- •Table of Contents
- •Foreword
- •OECD Journal on Budgeting
- •Board of Advisors
- •Preface
- •Executive Summary
- •Sharp differences exist in the legal framework for budget systems
- •Public finance and legal theories do not explain inter-country differences in budget system laws
- •Political variables and legal culture help explain the inter-country differences
- •Norms for budget systems have been issued and many should be in budget system laws
- •Budget system laws are adopted to strengthen the powers of the legislature or the executive
- •Country studies reveal a multiplicity of reasons for adopting budget-related laws
- •Conclusions
- •1. Introduction
- •2. Budget processes
- •2.1. Budgeting: a five-stage process
- •Figure I.1. The roles of Parliament and the executive in the budget cycle
- •2.2. How are the different legal frameworks for budget systems organised?
- •Figure I.2. Different models for organising the legal framework of budget systems
- •3. Can economic theory explain the differences?
- •3.1. New institutional economics
- •3.2. Law, economics and public choice theory
- •3.3. Constitutional political economy: budgetary rules and budgetary outcomes
- •3.4. Can game theory help?
- •4. Can comparative law explain the differences?
- •4.1. Families of legal systems and the importance of the constitution
- •Box I.2. Purposes of constitutions and characteristics of statutes
- •4.2. Absence of norms for constitutions partly explains differences in budget system laws
- •4.3. Hierarchy within primary law also partly explains differences in budget-related laws
- •Box I.3. Hierarchy of laws: The example of Spain
- •4.4. Not all countries complete all steps of formal law-making processes
- •Box I.4. Steps in making law
- •4.5. Greater use is made of secondary law in some countries
- •Table I.1. Delegated legislation and separation of powers
- •4.6. Decisions and regulations of the legislature are particularly important in some countries
- •4.8. Are laws “green lights” or “red lights”?
- •5. Forms of government and budget system laws
- •5.1. Constitutional or parliamentary monarchies
- •5.2. Presidential and semi-presidential governments
- •5.3. Parliamentary republics
- •5.4. Relationship between forms of government and budget system law
- •Table I.2. Differences in selected budgetary powers of the executive and the legislature
- •Figure I.3. Separation of powers and the need to adopt budget-related laws
- •Notes
- •Bibliography
- •1. Introduction
- •Figure II.1. Density of legal framework for budget systems in 25 OECD countries
- •Table II.1. Legal frameworks for budget systems: 13 OECD countries
- •2. Different purposes of the legal frameworks for budget systems
- •Box II.1. Purposes of budget system laws
- •2.1. Legal necessity?
- •Figure II.2. Budget reforms and changes in budget laws
- •2.2. Budget reform: when is law required?
- •2.3. Elaborating on the budget powers of the legislature vis-à-vis the executive
- •3. Differences in the legal framework for the main actors in budget systems
- •3.1. Legislatures
- •3.2. Executives
- •Box II.2. New Zealand’s State Sector Act 1988
- •3.3. Judiciary
- •3.4. External audit offices
- •Table II.3. External audit legal frameworks: Selected differences
- •3.5. Sub-national governments
- •3.6. Supra-national bodies and international organisations
- •4. Differences in the legal framework for budget processes
- •4.1. Budget preparation by the executive
- •Table II.4. Legal requirements for the date of submission of the budget to the legislature
- •Box II.3. France: Legal requirements for budget information
- •4.2. Parliamentary approval of the budget
- •4.3. Budget execution
- •4.4. Government accounting and fiscal reporting systems
- •Box II.4. Finland: Legal requirements for annual report and annual accounts
- •Table II.5. Legal requirements for submission of annual report to the legislature: Selected countries
- •Notes
- •Bibliography
- •1. Have standards for the legal framework of budget systems been drawn up?
- •1.1. Normative and positive approaches to budget law
- •1.2. Limited guidance from normative constitutional economics
- •2. Who should set and monitor legally binding standards?
