Since 2019, 42% of the government budget’s income and expenditure proposals haven’t included a value estimate, while the 2026 Budget still leaves a fifth of estimates without costs, according to updated research by the private think tank Verité. Verité’s Executive Director, Dr Nishan de Mel, stated, “Under Budget 2026, 20% of proposals lack spending and income estimates”. These proposals also lack timelines or any indication of who bears the burden. In such cases, citizens or members of civil society cannot clearly see how taxes are allocated or how money is spent.
The 2022 interim budget was the poorest, and all proposals were missing estimates. This means that the budget estimates document gives no indication of figures, at all. As Dr de Mel puts it, “Budget estimates without the estimates are simply policy documents”. Budget estimates are produced on the day the budget speech is read in Parliament, usually in November of every year. This is where the lack of transparency begins.
% of Proposals Introduced with Missing Revenue & Expenditure Estimates
Source : Verité Research
Note:
1. This assessment was not conducted in 2020 and 2025.
2. Data provided as a % of total budget revenue and expenditure proposals.
3. Missing proposal assessment for 2026 is tentative.
Budget Implementation & Spending Periods
If a citizen or member of civil society finds that they do not have the full accounting picture of the budget when it is released in Parliament, they may choose to engage with authorities directly or look for it themselves.
The proactive disclosure obligation under the Right to Information Act (RTI) requires that public authorities release information without citizens needing to specifically request this information.
Verité Research published an assessment of online proactive disclosure under the RTI Act in 2023. The report states, “The RTI Act provides a framework for the administration and enforcement of a citizen’s right to access information held by public authorities with some exceptions.”
The report lists “Budgetary information (e.g. projected budget, actual income and expenditure)” as 1 of 14 pieces of information that have to be proactively disclosed under Regulation 20 of the RTI Act.
It finds that if someone wants to look for spending information, the problem is where it is located or how easy it is to access. Most ministries rely on the Ministry of Finance to host their core budget data. The report states that, “Budgets, Expenditure and Finances is the category of information most likely to be disclosed with a category score of 82%”. However, this score is attributed to the fact that 94% of public authorities were scored for disclosing their “Projected Budget for 2023” based on the information available in the Budget Estimates for 2023 on the Ministry of Finance website and not on their own websites. The report found that, “Notably, only the Ministry of Agriculture received scores for disclosing the Projected Budget for 2023 and Disbursements for 2021 on its website.”
A citizen who wants to see one ministry’s spending must find the document on the Finance Ministry website, open a large PDF, and search through hundreds of pages for a few lines of interest. Most will abandon the effort before they can see where their money goes.
If a piece of data cannot be found online, Regulation 20 of the RTI Act obliges public authorities to publish information about the right to access information. Verité’s report explicitly states that “information on how to request information and contact information of the respective information officer” should be available. This means that a citizen can engage with an information officer to request information.
The assessment lists 10 of 31 public authorities that did not publish basic contact details for their information officer. Information Officers are meant to receive and process Right to Information (RTI) requests. They are central to proactive disclosure, which assumes citizens know whom to contact. Lead Economist Raj Prabu Rajakulendran at Verité Research states, “In principle, when budget information is not available online, the public can file an RTI request. In practice, when information officers are not named, with no phone number or email provided, the process becomes tedious.”
The report highlights another issue. Regulation 20 also obliges that “Decision-making and public participation (e.g. information on decision making procedures, and mechanisms for public participation in decision-making)” be routinely released. Verité defines public participation as the means of publishing the basics that allow people to take part in decisions.
Public participation is an important aspect of good governance. The report highlights that information available on the subject, i.e. details on public meetings and consultations, was limited. As a result, the report rated “Public Participation” at 1%. Only the Ministry of Power scored points for public participation as it published an invitation for public comment on the ‘Draft Renewable Energy Resource Development Plan 2021-2026’.
No authority published a record of meetings or explained how public feedback was used. In short, there are many PDFs and too few ways for people to understand, question, or use them, and almost no way to be heard while decisions are being made.
Ministerial Public Participation Scores
Only the Ministry of Power & Energy receives a score of 1/3
Verité highlights that while several ministries provided information on meetings between the respective Minister and other parties, no public authority provided information on meetings open to the public for attendance in the past or in the future.
