1. Based on the survey for the workshop
Institutional arrangements and methodological issues in the compilation of statistics on the General Government Sector - Summary of results
Based on the survey for the workshop

2. Introduction Questionnaire to collect information on:
Institutional arrangements and main methodological issues
Questions were targeted at:
National accounts (NA) and government finance statistics (GFS) compilers
16 replies
Summary of main issues/topics identified
An input to the group sessions and panel discussion
Country presentations (Albania, Armenia, Serbia, Turkey)

3. I. Institutional arrangements
I.1.a Institution officially responsible for NA
National Statistical Office (NSO) in all 16 countries
I.1.b Institution officially responsible for GFS
Ministry of Finance (MoF) in most countries
Often the Treasury department
Central Bank (CB) (Bosnia and Herzegovina)
In cooperation between MoF and NSO (Armenia, Serbia, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia)

4. I. Institutional arrangements
I.2 Institutions responsible for the dissemination of GFS data and for the data transmission to the IMF and/or Eurostat
All countries that replied provide data for IMF and three countries also for Eurostat
In most countries the responsible organization is MoF
In cooperation between MoF and NSO (Armenia, Kyrgyzstan, Serbia and Turkey)
Central Bank (CB) (Bosnia and Herzegovina)

5. I. Institutional arrangements
I.3 Is the department(s) in charge of GFS statistics also subject to the Law on State Statistics
GFS compiler is part of the statistical system in seven countries (Albania, Kazakhstan, Serbia, Turkey, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Uzbekistan, Bosnia and Herzegovina)
Other arrangements:
NSO has coordinating role between all agencies who are involved in the compilation and dissemination of any kind of statistics (Georgia)
MoF (GFS) is not subject to the statistical law, but the provision of GFS data to the NSO is regulated in the law (Armenia, Kyrgyzstan, Moldova)
The NSI publishes the GFS data, thus making them part of official statistics

6. I. Institutional arrangements
I.4 Agreements for cooperation (NSO & MoF) and data exchange for the production of NA
Agreements or arrangements for exchange of data are in place in all countries
Memorandums of understanding or other special agreements between the NSIs and the MoF (often including the CB)
Examples of other arrangements:
General agreements for data exchange between institutions regulated in the Law of Statistics (Armenia, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Ukraine, Montenegro)
…or in the Statistical Programme (Turkey, Ukraine)
Confidentiality issues

7. I. Institutional arrangements
I.5 Permanent inter-agency expert group(s) to coordinate the implementation of the GFSM 2001, the SNA/ESA 2010 and other macro-economic statistics
Specific working groups linked to development of GG accounts / GFS (Albania, Serbia, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Turkey)
Inter-agency working group: Belarus, Kazakhstan, Moldova, Ukraine, Uzbekistan, Mongolia
Established for the implementation of the 2008 SNA
Informal arrangements (Armenia, Georgia)
Ad-hoc groups to solve specific problems (Azerbaijan)
No: Kyrgyzstan, Montenegro, Bosnia and Herzegovina

8. II.a Institutional set up - Strengths
Legal basis regulating the provision of data (Kazakhstan, Turkey, Ukraine, Uzbekistan)
Implementation of international statistical or accounting standards (Belarus, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Serbia, Bosnia and Herzegovina)
Strategic planning: implementation of Government Accounts is in the strategy/plan for development of statistics (Kazakhstan, Turkey)
Interinstitutional Working Groups (Albania, Turkey)
Separate units under Treasury department (GFS) and under NAD (GG&regional accounts) (Albania)
Quality of data sources (Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Serbia, ...)
Complete and accessible data sources, comprehensive coverage
Several independent information sources
II.a Strengths
Financial reporting in line with statistical standards
Fiscal data available by the functions of government (e.g. Belarus)
GFSM 2001 used as a national budget classification (e.g. Georgia)
International financial reporting standard introduced for public sector (e.g. Kazakhstan)
Time-series from 2003 onwards based on COFOG (e.g. Serbia)
Compliance with SDDS (e.g. Kazakhstan)
Data issues:
Several independent information sources used (e.g. Armenia, Azerbaijan)
Comprehensive coverage and/or use of administrative sources (e.g. Uzbekistan, Serbia)

9. II.b Institutional set up - Weaknesses
Coordination and collaboration
Lack of sufficient coordination (e.g. Armenia, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Albania, Mongolia) results in
Inconsistency between the data sets (Albania, Uzbekistan, Mongolia, …)
Different coverage of the government sector (Albania, Kazakhstan, Bosnia and Herzegovina)
Insufficient detail for the needs of national accounts (Ukraine)
Need for a protocol or special format to define the data transmission between the institutions (e.g. Kazakhstan, Ukraine, Turkey, Bosnia and Herzegovina)