- •2.1. Role of politicians and bureaucrats
- •2.2. International transmission of budget system laws
- •2.3. International organisations as standard setters
- •Box III.1. The OECD Best Practices for Budget Transparency
- •Box III.2. Constitutional norms for external audit: Extracts from the INTOSAI “Lima Declaration”
- •2.4. Monitoring standards
- •3. Principles to support the legal framework of budget systems
- •Box III.3. Ten principles for a budget law
- •3.1. Authoritativeness
- •Table III.1. Stages of the budget cycle and legal instruments
- •3.2. Annual basis
- •3.3. Universality
- •3.4. Unity
- •3.5. Specificity
- •3.6. Balance
- •3.7. Accountability
- •Box III.4. Possible minimum legal norms for budget reporting
- •Box III.5. Ingredients of legal norms for external audit
- •3.8. Transparency
- •Box III.6. Ingredients of legal norms for government agencies
- •3.9. Stability or predictability
- •3.10. Performance (or efficiency, economy, and effectiveness)
- •Notes
- •Bibliography
- •1. Overview
- •1.1. The legal framework governing budget processes
- •Box 1. Canada: Main budget system laws
- •1.2. Reforms of budget system laws
- •Box 2. Canada: Main provisions of the Spending Control Act 1992
- •2. Principles underlying budget system laws
- •3. Legal basis for the establishment and the powers of the actors in the budget system
- •3.1. The executive and the legislature
- •3.2. Roles and responsibilities of sub-national governments
- •Box 3. Canada: Major transfers from the federal to the provincial governments
- •4. Legal provisions for each stage of the budget cycle
- •4.1. Budget preparation and presentation by the executive
- •Box 4. Canada: Key steps in the annual budgeting process
- •Box 5. Canada: Major contents of the main estimates
- •4.2. Budget process in Parliament
- •Box 6. Canada: The budget approval process in Parliament
- •4.3. Budget execution
- •4.4. Government accounting and fiscal reporting
- •4.5. External audit
- •Notes
- •Bibliography
- •1. Overview
- •1.1. The legal framework governing budget processes
- •Box 1. France: Main budget system laws
- •1.2. Reforms of budget system laws
- •2. Principles underlying budget system laws
- •3. Legal basis for the establishment and the powers of the actors in the budget system
- •3.1. The executive and the legislature
- •3.2. Role and responsibilities of sub-national governments
- •Box 3. France: Key features of the Local Government Code
- •4. Legal provisions for each stage of the budget cycle
- •4.1. Budget preparation and presentation by the executive
- •4.2. Budget process in Parliament
- •4.3. Budget execution
- •4.4. Government accounting and fiscal reporting
- •4.5. External audit
- •Notes
- •Bibliography
- •1. Overview
- •1.1. The legal framework governing budget processes
- •Box 1. Germany: Main budget system laws
- •1.2. Reforms of budget system laws
- •2. Principles underlying budget system laws
- •3. Legal basis for the establishment and the powers of the actors in the budget system
- •3.1. The executive and the legislature
- •Box 2. Germany: Public agencies
- •3.2. Role and responsibilities of sub-national governments
- •4. Legal provisions for each stage of the budget cycle
- •4.1. Budget preparation and presentation by the executive
- •4.2. Budget process in Parliament
- •Box 3. Germany: Budget processes in Parliament
- •4.3. Budget execution
- •4.4. Government accounting and fiscal reporting
- •4.5. External audit17
- •Notes
- •Bibliography
- •1. Overview
- •1.1. The legal framework governing budget processes
- •Box 1. Japan: Main budget system laws
- •1.2. Reforms of budget system laws
- •Box 2. Japan: Main contents of the 1997 Fiscal Structural Reform Act
- •2. Principles underlying budget system laws
- •3. Legal basis for the establishment and the powers of the actors in the budget system
- •3.1. The executive and the legislature
- •3.2. Role and responsibilities of sub-national governments
- •Box 3. Japan: Grants from central government to local governments
- •4. Legal provisions for each stage of the budget cycle