Why Numbers Matter (And Why They’re Missing)
Numbers anchor policy. They show scale, trade-offs and feasibility. They let Parliament, markets and the public test ambition against arithmetic. When proposals arrive uncosted, everything downstream becomes guesswork, from debt paths and deficit targets to routine procurement schedules. This lack of transparency also opens the door to malpractice.
The Open Budget Survey (OBS) for 2023, published by the International Budget Partnership (IBP), which covers 125 countries, finds transparency middling worldwide, with a global average score of 45 out of 100.
According to the survey, the weakest link is execution, when money actually moves. 40% of countries do not publish regular in-year or year end reports, and 57% do not publish a mid-year review. These documents are what turn promises into traceable actions. Sri Lanka is, recently, doing better on this front.
According to Rajakulendran, “The Public Finance Management Act has required the publication of in-year and mid-year reviews of the annual budget since 2024.”
These documents now appear regularly, however, with a slight delay. The mid-year review for 2025 was published only towards the end of October, four months after the middle of the year.
He states that, “Even during implementation, Sri Lanka’s in-year budget reporting tends to follow the domestic norm of about a four-month delay. While this aligns with how most national publications are timed, it does mean we fall outside IBP’s three-month window — and there’s room to move closer to examples like Indonesia and Australia, which publish their reviews within a few weeks”.
The IBP specifically states, “The OBS methodology requires that for in-year review (IYR) to be considered publicly available, IYRs must be made available to the public no later than three months after the reporting period ends.”
As a result, Rajakulendran states that, “Even with this delay, there is little mechanism for civil society input”.
The Cost of Opacity
The IBP notes that, “In-Year Reports give a snapshot of the budget’s implementation during the budget year and are critical to budget transparency. These reports require the government to develop the systems and staff expertise necessary to track the budget’s credibility, and to determine whether a government actually spends what it promises to spend in its budget.”
When actual spending differs from the approved budget, IBP describes it as either underspent or overspent. They suggest that when governments spend less than the approved budget, which is more common in lower-income countries, the delivery of essential services is often undermined.
As a result, progress in addressing poverty and inequality is often hampered.
As Rajakulendran says, a delay, in addition to weak public participation, undermines effectiveness. Parliamentary approval risks becoming ceremonial, and accountability comes only after the fact.
Looking Ahead
Recommendations by Verité Research and the IBP suggest Sri Lanka could improve budget credibility within a single cycle by focusing on practical fixes.
Place a Price Tag on Every Proposal
Speaking at the CA Sri Lanka Budget forum for 2025, Dr de Mel states that the difference between a budget and a policy document is that the prior has numbers attached to policy proposals.
To stay within the definition of what a budget is, there should be no proposal announced without a number attached to it.
Sri Lanka could go further. IBP reports that, in the OBS for 2023, 53 out of 101 countries that published an (Annual) Executive’s Budget Proposal included at least one alternative presentation of spending, such as by gender, age, income or region, to illustrate how budget policies affect specific groups.
Provide Adequate Time for Oversight
As mentioned earlier, Sri Lanka has begun publishing in-year and mid-year reviews of the budget. However, as Rajakulendran mentions, the country can learn from Indonesia and Australia and work to publish these documents for enough time for critique. Civil society and members of the public will have enough time to digest and engage with authorities on corrections to spending.
If Sri Lanka follows the best-practice standard set by the IBP, which is publishing three months after a reporting period ends, it is a step in the right direction for external parties to analyse the numbers and even assist public authorities with decision-making.
Let the Public In, Invite Scrutiny and Present Your Analysis
The Open Budget Survey finds that 83% of countries surveyed have at least one mechanism for public input, but participation during budget implementation remains rare.
Rajakulendran states that, “Sri Lanka could raise the bar by creating engagement with the public on budgets.” He says, “Some countries already do this well. The Philippines maintains a Budget Proposal Hub, a public online portal where citizens can submit proposals throughout the year. Agencies must then respond publicly, explaining which proposals were accepted and why others were not. It is a simple device that builds trust and gives the public a clear route into the budget process.”
Ahead of Budget 2026, Verité Research launched its own version of a Budget Proposal Hub. These were suggestions made by the public who accessed the platform and recommendations by the think tanks as well. In total, 12 proposals were submitted to the government. Rajakulendran argues that, “This model could be adopted by the state itself, giving citizens a permanent channel for input and strengthening the link between officials and the electorate.”