10. II.b Institutional set up - Weaknesses
Other methodological and data issues
Cash-basis data
Obtaining consolidated data
Data timeliness, accuracy and reliability
Short time-series
Estimation of consumption of fixed capital of government units
Limited resources (Expertise, Experience, Leadership)
Lack of methodological guidelines and advice in Russian (e.g. Kazakhstan)

11. III. Methodological issues
III.1 Compliance of fiscal statistics with the GFSM methodology / the ESA Manual on Government Deficit and Debt
Ongoing implementation of GFSM 2001 in many countries
Still according to GFSM 1986 (Moldova, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Mongolia) → use of conversion tables, preliminary data according to GFSM 2001
Fiscal data classified in accordance to the GFSM 2001 or comparable national budget classification (Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Albania, Serbia, Turkey, Bosnia and Herzegovina)
Some differences in methodology → use of automatic linking prepared by IMF (Kazakhstan)
Legal and institutional framework to support GFS (Belarus, Kazakhstan)
Budget Code does not define the concept of consolidated general government budget (Ukraine)

12. III. Methodological issues
III.2.a The institutional coverage of the General Government sector and its sub-sectors (11 replies)
Further work on coverage and delineation of the GG and its subsectors
Often countries stated that the classification in the national budget does not comply with the coverage of the SNA institutional sector
Data cover only central and local government
No information on the subsectors
Data coverage for certain units: in healthcare, social services, “semi- budget units”
Issues related to data on defence (data confidentiality)
Agreed list of GG institutions defined by a dedicated working group (Turkey, Serbia (to be finalized))
Further work on coverage and delineation of the GG and its subsectors needed (Belarus, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Ukraine, Serbia, Mongolia)
Issues related to certain areas: Healthcare, defence (data confidentiality) → only annual data (Kyrgyzstan)
Classification of the National Public Budget does not meet the standards of the GFSM 2001 and the SNA 2008 (Moldova)
Consolidated budget of general government units is not available, consolidation is performed within the framework of GFS and respectively SNA statistics (Ukraine)
Data sources for semi-budgetary units need to be better evaluated (Albania)
Institutional coverage of the GG sector was defined by a dedicated working group (Turkey)

13. III. Methodological issues
III.2.b Valuation of transactions, other economic flows, and stocks
Not many countries replied
Plans to address the issue, experimental calculations in relation to the development of balance sheets or financial accounts (Kyrgyzstan, Serbia, Albania)
Valuation of non-financial assets and liabilities: historical cost of investment taking into account accumulated depreciation (Ukraine)
Equities, held by government and local authorities are not accounted as financial assets (Ukraine)
Bridge table to convert economic flows into NA concepts (developed by TurkStat and MoF) (Turkey)

14. III. Methodological issues
III.2.c Time of recording of transactions
Accrual based GG accounting (Turkey, Bosnia and Herzegovina)
Some countries have a mixture of cash based GFS and accrual recording for certain transactions or units (Ukraine, Mongolia)
Adjustments in NA to transfer cash based data to estimated accruals (Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Serbia, Ukraine, …)
The NA data for the Government sector is left on cash basis (Georgia, Albania, …)
Elements of accrual recording on individual transactions (public debt and liabilities of the budgetary funds) (Ukraine)
Accounting of public organizations budget execution and operations of state extra-budgetary funds on a modified accrual basis (Ukraine)
Fiscal statistics has some element of accrual accounting (Mongolia)

15. The following issues were mentioned:
III.2.d Sufficient detail to calculate main aggregates and analytical balances of GG sector and sub-sectors
The source data are of sufficient detail or there are agreements with MoF for provision of additional data (Armenia, Albania, Belarus, Moldova, Mongolia, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Turkey)
Insufficient detail for some items, on-going work to address the outstanding issues (Azerbaijan, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Ukraine, Serbia)
The following issues were mentioned:
Breakdown of expenditures – “Other expenditures” (Azerbaijan)
Depreciation of fixed assets, government sales, taxes and subsidies on production for governmental institutions (Georgia)
Lack of detailed information and comparable classifications (Ukraine)
Lack of non-consolidated data (Serbia)
No sufficient detail on the subsectors (Kazakhstan)