- •4.1. Budget preparation and presentation by the executive
- •Box 4. Japan: The timetable for the budget process
- •Box 5. Japan: Additional documents attached to the draft budget
- •4.2. Budget process in Parliament
- •4.3. Budget execution
- •4.4. Government accounting and fiscal reporting
- •4.5. External audit
- •Notes
- •Bibliography
- •1. Overview
- •1.1. The legal framework governing budget processes
- •Box 1. Korea: Main budget system laws
- •1.2. Reforms of budget system laws
- •2. Principles underlying budget system laws
- •3. Legal basis for the establishment and the powers of the actors in the budget system
- •3.1. The executive and the legislature
- •3.2. Role and responsibilities of sub-national governments
- •Box 3. Korea: Major acts governing the fiscal relationship across government levels
- •4. Legal provisions for each stage of the budget cycle
- •4.1. Budget preparation and presentation by the executive
- •Box 4. Korea: Legal requirements for the timetable for budget preparation and deliberation
- •Box 5. Korea: Other documents annexed to the draft budget
- •4.2. Budget process in Parliament
- •4.3. Budget execution
- •4.4. Government accounting and fiscal reporting
- •4.5. External audit
- •Notes
- •Bibliography
- •1. Overview
- •1.1. The legal framework governing budget processes
- •1.2. Reforms of budget system laws
- •2. Principles underlying budget system laws
- •3. Legal basis for the establishment and the powers of the actors in the budget system
- •3.1. The executive and the legislature
- •3.2. Role and responsibilities of sub-national governments
- •4. Legal provisions for each stage of the budget cycle
- •4.1. Budget preparation and presentation by the executive
- •Box 2. New Zealand: Fiscal responsibility (legal provisions)
- •Box 3. New Zealand: Key steps and dates for budget preparation by the government
- •Box 4. New Zealand: Information required to support the first appropriation act
- •4.2. Budget process in Parliament
- •4.3. Budget execution
- •4.4. Government accounting and fiscal reporting
- •4.5. External audit
- •Notes
- •Bibliography
- •1. Overview
- •1.1. The legal framework governing budget processes
- •Box 1. Nordic Countries: The main budget system laws or near-laws
- •1.2. Reforms of budget system laws
- •2. Principles underlying budget system laws
- •3. Legal basis for the establishment and powers of the actors in the budget system
- •3.1. The constitutions of the four countries
- •Table 1. Nordic countries: Age and size of constitutions
- •3.2. Legislatures
- •Table 2. Nordic countries: Constitutional provisions for the legislatures
- •3.3. The political executive
- •Table 3. Nordic countries: Constitutional provisions for the political executive
- •3.4. Ministries and executive agencies
- •3.5. Civil service
- •3.6. Sub-national governments
- •4. Constitutional and other legal requirements for budgeting
- •4.1. Authority of Parliament
- •Table 4. Nordic countries: Constitutional provisions for the authority of Parliament
- •4.2. Timing of submission of the annual budget
- •4.3. Non-adoption of the annual budget before the year begins
- •4.4. Content of the budget and types of appropriations
- •4.5. Documents to accompany the draft budget law
- •4.6. Parliamentary committees and budget procedures in Parliament
- •4.7. Parliamentary amendment powers, coalition agreements, two-stage budgeting and fiscal rules
- •4.8. Supplementary budgets
- •4.10. Cancellation of appropriations and contingency funds
- •4.11. Government accounting
- •4.12. Other fiscal reporting and special reports
- •Table 5. Nordic countries: Constitutional requirements for external audit
- •Notes
- •Bibliography
- •1. Overview
- •1.1. The legal framework governing budget processes
- •Box 1. Spain: Main budget system laws
- •1.2. Reforms of budget system laws
- •2. Principles underlying budget system laws
- •3. Legal basis for the establishment and the powers of the actors in the budget system
- •3.1. The executive and the legislature
