Georgia Public Expenditure and Financial Accountability Performance Assessment Report : City of Tbilisi
The purpose of this Public Expenditure and Financial Accountability (PEFA) assessment is to provide an objective analysis of the present performance of the PFM system in the City of Tbilisi against the PEFA indicators. This PEFA provides an update...
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
World Bank, Washington, DC
2018
|
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/463271542315161452/Georgia-Public-Expenditure-and-Financial-Accountability-Performance-Assessment-Report-City-of-Tbilisi http://hdl.handle.net/10986/30999 |
| Summary: | The purpose of this Public Expenditure
and Financial Accountability (PEFA) assessment is to provide
an objective analysis of the present performance of the PFM
system in the City of Tbilisi against the PEFA indicators.
This PEFA provides an update of progress in PFM in the
municipality since the last PEFA in 2014 and establishes a
new PEFA baseline using the 2016 PEFA methodology. The
assessment covered expenditures by subnational government
budgetary units. Revenues are collected by the Georgia
Revenue Services on behalf of the municipality and this was
considered not applicable. There are no extra-budgetary
units and no local government below the municipality level.
Overall, the results of the PEFA show that public financial
management systems in the City of Tbilisi are strong and
improved as the PFM Reform Action Plan has been implemented.
The aggregate expenditure side of the budget performs
largely according to plan. There is an impressive array of
information regarding the finances of the municipality. As a
result, the budget documents include most of the basic, and
much of the supplementary information, required to support a
transparent budget process. Information on performance plans
and achievements in service delivery outputs and outcomes
across the sectors under the municipality is very good.
However, a strategic selection process is lacking in
managing the public investment program although monitoring
and reporting of implementation is sound. Good progress has
been made towards a comprehensive medium-term expenditure
framework based on a program budgeting for results approach.
There is an effective budget calendar although the issuance
of ceilings could be made timelier. The legislature has
sufficient time to carry out its scrutiny function. |
|---|