Only one out of four requests for budget information made in 80 countries were fully answered, according to a study released Oct. 4.
The monitoring effort was done by the Ask Your Government! 6 Question Campaign.
480 requests for budget information were submitted in 80 countries by a global network of civil society organizations. “No information at all was provided in response to over half of the requests and 38% of the requests elicited no response from the government body to which the request was sent (mute refusals),” according to the announcement.
“The poor results come in spite of the fact that requesters made multiple resubmissions of the six questions, totalling 1061 formal requests made in the 80 countries, accompanied in many cases by phone calls, additional letters, faxes, and e-mails, and in some countries personal visits to the relevant public authorities,” the statement continued.
The best performing countries were New Zealand, Georgia, India and Namibia.
The study was conducted by Access Info Europe, the Centre for Law and Democracy and the International Budget Partnership.
Major Findings
The main findings were:
– No information was provided in response to over half of the requests and 38% of the requests elicited no response at all, with 15 of the 80 countries providing no response to five or more questions.
– There was widespread failure to answer requests within acceptable timeframes and requesters often had to make repeat requests. Only 12 countries provided six compliant responses within 30 days and less than 1 in 4 requests resulted in information being provided after just one attempt.
– Countries with RTI laws performed significantly better on all indicators. The longer a right to information law has been in place, the shorter the average response time, the less likely it is that requesters have to resubmit requests and the better the response rates in terms of information actually provided.
– Established democracies only performed as well, on average, as all countries with RTI laws. From among the countries with longer-standing RTI laws, the newer democracies took two-thirds of the top 15 spots in terms of greater information openness. This indicates that campaigns to promote the right to information in new democracies have been effective.
– The very small number of actual refusals, both written and oral, demonstrates that although officials frequently blocked access to information, they would rarely go so far as to claim that it should be confidential.
Trends and Conclusions
The report contained a trends and conclusions section stating:
The analysis points to a large number of trends and conclusions. Some are not very controversial, for example that there is a positive correlation between having a right to information law and more open responses to requests. This positive correlation was observed across all of the information openness indicators (complete responses, positive responses, compliant responses, number of attempts and overall timeliness), with the effect being more significant the longer that the RTI law had been in place.
Other trends are less expected, such as that the so-called established democracies perform substantially less well in terms of budget openness than other countries with relatively well-established right to information laws, such as the newer democracies of Eastern and Central Europe. Indeed, these newer democracies represented two-thirds of the top 15 performers in the exercise. Established democracies, all but one of which had a right to information law, did not even perform better than all countries with right to information laws.
In some cases, there are reasonably obvious explanations for the trends identified, such as the very active role played by civil society in promoting the right of access to information in new democracies.
Other trends, such as the overall poor performance of the 80 countries in terms of complying with the right to information, are harder to explain and merit further investigation with a view to providing right to information advocates with a deeper understanding of the best strategies to pursue when promoting compliance with the right.
The findings are also important for those working on the substantive issues which were the subject of the questions. They raise the concern that in many cases government bodies do not appear to have the data necessary to take crucial decisions related to promotion of maternal health and environmental protection. The findings also indicate a concerning lack of data on incoming aid flows and a shortage of information on future aid commitments in spite of repeated international pledges to increase the predictability of aid in order to facilitate budget planning in recipient countries.
Six Questions
The questions were drawn from three thematic areas, and some varied depending on whether the country was a aid recipient of an aid donor. They were:
Maternal Health Questions
Q1. What was the total amount actually spent nationwide during the last two fiscal years on purchasing/procuring each of the following medications: (a) magnesium sulphate for treating eclampsia, and (b) uterotonics for use for treating post partum hemorrhaging? Please specify which uterotonic (such as oxytocin, misoprostol, ergometrine, etc.) was purchased. Please also include amounts spent by sub-national governments, or indicate clearly if you do not have this information.
Q2. What was the total amount spent during the last two fiscal years for pre-service training of midwives (or midwife equivalents) and how many midwives graduated from pre-service training?
Aid Effectiveness Questions
For Aid-Recipient Countries
Q3. What was the total amount of overseas development assistance received during the last fiscal year from the European Development Fund, the World Bank, and the following three US government agencies: i) the President‘s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR), ii) the Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC), and iii) the United States Agency for International Development (USAID). Were you notified and if so, what were the dates (month and year) on which each of these agencies notified you (recipient government) about the assistance?
Q 4. What is the total amount of overseas development assistance committed for the next three fiscal years by the European Development Fund, the World Bank, and the following three US government agencies: i) the President‘s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR), ii) the Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC), and iii) the United States Agency for International Development (USAID). Were you notified and if so, what are the dates (month and year) on which each of these agencies notified you (recipient government) about the assistance?
For Donor Countries
Q3. What was the total amount of overseas development assistance actually provided during the last fiscal year (not your fiscal year, but the fiscal years of each of the relevant recipient government) to each of the following governments: Rwanda, Liberia, Ethiopia, Colombia, and Vietnam, and what were the dates (month and year) on which you notified the governments about the assistance?
Q4. What is the total amount of overseas development assistance committed during the next three fiscal years (not your fiscal year, but the fiscal years of each of the relevant recipient government) to each of the following governments: Rwanda, Liberia, Ethiopia, Colombia, and Vietnam, and what were the dates (month and year) on which you notified the governments about the assistance?
Environment Questions
Q5. As a share of the national budget, what was the total amount actually spent on all national agencies in charge of environmental protection and conservation during the last two fiscal years?
Q6. What was the total amount actually incurred during the past three fiscal years on subsidies for oil, gas and coal production and consumption?
Filed under: What's New