II.COMPARISONS OF OECD COUNTRY LEGAL FRAMEWORKS FOR BUDGET SYSTEMS

1. Introduction

OECD countries differ substantially in the extent to which constitutions and law are used to incorporate budget principles and specify details of the budget system (Figure II.1). This part examines more closely the differences between the OECD countries: 1) in the way their legal frameworks for budgeting are organised; 2) in the purposes for which their budget system laws exist; 3) in their legal provisions establishing the roles of the main actors in the budget processes, including the role of external audit offices; and 4) in the extent to which law, as opposed to regulations or informal practices, is used for specifying the different functional processes of budgeting: preparation; adoption, execution, accounting and reporting. In contrast with Part III, which will examine possible norms for a budget system law, Part II examines actual practice in selected countries. The description is largely based on the 13 country studies presented in more detail in Part IV. This information complements the OECD Survey on Budget Practices (OECD, 2003).

Figure II.1. Density of legal framework for budget systems in 25 OECD countries

Statutory provisions

Note: This figure is based on positive responses to Questions 1.3 and 2.1 of the OECD Survey on Budget Practices (OECD, 2003). Twenty-three questions on the legal provisions for budgeting (including for fiscal rules) are included: i.e. the total score could be 23. In each question in the survey, a distinction was made between legal provisions in constitutions (vertical axis) and statutes (horizontal axis).