) Eurobond debt is guaranteed by countries like Germany or the Nordics borrowing is cheaper for such jointly guaranteed Eurobonds. So, why should we not issue Eurobonds for all EU countries, lowering borrowing costs for those in trouble and thereby help them out? – Because of moral hazard, you silly.

If deficit-prone countries can borrow at cheap rates again, what is their incentive to create sustainable public finances in the first place? Experience tells us that without tougher institutional provisions this is unlikely to happen: When (debt) interest rates decreased dramatically for countries like Italy or Greece after they joined the Euro in the early 2000s, their budgetary profligacy did not stop. Allowing them cheap access to new bonds is unlikely to change the picture. Unless it is done in a more intelligent way this time…

How to make Eurobonds work

The primary challenge is to prevent a repetition of what happened after the Euro introduction, i.e. letting countries accumulate even more debt because the interest on it is so cheap. However, if there were mechanisms to overcome this problem, then Eurobonds would be a helpful tool to potentially help Greece et al. out of the debt spiral they are in. How can this be done? – I believe this can be achieved through a number of (national) institutional provisions, which should be made a pre-requisite for anyone seeking Eurobonds. Such measures should include:

- a zero-deficit (balanced-budget) rule at national and sub-national level that is anchored in the constitution. Realistically, it would be phased in, just like Germany’s ‘Schuldenbremse’;

- a rainy-day fund (Singapore-style?) that takes away from policy-makers at least 50% of budget surpluses and any privatisation proceeds. It may only be tapped under severe economic downturns;

- an independent adviser on national economic development who suggests the growth assumption underlying the national budget (this could e.g. be the EU Commission, OECD etc). Any surplus achieved during the financial year or revenue beyond the initial projection would be locked up;

- a mechanism of regular EU inspections to oversee the reliability of national public finances (maybe via a special cooperation between OLAF-like units and Eurostat);

- a maximum debt level financed through Eurobonds. This could conveniently be at 60% (following the Maastricht criteria) but I think it should be lower at maybe 30%;

- an initial list of state assets that are handed over to the rainy-day fund to be sold or privatised whenever the highest value can be obtained;

- a sustainable answer to government pension (and potentially health) obligations, ideally by at least prohibiting defined-benefits for government employees as well as serious pension ages in the public sector.

This list is long and more than demanding. But given that trust is weak following the mess we are in, these provisions should act as a strong commitment stick for every government that wants to seriously get out of the mess.

//Picture from Rainer Ebert under CC

Film tip: My favourite (and most moving) film about the Bosnian war is the BBC’s semi-documentary ‘Warriors‘.

Of the 94 countries reviewed, only 24 yielded satisfactory results when it came to maintaining a transparency in their budgets. Despite some notable improvements, many of the countries surveyed have numerous milestones to achieve. The situation in Southeast Asia is even more worrying as none of the seven countries surveyed achieved a satisfactory score (i.e. at least 60 out of a possible 100 points). Singapore was, however, not included in the recent survey.

The importance of budget transparency for democratic, economic and social development

Transparency is a central theme of the good governance discourse. For economic and social development, in particular in a transitional/developing region like Southeast Asia, access to and information about budgets can make a real difference to citizens’ lives.

There are several reasons that make budget transparency relevant
1. Openness enables accountability of the government and is, therefore, a cornerstone of the democratic process;
2. The knowledge and analysis of revenues and expenditures can improve effectiveness and the quality of expenses;
3. Only open budgets allow ultimate trust in government policies. This, in turn, empowers citizens to participate in decisions taken by governments, thereby enhancing the credibility of public policies;
4. Transparency is key to prevent corruption and wasteful spending. Openness to government policies is bound to attract investments. Borrowing and lending costs would be considerably lowered if open information is provided to investors; and
5. Finally, budget transparency is imperative for advanced monitoring of the expenditure of public funds. This will facilitate processes such as fair use of revenues from natural resources or donor aid.

What does the index measure?
Keeping in mind the above parameters of budget transparency, the OBI developed a scorecard for the level of budget transparency of each country. The evaluation process consisted of independent researchers, in the respective countries, answering 123 survey questions. The focal point of transparency was determined predominantly on the publication and openness of the budget proposal of the government. The budget proposal accounted for about half of the score required to adjudicate the level of transparency of a country’s overall budget.
Once the questions were answered by different country analysts, the answers were reviewed by external reviewers to ensure consistency across the board. Thereafter, the results were sent to various government officials and anonymous reviewers for comments and feedback. Finally, the International Budget Partnership accumulated and published the results. This process is repeated every two years.

The importance of the OBI attaching a numerical value to the budget transparency of the countries surveyed is that it is of empirical value to researchers and it helps to stimulate debates between countries, analysts and observers. Not only does the overall score help compare countries on crucial performing indices such as the state of development, resource dependency and legal systems to explain the numerous variations of openness, in fact the OBI endeavors to create an improved understanding of why and where transparency matters and how it could be used as an advocacy tool to improve the lives of citizens.

Findings of the Open Budget Index 2010

The scores in the OBI 2010 range from an almost near ‘ideal budget transparency’ in South Africa and New Zealand to a total lack thereof in Iraq, Fiji and Chad. What is interesting to note is that budget transparency is not necessarily linked to the state of development of a country. While South Africa is the top scorer, developed countries like Italy and Portugal fall in the upper middle-field of the index. One can also easily identify signs of resource curse, i.e. countries dependent on revenues from hydrocarbons, and which are not democratic, are ranked very poorly in terms of budget transparency. The fact that Mongolia and Liberia have made impressive advances in budget transparency while that in Fiji has decreased depicts that development is indeed in the hands of governments. In that context, quite often progress can be achieved by simply publishing documents that would have traditionally remained only for internal use.

