An official website of the United States Government Here's how you know

Official websites use .gov

A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.

Secure .gov websites use HTTPS

A lock ( ) or https:// means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Government-by-Government Assessments: Zimbabwe

During the review period, the government made significant progress by ensuring actual revenues and expenditures reasonably corresponded to those in the enacted budget.  The government also made its executive budget proposal, enacted budget, and end-of-year report publicly available online within a reasonable period.  Information on some debt obligations was publicly available, including government guarantees of state-owned enterprise debt, but it did not publish total debt holdings by major state-owned enterprises.  The government maintained significant off-budget accounts.  Publicly available budget documents did not include a substantially complete picture of revenue and expenditures.  The budget included aggregate allocations to, but not earnings from, state-owned enterprises.  The intelligence budget was not part of the public budget, and there were no procedures in place to permit parliamentary review of it.  The supreme audit institution met international standards of independence but did not publish substantive reports within a reasonable period.  The government specified in law or regulation but did not appear to follow in practice the criteria and procedures for awarding natural resource extraction contracts or licenses.  Basic information on mining concessions was not publicly available.

Zimbabwe’s fiscal transparency would be improved by:

  • Publishing debt information of major state-owned enterprises;
  • Subjecting off-budget accounts and the intelligence budget to civilian oversight;
  • Providing a complete picture of revenues and expenditures;
  • Detailing allocations to and revenues from state-owned enterprises in budget documents;
  • Following laws and regulations governing natural resource extraction contracting and licensing in practice; and
  • Making basic information about such awards publicly available.

Government-by-Government Assessments: Sao Tome and Principe

During the review period, the government made its executive budget proposal, enacted budget, and end-of-year report widely and easily accessible to the public, including online.  However, actual revenues and expenditures did not reasonably correspond to those in the enacted budget, and the government did not publish a revised or supplemental budget.  The supreme audit institution did not meet international standards of independence and its reports were not published within a reasonable period.  Information on debt obligations was publicly available, except for information on state-owned enterprise debt, which was not disclosed.  While public budget documents provided a substantially complete picture of the government’s planned expenditures and revenue streams, including natural resource revenues, they did not include earnings from or allocations to state-owned enterprises.  Military and intelligence budgets were not subject to civilian oversight.  The government specified in law and appeared to follow in practice the criteria and procedures for awarding natural resource extraction contracts and licenses.  Basic information on natural resource extraction awards was publicly available.

Sao Tome and Principe’s fiscal transparency would be improved by:

  • Including allocations to and earnings from state-owned enterprises in budget documents;
  • Publishing debt information, including for state-owned enterprises;
  • Ensuring budget projects correspond to actual revenues and expenditure, or issuing a supplemental or revised budget when they do not;
  • Subjecting military and intelligence to civilian oversight;
  • Improving the reliability of budget estimates;
  • Preparing budget documents using internationally accepted principles;
  • Ensuring the supreme audit institution meets international standards of independence and has sufficient resources; and
  • Making audit reports widely and easily accessible to the public within a reasonable period.

Government-by-Government Assessments: Central African Republic

During the review period, the government made its enacted budget and quarterly reports publicly available online.  It did not publish an executive budget proposal or an end-of-year report within a reasonable period.  Information on state-owned enterprise debt was not publicly available.  Publicly available budget documents provided a reasonably complete picture of the government’s planned expenditures and revenue streams, except allocations to and earnings from state-owned enterprises.  The supreme audit institution did not audit the government’s executed budget and was not authorized to publish reports.  The government specified in law the criteria and procedures for awarding natural resource extraction contracts and licenses.  However, the government exercised limited control over natural resource extraction and did not consistently follow laws and procedures in practice.

The Central African Republic’s fiscal transparency would be improved by:

  • Publishing an executive budget proposal and an end-of-year report within a reasonable period;
  • Publishing complete debt information, including for state-owned enterprises;
  • Providing more detail on allocations to, earnings from, and debt holdings of state-owned enterprises in budget documents;
  • Having the supreme audit institution audit the government’s executed budget and publish its audit reports within a reasonable period;
  • Consistently following laws for awarding natural resource extraction contracts in practice; and
  • Ensuring information on natural resource awards are accurate and publicly available.

Government-by-Government Assessments: Angola

During the review period, the government made significant progress by publishing and updating information on debt obligations, including state-owned enterprise debt.  The executive budget proposal, enacted budget, and end-of-year report were widely and easily accessible online to the public within a reasonable period.  The information in the budget was considered generally reliable, although financial allocations to and earnings from major state-owned enterprises were not included.  The supreme audit institution did not meet international standards of independence, verify the government’s annual financial statements, or effectively follow-up on findings.  While audit reports contained substantive findings, recommendations, and narratives, they did not cover the entire annual executed budget.  The government specified in law or regulation and appeared to follow in practice the criteria and procedures for awarding natural resource extraction contracts and licenses.  Basic information on natural resource extraction awards was publicly available.  The sovereign wealth fund had a sound legal framework and disclosed its source of funding and general approach to withdrawals.