16. III. Methodological issues
III.3 Use of GFS government accounts as an input to the national accounts and intersectoral consistency
In many countries the full sequence of accounts for GG and the subsectors is not available
On-going projects to implement (or improve) sector accounts for general government and its subsectors (Belarus, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Albania, Serbia, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Turkey, …)
GFS accounts are used for the compilation of SNA sector accounts in Albania, Kyrgyzstan?, Turkey, Mongolia,…
On-going work to develop full set of GG accounts and ensure intersectoral consistency (Albania)
No reconciliation, because of differences in the coverage of the GG sector (Kyrgyzstan)

17. III. Methodological issues
III.3 Use of GFS general government accounts as an input to the national accounts and intersectoral consistency
Most countries do not use GFS data, but reports on the execution of the state and local budgets (Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Moldova, Ukraine, Uzbekistan), accounts for social security funds and administrative data
Reconciliation between the National Accounts sectors and subsectors is done on the base of detailed budget data
GFS and NA data are not reconciled
All countries use the data to compile GDP (output, expenditures of GG), Production and generation of income accounts
About half compile the full sequence of SNA non-financial accounts for GG and only few produce GG financial accounts

18. IV. Future Work
IV.1 Issues in GFS and SNA general government accounts that need most urgent attention
Strengthening Institutional Cooperation (Armenia, Albania, Kyrgyzstan, Serbia, ...)
Inter-agency working groups/committees
Clear definition of responsibilities
Transition to GFSM 2001 and SNA 2008, with a focus on:
Development of unified chart of accounts and changes in the financial and budgetary reporting (Azerbaijan, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Ukraine)
Development of Balance Sheets of General Government (Azerbaijan, Albania, Kazakhstan, Ukraine, Mongolia): revised classification of assets (including financial), valuation of assets, holding gains and losses
Methodology for estimating consumption of fixed capital (e.g. Albania)
Development of Balance Sheets of General Government (Azerbaijan, Albania, Kazakhstan, Ukraine, Mongolia): revised classification of assets (including financial), valuation of assets, holding gains and losses
Moving to accrual accounting (e.g. Armenia, Belarus, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Moldova, Serbia)
Changes in budget classification (e.g. Azerbaijan, Belarus, Ukraine)
Developing the general methodology, detail, timeliness and periodicity (e.g. Kyrgyzstan, Moldova, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia)
Standard methodology for estimating consumption of fixed capital (e.g. Albania)
Delineation of the general government units (e.g. The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Serbia)

19. IV. Future Work IV.1 Issues in GFS and SNA general government accounts
Transition to GFSM 2001 and SNA 2008, with a focus on (continued):
Accrual accounting (e.g. Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, ….)
Coverage of the GG sector (Azerbaijan, Kyrgyzstan, Serbia, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia): delineation and institutional coverage; expanding to public sector accounts
Improvement of the detail, timeliness and periodicity (e.g. Azerbaijan, Kyrgyzstan, Moldova, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia)
Improving the consistency and integration of GFS and NA accounts: bridge table (e.g. Albania)
Recording military expenditure (e.g. Mongolia, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia)
Human and IT resources

20. IV. Future Work IV.2 Type of support needed
Training workshops and courses (e.g. Armenia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Mongolia, Serbia, Turkey, Ukraine)
Organizational and methodological issues
Further improvement of GFS towards better institutional coverage and accrual basis
Conducting cross-sectional analysis of the SNA and GFS, linking between them and using GFS in NA compilation
Strengthening capacities and raising awareness of the importance of GFS/SNA
Accounting for Social Security Funds
Sharing and studying best practices among countries (e.g. Armenia, Azerbaijan, Kyrgyzstan, Serbia)

21. IV. Future Work IV.2 Type of support needed
Funding and technical assistance from international organizations to accelerate the GFSM 2001 implementation (e.g. Azerbaijan, Moldova, Serbia, Turkey, Montenegro)
Advisory services on
Delineation of the sector, valuation of assets (state-owned land, natural resources, the market value of the shares, other fixed assets of the state (Belarus)
Significant changes to take place in the pension system of Kazakhstan e.g. a Single Pension Fund. Need help in accounting of the relevant positions (Kazakhstan)
Linking GFSM 2001 and SNA 2008 (Mongolia, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia )
Assessment of the experimental data produced in the framework of NA requirements, related to the government sector (Albania)

22. IV. Future Work
IV.3 Current or planned use of GFSM 2001 in policy work
Promoting the use of GFSM 2001 in the policy context is under discussion in some countries
Current uses:
Assessing the performance of general government and its economic impact
Assessing sustainability of fiscal policy
Comparison of budget indicators of Belarus, Russian Federation and Kazakhstan
Possible future uses:
Comparing balance sheet assets of the general government
Monitoring efficiency in the allocation and use of government resources
In Mongolia MoF set up a working group to improve fiscal analysis using GFSM 2001