More information about the OBI 2010 and its results can be found on www.openbudgetindex.org. The authors are currently working on a scoring for Singapore and are available for advice on the general findings of the OBI and its results for Southeast Asia.

This article was published in ‘global-is-asian’, issue 09, Jan-Mar 2011. It can be accessed online here (pages 16/17) and was co-authored with Ora-orn Poocharoen. Both of us have worked as reviewers in the OBI process.

With the index we look at 123 indicators in public budgets and primarily check the availability of key budget documents like the executive’s annual budget proposal as well as the quality of the data they include. Other questions are concerned with access to documents, the openness and involvement of legislatures or the quality of other budget institutions like auditors. 91 of these indicators make it into the final score. You can find the ranking of all 94 countries here.

Three findings are particularly interesting I think: Firstly, the state of budget transparency does not rely on a country’s state of economic development. South Africa as the overall top scorer illustrates this best. Secondly, the ‘resource curse’ is a phenomenon we tend to support with our findings. Countries highly dependent on hydrocarbons also have lower scores in our index. Thirdly, with data over three periods now (2006, 2008, 2010 – and 2012 beginning to be in the making) we can observe that budget transparency is not a static process and that in particularly countries with poor or mediocre performances do start to move. Countries like Liberia or Mongolia have shown a positive and strong upward trend thanks to clear political leadership. Others like Fiji, following a coup, show a downward trend. This, if nothing else, shows very clearly, how budget transparency is a political process and many governments around the world can and need to do much more to empower their citizens when it comes to the most important policy document of any country – its budget.

Rich data sets with answers to all questions are available for further research. You can obtain them either from the website or through me or the facilitators at IBP in Washington DC. We are grateful for any hints on anyone who researches or works on budget transparency. Do get in touch!

LowCarbonBudget.eu by the UK’s Green Alliance. Focuses on the ‘green’ side of the budget but has very competent staff behind and also up-to-date information on general developments.

Budget in Perspective by the German Foreign Ministry. This blog is curently in beta status and will present contributions from known experts, academics and obviously some German officials. It has a useful press overview(that hopefully continue to be posted weekly).

Follow the Money by transparency activists ‘EU Transparency’. This blog is not much frequented recently but has until then covered analysis in the field of EU budget transparency.

Sectoral blogs

The following blogs cover primarily specific EU policies but with a focus on their budgetary implications.

CAP Reform by a number of NGO and Think tank CAP experts from and around Brussels. Probably the leading commentary on progressive CAP reform.

Farmsubsidy.org is probably the oldest and most established blog on transparency in the agricultural (CAP) budget. It still holds up-to-date CAP beneficiary data and a few blog comments dating back to earlier this year. Its main driver is contributing with comments at the CAP Reform blog and these two are somehow related (as is Follow the Money).

Fishsubsidy.org is the CFP (fisheries policy) equivalent to Farmsubsidy and brings transparency into the fisheries budget by publishing its beneficiaries. However, it also offers some CFP-specific analysis.

Standard and official sources

The Commission‘s budget website is obviously a useful source for standard information but is no space of debate. However, it now offers some rather technical but useful tracker of current developments right on the homepage (as linked above). The website of the Budget Review still offers some interesting background information and the comments of around 300 actors on the future of the EU budget.

The European Parliament has its own (not very well-structured) section on budget news focusing on what MEPs say. But they also have a nice introduction to the budget process.

Unfortunately, I am not aware of any news website that pays particular attention to the EU budget. The best way to follow what is going is probably through these blogs. I am also trying to use #EUbudget in Twitter when I post news or comments on the EU budget. Others like LowCarbonBudget or CEEBankwatch seem to do the same.

Advisory Council on International Affairs (2007): The finances of the European Union. The AVI works on request of the Dutch parliament/government on international affairs. This report can be downloaded here as PDF and it serves as a contribution to the budget review debate. It analyses both the revenue and expenditure side and makes recommendations for action. Not very useful for the broader academic debate but obviously helpful in understanding the/a Dutch position on budget reform at the time.

European Consortium for Political Research (ECPR)
12-17 April 2011
St. Gallen, Switzerland
Deadline for applying with an abstract: 1 December 2010 (information here)
Here is the conference information.

European Politicial Science Association (EPSA)
16-18 June 2011
Dublin, Ireland (information here)
Deadline for proposals: 10 December 2010

ECPR General Conference
24-27 August 2011
Reykjavik, Iceland (conference information here)
Deadline for proposals of papers (one panel only): 1 February 2011 (instructions here)

Conferences with passed deadlines

European Union Studies Association (EUSA)
3-5 March 2011
Boston, MA / USA
Deadline for papers: 20 September 2010 (sorry, passed)

Political Studies Association (PSA)
19-21 April 2011
London, UK
Deadline for submissions: 24 September 2010 (sorry, passed)
Information on the conference can be found here.

Council for European Studies
20-22 June 2011
Barcelona, Spain
Deadline: 15 October 2010 (sorry, passed)

Many thanks to Jan Biesenbender for assembling this overview.