- •3.2. Role and responsibilities of sub-national governments
- •4. Legal provisions for each stage of the budget cycle
- •4.1. Budget preparation and presentation by the executive
- •Box 2. Spain: The timetable for the budget process (based on the fiscal year 2003)
- •Box 3. Spain: The major content of medium-term budget plans
- •Box 4. Spain: Additional documents attached to the draft budget
- •4.2. Budget process in Parliament
- •4.3. Budget execution
- •4.4. Government accounting and fiscal reporting
- •4.5. External audit
- •Notes
- •Bibliography
- •1. Overview
- •1.1. The legal framework governing budget processes
- •Box 1. United Kingdom: Main budget system laws
- •1.2. Reforms of budget system law
- •Box 2. United Kingdom: Reforms of the budget system in the past 20 years
- •2. Principles underlying budget system laws
- •3. Legal basis for the establishment and the powers of the actors in the budget system
- •3.1. The executive and the legislature
- •Box 3. United Kingdom: Executive agencies and other bodies
- •3.2. Role and responsibilities of sub-national governments
- •4. Legal provisions for each stage of the budget cycle
- •4.1. Budget preparation and presentation by the executive
- •4.2. Budget process in Parliament
- •Box 4. United Kingdom: Budget processes in Parliament
- •Table 1. United Kingdom: Format of appropriation adopted by Parliament for Department X
- •4.3. Budget execution
- •Table 2. United Kingdom: Transfers of budgetary authority
- •4.4. Government accounting and fiscal reporting
- •4.5. External audit
- •Box 5. United Kingdom: External audit arrangements
- •Notes
- •Bibliography
- •1. Overview
- •1.1. The legal framework governing budget processes
- •Box 1. United States: Main federal budget system laws
- •1.2. Reforms of budget system laws
- •2. Principles underlying budget system laws
- •3. Legal basis for the establishment and the powers of the actors in the budget system
- •3.1. The executive and the legislature
- •3.2. Role and responsibilities of sub-national governments
- •Box 3. United States: Major transfers between different levels of government
- •4. Legal provisions for each stage of the budget cycle
- •4.1. Budget preparation and presentation by the executive
- •Box 4. United States: Key steps in the annual budget process within the executive
- •Box 5. United States: Other information required by law
- •4.2. Budget process in the legislature
- •Box 6. United States: Legal and internal deadlines for congressional budget approval
- •4.3. Budget execution
- •4.4. Government accounting and fiscal reporting
- •4.5. External audit
- •5. Sanctions and non-compliance
- •Notes
- •Bibliography
IV. FOUR NORDIC COUNTRIES
government and Parliament on 15 May and immediately made public. In the other countries, publication takes place following the release of the annual report of the parliamentary auditors to Parliament in plenary session.
Notes
1.For reasons of space, Iceland, also a Nordic country, is excluded. Iceland has introduced a number of reforms in recent years, including the adoption of a new Government Financial Reporting Act in 1997 that introduced modified accrual accounting and budgeting to different categories of government entities of the public sector (see http://brunnur.stjr.is/interpro/fjr/fjr.nsf/pages/gfradoc#Act).
2.The contents of local government acts, especially the articles devoted to subnational governments’ budgeting and debt management provisions, are not reviewed in this study.
3.Centuries of Swedish-Finnish tradition had seen the constitution divided between two main instruments: the Constitution Act, originally governing the monarchy and the administration, and the Parliament Act, governing the legislature. This broad split is maintained in Sweden to this day.
4.Petroleum-based revenues are deposited in the Government Petroleum Fund and used to acquire financial assets from countries outside Norway. The Ministry of Finance is responsible for policy aspects of the Petroleum Fund, which is managed by the central bank (Norges Bank, 2004).