Angola’s fiscal transparency would be improved by:

  • Including financial allocations to and earnings from major state-owned enterprises in the budget; and
  • Ensuring the supreme audit institution meets international standards of independence, publishes audit reports that cover the entire annual executed budget, verifies the government’s annual financial statements, and effectively follows up on findings.

Government-by-Government Assessments: Guinea-Bissau

During the review period, the government did not make budget documents or information on debt obligations widely and easily accessible to the public.  Available budget information did not include allocations to, earnings from, or debt holdings of state-owned enterprises, and the government maintained off-budget accounts in several sectors not subject to adequate oversight.  Budget documents provided a substantially full picture, including major sources of revenue and expenditure.  Projected revenues and expenditures reasonably corresponded to those in the enacted budget.  The government made public its military and intelligence budgets.  The supreme audit institution did not meet international standards of independence and did not audit the executed budget.  The government specified in law or regulation but did not appear to follow in practice the criteria and procedures for awarding natural resource extraction contracts and licenses.  Basic information on natural resource extraction awards was not publicly available.

Guinea-Bissau’s fiscal transparency would be improved by:

  • Making budget documents and information on debt obligations widely and easily accessible to the public;
  • Including allocations to, earnings from, and debt holdings of state-owned enterprises in the budget;
  • Subjecting off-budget accounts to adequate audit and oversight;
  • Improving the reliability of budget documents by producing and publishing a supplemental budget when actual revenues and expenditures do not correspond to those in the enacted budget;
  • Ensuring the supreme audit institution meets international standards of independence;
  • Having the supreme audit institution audit the government’s budget, including its military and intelligence budgets, and making its reports publicly available within a reasonable period;
  • Consistently adhering to laws and regulations for contracting and licensing in natural resource extraction; and
  • Publishing basic information on natural resource extraction awards.

Government-by-Government Assessments: Turkmenistan

During the review period, budget documents and information on debt obligations were not made public, including for state-owned enterprises.  The government published aggregate revenue data online in its state-run newspaper.  Publicly available budget information was not complete and did not include government revenues from natural resources.  Information on the government’s off-budget stabilization fund was not publicly available.  The supreme audit institution did not meet international standards of independence and did not make its reports publicly available despite purportedly reviewing the government’s financial statements.  The government did not fully specify in law or regulation the procedures for awarding natural resource extraction licenses and contracts.  It was unclear if the laws and regulations that do exist were followed in practice.  Basic information on natural resource extraction awards was not always publicly available.  The sovereign wealth fund did not have a sound legal framework or disclose its source of funding and general approach to withdrawals.

Turkmenistan’s fiscal transparency would be improved by:

  • Making budget documents publicly available within a reasonable period;
  • Making information on debt obligations, including for state-owned enterprises, publicly available within a reasonable period;
  • Ensuring budget documents are substantially complete and reliable;
  • Ensuring the supreme audit institution meets international standards of independence;
  • Making supreme audit institution reports publicly available;
  • Fully outlining the criteria and procedures for allocating natural resource extraction licenses and contracts in law or regulation;
  • Following applicable natural resource extraction laws and regulations in practice;
  • Making basic information on natural resource extraction awards publicly available; and
  • Establishing a sound legal framework for the sovereign wealth fund and disclosing its source of funding and general approach to withdrawals.

Government-by-Government Assessments: Tanzania

During the review period, the government made significant progress by producing and publishing a supplementary budget when budget execution deviated significantly from budget projections.  The government also made its enacted budget and end-of-year report available online.  It did not publish a full executive budget proposal.  Information on debt obligations was available online, including for state-owned enterprises.  Publicly available budget documents did not provide a substantially complete picture of the government’s planned expenditures and revenue, and there is anecdotal evidence the government maintained significant off-budget accounts.  The intelligence budget was not part of the public budget, and there was no parliamentary oversight.  The supreme audit institution met international standards of independence.  It reviewed the government’s accounts and made its reports publicly available within a reasonable period.  The government specified in law or regulation and appeared to follow in practice the criteria and procedures for awarding natural resource extraction contracts and licenses.  Basic information on natural resource extraction awards was publicly available.

