Economy: SAO looked to nails in Brussels and protects Hungarians from shabby reports

In two analyzes, the State Audit Office (SAO) evaluated the validity and objectivity of the European Commission’s country reports, the organization said in its statement, which under its motto is “150 years as guardian of public funds, 30 years as a financial guarantor of democracy “. The two analyzes were published two days after the European Commission published its report on the rule of law in the Member States. The latter is not the same as the country’s report, but it is common for it to contain, to put it mildly, unflattering statements about the Hungarian government, mainly in the areas of justice, freedom of the media and corruption.

SAO analysts concluded from the Brussels country reports that they did not contain a detailed classification methodology, that information on the reliability and calculation of the data used was limited, and that the factors and sources considered and their weighting varied. from one country to another and from one period to another. It turned out, according to the SAO, that reports on corruption were evaluated differently in reports for each EU country, and that Hungary’s actual economic performance from 2010 was more favorable in most indicators than in the European Commission country reports. forecasts.

Here we note that “forecast” in Hungarian means a forecast, and the government’s own forecasts, such as those established in the central budget, do not necessarily coincide with the events that will materialize later. However, it is worth noting that the approach is different for some indicators: while the government may boast low unemployment or deficits, for example, experts from Brussels point out that many of the unemployed are not even included in the statistics because to the shortage of supply, and the government in many cases saves social costs that they should not.

Here is our latest article on said country report:

They take the bread from the Court of Auditors of the EU

It is not a problem in itself that the SAO has identified problems with the committee’s country reports, and the European Court of Auditors has done so several times, and the SAO has also used their reports to prepare the analyzes. It is already strange that, although one of the tasks of the European Court of Auditors is to audit the European Commission, the Hungarian SAO does not have this to do: the Hungarian SAO audits the Hungarian state and its components.

In the analysis, the reasons for preparing the analyzes are that it is not only the control, the

The objective of the strategy is to place greater emphasis on the analytical support role, which contributes to the extension of good governance.

In Hungarian, they formulate constructive criticism for state actors with a public service character and professional foundation.

However, this analysis is critical of the European Commission, as it is difficult to improve the functioning of Hungarian state institutions (including the government) if the SAO learns that the committee’s country reports are bad. Unless, according to the SAO, good governance in Hungary is to ignore Brussels reports classified as junk (otherwise, there are no mandatory instructions in country reports, only analysis and recommendations). Or if, according to the SAO, it serves good governance in Hungary, if they publicly classify the Brussels reports as garbage.

Hungarians must be protected from poor-quality reports in Brussels

“Lack of a credible and well-founded evaluation, or

In the event of inappropriate measurement methods, neither sector managers nor decision makers nor taxpayers receive credible feedback on which areas to intervene.

in order to increase sustainability, competitiveness, social satisfaction and trust ”, the SAO explained to hvg.hu in more detail why the analysis was carried out. “Assessments based on objective measurements are also needed to allow the European Commission and the country reports it issues to achieve the goal of allowing EU member states to coordinate their economic policies and address the economic challenges facing the EU,” added.

In other words, the SAO argues that it helps good governance to show that Brussels country reports are bullshit, because in this way Hungarian actors (“managers, decision makers, taxpayers”) will not be fooled (even inadvertently ) making them think they are okay. .

The extract will be sent to the officers of the committee.

And even in Brussels, they can learn from the SAO’s findings, as “the SAO makes extensive use of testing. Among other things, it is sent to the competent commissions of the National Assembly. In addition, the SAO provides comments to the European Council and the European Commission on its evaluation processes, sends the analyzes to the Head of the European Commission Representation in Hungary, the Hungarian Member of the European Commission and the Head of the Permanent Representation of Hungary before the OECD and UNESCO. Furthermore, the SAO will send the summary in English of the analyzes to the competent authorities of the European Council and the European Commission ”.

“The economic and social relevance of the area affected by the analyzes made it particularly justified and timely for the analysts of the State Audit to evaluate the country reports of the European Commission, and the conclusions of the analyzes confirmed all this”, concluded his explanation to hvg.hu