5.Sweden’s Freedom of Information Law was first adopted in 1766 – the oldest such law in the world. Finland’s 1919 Act is the second oldest. See http://home.online.no/~wkeim/ foil.htm.
6.In Denmark, no party has held a majority in Parliament since 1909. Sweden had coalition governments during 1976-82 and 1991-94. From 1994, the social democrat party negotiated support from one or two political parties, without forming a coalition government.
7.A constitutional commission was set up in the 1960s. However, when the commission suggested a drastic reduction in the powers of the president, the commission was abandoned in the 1970s. In the 1980s, a new president reconstituted the commission. In the 1990s, Parliament obliged the government to carry on constitutional reform, focusing on “parliamentarisation of the powers of the President of the Republic” (Nousiainen, 2004).
8.See the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, www.um.dk/english/danmark/danmarksbog/kap1/ 1-9.asp#1-9-7.
9.This statement needs to be qualified. In Sweden, in addition to its four fundamental laws (the “Constitution”), there is the Parliament Act, a nearconstitutional law, that has a large number of provisions relating to budget processes.
10.Various constitutional commissions were set up in the 1960s to discuss changes in the cameral and electoral systems. Partial reform of the Constitution was achieved in 1969, leading to the new single chamber for which elections were held in 1970 (see Sweden Parliament, 2003, Introduction).
OECD JOURNAL ON BUDGETING – VOLUME 4 – NO. 3 – ISSN 1608-7143 – © OECD 2004 |
373 |
|
IV. FOUR NORDIC COUNTRIES
11.Reflecting the importance of the Finance Committee, Finland’s parliamentary Rules of Procedure specify that the Finance Committee must have 21 members (s. 8), whereas all other committees have 17 members.
12.In 1979, a prime minister not representing a party was selected to lead the government.
13.See Sweden Agency for Administrative Development (1999).
14.The county administrative boards in Sweden cannot be regarded as a separate level of government.
15.See, for example, Blöndal et al. (2004) for Denmark; Blöndal et al. (2002) for Finland; Christensen et al. (2002) for Norway; and Blöndal (2001), Ekonomistyrningsverket (2003) and Gustafsson and Svensson (1999) for Sweden.
16.The number of staff of the Finance Committee amounts to 11, the largest of all committees.
17.In Sweden, for example, to support the 1994 government decision to decentralise salary negotiation powers to agencies, the Ordinance on the Executive Management of Government Agencies and the Ordinance of the Agency for Government Employment were changed. For accountability and transparency of government activities, the Ordinance on the Annual Reports and Budget Documentation, 2000, specifies the compulsory documents to be submitted to government by government institutions, when they are due, and their contents (annual reports, performance reports, etc.). This ordinance, together with the Book-keeping Ordinance, 2000, the Appropriation Ordinance, 2000, and the Ordinance on Fees and Charges, 1998, prescribes accounting arrangements. Some agencies are authorised to issue supplementary regulations to provide more details.
18.The use of the term “Public Accounts Committee” in the English translation of the Auditor General’s Act 1976 is misleading. The Folketing’s Standing Orders do not include the Auditors of the Public Accounts as one of the 24 committees of Parliament. Rather, the Office of Parliamentary Auditors is a separate legal entity, created by law No. 322 in 1975.
Bibliography
Beck Jørgensen, Torben and Poul Erik Mouritzen (1997), Forvaltningspolitikken mellem Skyll og Karybdis, Projekt Offentlig Sektor – Vilkår og fremtid, Copenhagen.
Blöndal, Jón, (2001), “Budgeting in Sweden”, OECD Journal on Budgeting, Vol. 1, No. 1, OECD, Paris, pp. 27-57.
Blöndal, Jón, Jens Kromann Kristensen and Michael Ruffner (2002), “Budgeting in Finland”, OECD Journal on Budgeting, Vol. 2, No. 2, OECD, Paris, pp. 119-152.