Tanzania’s fiscal transparency would be improved by:

  • Making its executive budget proposal widely and easily accessible to the public;
  • Subjecting intelligence budgets to greater civilian oversight; and
  • Ensuring actual revenues and expenditures reasonably correspond to those in the enacted budget.

Government-by-Government Assessments: Burma

On February 1, 2021, the military staged a coup d’état that reversed fiscal transparency improvements made between 2012 and 2021.  The return of military rule dramatically decreased overall fiscal transparency.  While the previous government published its executive budget proposal and enacted budget online within a reasonable period, it is unclear if the current regime relied on this budget to allocate funds.  While the previous civilian government produced and made available end-of-quarter reports, the current regime ceased this practice and stopped regularly reviewing the budget throughout the fiscal year.  Information on debt obligations was available online, but it was out of date.  Budget documents were not complete and did not capture allocations to and earnings from military-owned enterprises falling under the Ministry of Defense.  There is insufficient public information to determine whether budget documents were comparable year-to-year or whether actual revenues and expenditures reasonably corresponded to those in the enacted budget.  The supreme audit institution did not meet international standards of independence and did not issue publicly available audit reports of the government’s financial accounts.  The government did not fully specify in law or regulation the criteria and procedures for awarding natural resource extraction license and contracts and did not appear to follow existing procedures in practice.  Basic information on awards was not publicly available.

Burma’s fiscal transparency would be improved by:

  • Publishing substantially complete budget documents including an end-of-year report,
  • Regularly reviewing the budget throughout the fiscal year;
  • Publishing allocations to and earnings from military-owned enterprises; and
  • Making state-owned enterprise audited financial statements publicly available; including financial allocations to and earnings from major state-owned enterprises in the budget; Disclosing major state-owned enterprise debt; Subjecting off-budget accounts to civilian public oversight; Ensuring budget documents are comparable year-to-year and that actual revenues and expenditures reasonably correspond to those in the enacted budget: Publishing a revised budget when actual revenues and expenditures deviate from projections;  Ensuring the supreme audit institution meets international standards of independence and makes reports publicly available; and Establishing civilian oversight over military and intelligence budgets; and Specifying in law or regulation the criteria and procedures for awarding natural resource extraction contracts and licenses, adhering to these laws and regulations in practice, and publishing basic information on all such awards.

Government-by-Government Assessments: Mali

During the review period, the transition government made its executive budget proposal, enacted budget, and end-of-year report available online within a reasonable period.  Information on debt obligations was publicly available, except state-owned enterprise debt.  Publicly available budget documents provided a substantially complete picture of the transition government’s planned expenditures and revenue streams, including natural resource revenues.  However, the transition government maintained off-budget accounts not subject to adequate audit or oversight.  Information regarding allocations to and earnings from state-owned enterprises was lacking.  The information in the budget was considered broadly reliable, and significant deviations from projections were described in publicly available revised estimates.  The transition government did not have a unified supreme audit institution that met international standards of independence.  Its audit institutions reviewed the transition government’s accounts, but audits did not cover the entire annual executed budget and were not published within a reasonable period.  The transition government specified in law and appeared to follow in practice the criteria and procedures for awarding natural resource extraction contracts and licenses.  Basic information on natural resource extraction awards was publicly available.

Mali’s fiscal transparency would be improved by:

  • Subjecting off-budget accounts to regular audit and oversight;
  • Detailing allocations to, earnings from, and debts of state-owned enterprises;
  • Establishing a single supreme audit institution that meets international standards of independence; and
  • Ensuring audits cover the entire annual executed budget; and
  • Publishing audits within a reasonable period.

Government-by-Government Assessments: Comoros

During the review period, the government made significant progress by publishing audits that covered the entire annual executed budget and contained substantive findings, recommendations, and narratives.  The government made its enacted budget available, but it did not make its executive budget proposal available online or publish an end-of-year report.  Information on debt obligations was publicly available, including for state-owned enterprises.  Budget documents provided a substantially complete picture of the government’s planned expenditures and revenue streams.  Actual expenditures and revenues did not correspond to those in the enacted budget and the government did not produce and publicly issue revised budget estimates or pass a supplementary budget.  The supreme audit institution met international standards of independence, but it did not publish an audit report of the government’s executed budget within a reasonable period.

Comoros’s fiscal transparency would be improved by:

  • Publishing the executive budget proposal online and producing an end-of-year report within a reasonable period; and
  • Producing a supplemental budget when estimated revenues and expenditures differ significantly from actual figures.

76602 6379028

Welcome to the U.S. Department of State Twitter account. Follow @SecBlinken for more from the Secretary. For all Department accounts: https://t.co/kzsNMIOwF9.

U.S. Department of State

The Lessons of 1989: Freedom and Our Future