By Franklin De Vrieze.
When was the last time you had a conversation about power, trust and accountability? For those of us who joined the Global Dialogue on Strengthening Fiscal Ecosystems, it was just a few short weeks ago.
The Global Dialogue was convened by the Trust, Accountability and Inclusion (TAI) Collaborative, with the support of the Swiss State Secretariat for Economic Affairs (SECO), Gates Foundation and Ford Foundation, and joined by the World Bank, IMF, Westminster Foundation for Democracy, Accountability Lab, International Budget Partnership (IBP), INTOSAI, London School of Economics and others.
I joined colleagues from parliaments, governments, oversight bodies, civil society organisations, academia, and donor agencies to reflect on how we can make the systems that govern public money more equitable, accountable, and democratic.
This was not a technical workshop on budget classifications or fiscal rules. It was indeed a conversation about power and trust. It was about the ecosystem that shapes how public money is raised, allocated, and spent, and the role of parliaments in this system.
What is a fiscal ecosystem?
The idea of a fiscal ecosystem has emerged from more than a decade of work by different democracy organisations, responding to a paradox: despite major progress in fiscal transparency worldwide, accountability and equity often lag behind. Put simply, publishing more budget data or introducing new audit tools has not been enough to create sustainable positive change.
A fiscal ecosystem perspective starts with the recognition that no single actor, such as the Ministry of Finance, Parliament, the Auditor General, even civil society, can deliver accountable fiscal governance alone.
Instead, outcomes are shaped by the interplay of multiple actors: core state institutions such as finance ministries, legislatures, audit offices, and treasuries; other state institutions, including independent fiscal councils and constitutional courts; and non-state actors, ranging from civil society and media to investors and academics.
An ecosystems approach is valuable because it illuminates relationships and power, helps identify where reform coalitions can be built and where blockages and resistance are to be found. It shifts our gaze from isolated technical fixes to the deeper political dynamics that shape fiscal outcomes.
One participant summed it up vividly: “We’ve invested so much in auditing, transparency tools, and PFM (public financial management) systems, but none of that matters if we don’t address the political power behind the decisions. It’s not enough to have an open budget portal. We need to change the way decisions are made.”
Why this matters for democracy
Fiscal choices are political choices. They reflect whose voices are heard, whose interests are prioritised, and how trade-offs are managed. In an era of growing inequality and declining trust in democratic institutions, financial governance is at the heart of the democratic bargain.
If citizens see that public money is captured by elites, mismanaged through inefficiency, or siphoned away through corruption, their trust in democracy erodes. Whereas, if fiscal decisions are transparent, inclusive, and oriented toward equity, they can restore confidence in democratic institutions.
The fiscal ecosystem approach is therefore not just about improving budgets. It is about revitalising democracy itself.
Country case studies
We heard about case studies from Brazil, Indonesia, and South Africa, which offered both warnings and hope.
- Brazil’s fiscal ecosystem feels stuck, with power struggles between executive and legislature paralysing budget governance.
- Indonesia demonstrates how impressive legal frameworks can be undermined by clientelism, what one participant called “superficial transparency.”
- South Africa shows both fragility and resilience: institutions including Parliament were corroded during “state capture” years, yet independent bodies have forced accountability back onto the agenda.
One of the most striking themes of the Global Dialogue was the oversight of public debt management. Debt sustainability is often framed narrowly as a technocratic issue, managed by finance ministries and assessed by rating agencies. But the Global Dialogue revealed how debt management itself is embedded in the fiscal ecosystem, and the anomalies emerging as a lack of oversight by parliaments, audit institutions and civil society.
In Brazil, congressional amendments and rigid spending rules complicate efforts to manage debt, while courts and media debates shape public perceptions of fiscal credibility.
In Indonesia, debt rules have kept borrowing low, but political capture and inequitable spending reveal that fiscal prudence does not guarantee fairness.
In South Africa, debt is not only a macroeconomic concern but also a political flashpoint: bailouts for SOEs, court challenges over rights-based spending, and parliamentary battles over tax reform all feed into the debt trajectory.
The Global Dialogue highlights how an ecosystems lens can “reveal relationships and power,” showing that debt is not just about numbers but about the balance of competing accountabilities:fiscal (stability), political (patronage), and developmental (equity).
I noticed that parliaments are largely an afterthought in the public financial management (PFM) system. For example, even though the Public Expenditure and Financial Accountability (PEFA) framework recognizes parliamentary oversight as the final pillar of performance, parliaments are generally not understood by multilateral and bilateral donors. Also in PFM and public debt management legislation, parliament’s role is largely nominal.
While debt transparency has improved in many places, transparency alone is not enough. Strengthening public accountability is essential. Legislatures, supreme audit institutions, and CSOs need the tools, access, and authority to scrutinize borrowing decisions and ensure they serve the public interest. In the different countries where it has been rolled out, the Public Debt Management Assessment Tool (PDMAT) has proven to generate new insights about the structures, procedures, resources and access to information for parliaments in the debt debate.
What have we learned so far about the role of parliaments in debt oversight? While formal parliamentary oversight functions, such as loan ratification, review of the debt management strategy, or budget approval, are necessary, they are not sufficient. Parliaments must also exercise substantive oversight that scrutinises the policy rationale behind borrowing, the fiscal risks involved, and the developmental returns on debt-financed investments. Parliamentary oversight is integral to preventing unsustainable borrowing and to ensuring debt contributes to equitable development outcomes.
Applying an ecosystems approach to debt could therefore open new strategies: linking debt debates to rights and equity, mobilizing courts and civil society to demand transparent justifications for borrowing, and involving parliaments and media in shaping narratives about debt sustainability. In short, the debt ecosystem may be the next frontier for systemic reform.
Looking forward
Several insights particularly struck me:
- Power and trust are central. Lack of trust between governments, parliaments and civil society creates major obstacles.
- Reform is political, not just technical. Without shifts in political incentives and substantive involvement of parliaments, technical reforms remain “superficial transparency.”
- Local innovation offers hope, with subnational governments and parliaments experimenting with participatory budgeting and litigation strategies.
The fiscal ecosystems approach gives us a lens to see the whole system, identify blockages, and think strategically about coalitions for change. It challenges us to move beyond transparency for its own sake, grapple with the politics of fiscal governance, and build trust across divides.
The Global Dialogue embodied the very ecosystem we were discussing as we were seeing actors who usually work in silos engage as interdependent partners. It reminded me that strengthening fiscal ecosystems is about rebalancing relationships among many institutions, ensuring that budgets serve the many, not the few.
About the author
Franklin De Vrieze is the Head of Practice Accountability at the Westminster Foundation for Democracy