Blöndal, Jón, Jens Kromann Kristensen and Michael Ruffner (2004), “Budgeting in Denmark”, OECD Journal on Budgeting, Vol. 4, No. 1, OECD, Paris, pp. 49-79.
Christensen, Tom, Per Lægreid and Paul G. Roness (2002), “Increasing Parliamentary Control of the Executive? New Instruments and Emerging Effects”, Journal of Legislative Studies, Vol. 8, No. 1, pp. 37-62.
Daugaard, Steen (2002), Enhancing Expenditure Control with a Decentralised Public Sector in Denmark, OECD Economics Department Working Paper No. 320, OECD, Paris.
374 |
OECD JOURNAL ON BUDGETING – VOLUME 4 – NO. 3 – ISSN 1608-7143 – © OECD 2004 |
|
IV. FOUR NORDIC COUNTRIES
Denmark Ministry of Finance (2001), Budgetvejledning (Budget Guidelines), Ministry of Finance, Copenhagen, www.fm.dk/visPublikationesForside.asp?artikelID=3148 (in Danish), May.
Denmark Ministry of Finance (2003), Budget Outlook, Ministry of Finance, Copenhagen, www.fm.dk/db/filarkiv/8334/bo_eng.pdf, August.
Denmark National Bank (2004), Government Debt Management Policy, Denmark’s National Bank, Copenhagen, www.nationalbanken.dk/DNUK/GovernmentDebt.nsf/ side/Government_Debt_Management!OpenDocument (in English).
Denmark Parliament (2001), Standing Orders of the Folketing, Danish Parliament, Copenhagen, www.ft.dk/?/samling/20031/MENU/00000005.htm.
Ekonomistyrningsverket (ESV) (2003), Performance Management in Swedish Central Government, ESV Paper 2003:22, Swedish National Financial Management Authority, Stockholm, www.esv.se/download/18.1b5340cf7258785a67fff485/pm.pdf.
Finland Ministry of Finance (2003), Stability Programme in Finland, Ministry of Finance, Helsinki, www.vm.fi/tiedostot/pdf/en/44686.pdf, November.
Finland Parliament (2000), Parliamentary State Auditors, Finnish Parliament, Helsinki,
www.eduskunta.fi.
Gustafsson, Lennart and Arne Svensson (1999), Public Sector Reform in Sweden, Liber Ekonomi, Malmö, Sweden.
IMF (International Monetary Fund) (2003), “Experience with Fiscal Rules in Selected Countries”, Rules-Based Fiscal Policy in France, Germany, Italy and Spain, Appendix II, IMF Occasional Paper No. 225, IMF, Washington DC.
Jensen, Lotte (2003), “Aiming for Centrality: the Politico-administrative Strategies of the Danish Ministry of Finance”, in John Wanna, Lotte Jensen and Jouke de Vries (eds.), Controlling Public Expenditure: The Changing Roles of Central Budget Agencies – Better Guardians? Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, United Kingdom.
Lundqvist, Kristina (2003), Accrual Accounting Regulation in Central Government: A Comparative Study of Australia, Sweden and the United Kingdom, Swedish National Financial Management Authority, Stockholm, www.esv.se/download/ 18.1b5340cf5d5f9b3ab7fff318/Accrual%20Accounting%20Regulation%20in%20Central% 20Governments.pdf.
Norges Bank (2004), The Government Petroleum Fund 1990-1999, Central Bank of Norway, Oslo, www.norges-bank.no/english/petroleum_fund/reports/1999/3.html.
Norway Audit Office (2003), Strategic Plan 2003-2006, Office of the Auditor General, Oslo, www.riksrevisjonen.no/PDF/50858706.pdf (in English).
Norway Government (2001), The Long-term Programme 2002-2005, Report No. 30 to the
Storting, Ministry of Finance, Oslo, http://odin.dep.no/fin/engelsk/publ/white_papers/ 006071-040002/dok-bn.html.
