I have spent a pleasant day or so researching how much spending data national governments publish on the web.
A couple of observations:
There are about ninety countries with usable budgetary data.
A general ability to guess one's way in Romance and Germanic languages lets you read the majority of national government websites: English, Spanish, Portuguese, French and Dutch collectively give you the Americas, the Caribbean, Oceania and almost all of Africa. Arabic gets you another dozen countries.
The international language of maladministration turns out to be French.
Monarchies and socialist states take a less relaxed attitude towards brokenness on official websites. Republics are more laid back. This seems to be independent of national income. It's not clear whether authoritarianism discourages transparency: the right to reuse and redistribute a full breakdown of how much the state spends on torturing political opponents would presumably have a strong chilling effect.
As colleagues had already surveyed Europe, I started with Commonwealth countries, then mopped up the rest, circling the globe east from South America, which is roughly in descending order of fiscal transparency.
For a country's fiscal data to be maximally useful it needs to satisfy eight conditions; namely it must be
- open data (reusable)
- structured data (in tables and columns, not in words)
- machine readable (spreadsheet not PDF or Word)
- up to date
- in an open format
Some of these are absolute necessities; others are part of the cost function for obtaining useful results from the data.
Examples of where these conditions didn't obtain:
About fifty countries seem to publish no data at all.
Most publication does not explicitly state that re-use of the data is permitted.
A very large amount of the data is in tables in PDFs, which is expensive and unreliable to extract.
Some of the data is in image files such as GIFs. These were clearly generated from an actual spreadsheet, so may be a deliberate attempt at obfuscation. In the opposite direction, some of the data is in the form of scanned paper documents, indicating attempts by public officials to counteract closed practices in other parts of the bureaucracy.
Quite a few African countries gave up publishing budgetary data in 2008. A lot of the material in the developing world is a few years out of date.
The sorts of problems above are the general problems of obtaining open knowledge from government data. In the case of spending data, there is an additional problem that the data should ideally be disaggregated: the absence of a standard multidimensional financial data format has left government publishers either providing a subset of possible aggregations or not bothering at all.
The output of all this is linked from the Openspending wiki Countries page.
Every time someone talks about a referendum on an EU matter, look very very carefully indeed at precisely what question they're proposing to ask, and the circumstances in which they're proposing to ask it.
The game with referendums is always to deny the public the right to choose on any actual relevant question.
Imagine it were proposed that the EU modify its institutional arrangements in a way which is not supported by the general public in a particular member state, but that a tiny minority of vicious cranks, let us call them, say, Europhiles, favour this change. Those few in favour of the change can propose a referendum about something else, such as mere membership of the EU.
They do this time and time again. A few previous times are documented on my blog already.
And here they are, at it again with Greece: you're not allowed to have a referendum on the bailout package, only on Eurozone membership.
The effect of this is that the people get no say, whatsoever over the rules that affect their lives. Cui bono?