Norway Ministry of Finance (2004), The Norwegian Government Petroleum Fund, Ministry of Finance, Oslo, http://odin.dep.no/fin/engelsk/p10001617/bn.html (in English).
Norway Parliament (2001), The Constitution, Norwegian Parliament, Oslo,
www.stortinget.no/english/constitution.html.
Norway Parliament (2004), Rules of Procedure of the Norwegian Parliament, Norwegian Parliament, Oslo, www.stortinget.no/english/rules_of_procedure.pdf, March.
OECD JOURNAL ON BUDGETING – VOLUME 4 – NO. 3 – ISSN 1608-7143 – © OECD 2004 |
375 |
|
IV. FOUR NORDIC COUNTRIES
Nousiainen, Jaakko (2004), Background to the [constitutional] reform [in Finland], Ministry of Justice, Helsinki, www.om.fi/3344.htm.
OECD (1997), Managing Across Levels of Government, OECD, Paris.
OECD (2003), Survey on Budget Practices and Procedures, OECD and World Bank, Paris, http://ocde.dyndns.org.
OECD (2004), OECD Economic Surveys: Norway 2004, OECD, Paris.
Paulsson, Gert (2003), “The Evolving Role of the Central Budget Agency in Sweden” in John Wanna, Lotte Jensen and Jouke de Vries (eds.), Controlling Public Expenditure: The Changing Roles of Central Budget Agencies – Better Guardians?, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, United Kingdom.
Roseveare, Deborah (2002), Enhancing the Effectiveness of Public Expenditure in Sweden, Economics Department Working Paper No. 345, OECD, Paris.
Sweden Agency for Administrative Development (1999), The Swedish Central Government in Transition, Swedish Agency for Administrative Development, Stockholm, www.statskontoret.se/pdf/199915A.pdf.
Sweden Government Commission (1996), Proposal for a State Budget Act in Sweden, Report SOU 1996:14, Government Commission on Budget Law, Stockholm.
Sweden Ministry of Finance (2003), The Central Government Budget Process, Swedish Ministry of Finance, Stockholm, http://finans.regeringen.se/inenglish/pdf/ budgetprocess_eng.pdf, August.
Sweden National Audit Office (1998), The Swedish State Budget: An Instrument for Governance and Management, Swedish National Audit Office, Stockholm.
Sweden National Debt Office (2002), Government Debt Management in Sweden, National Debt Office of Sweden, Stockholm, www.rgk.se/reports.htm, February.
Sweden Parliament (2003), The Constitution, Swedish Parliament, Stockholm,
www.riksdagen.se/english/work/constitution.asp.
United Kingdom National Audit Office (2001), State Audit in the European Union, National Audit Office, London, www.nao.org.uk/publications/state_audit/State_Audit_Book2.pdf.
World Bank (2001), The Scope of the Civil Service in OECD and Selected CEE Countries, World Bank, Washington DC, www1.worldbank.org/publicsector/civilservice/cs_law_OECD.htm.
376 |
OECD JOURNAL ON BUDGETING – VOLUME 4 – NO. 3 – ISSN 1608-7143 – © OECD 2004 |
|
ISSN 1608-7143
OECD Journal on Budgeting – Volume 4 – No. 3 © OECD 2004
Spain*
|
Structure of the Case Study |
|
1. |
Overview...................................................................................... |
378 |
2. |
Principles underlying budget system laws .................................. |
381 |
3. |
Legal basis for the establishment and the powers of the actors |
|
|
in the budget system.................................................................... |
382 |
4. |
Legal provisions for each stage of the budget cycle ..................... |
386 |
*This study has benefited from comments from Eduardo Zapico Goni of the Ministry of the Economy and Finance, and from OECD colleagues including Joaquin Sevilla (from the Ministry of the Economy and Finance).
OECD JOURNAL ON BUDGETING – VOLUME 4 – NO. 3 – ISSN 1608-7143 – © OECD 2004 |
377 |
|