The International Monetary Fund’s updated Fiscal Transparency Evaluation for Türkiye finds notable progress in public-finance reporting and budget practices over the past decade. Reports on the assessment say Türkiye now meets “good” or “advanced” practice in nearly two-thirds of the principles in the IMF’s Fiscal Transparency Code, up from roughly half in 2015. That performance places Türkiye among the leading group of around 40 countries that have undergone comparable evaluations.
Fiscal reporting is the strongest area
The updated findings identify fiscal reporting as Türkiye’s strongest area, followed by fiscal forecasting and budgeting. Improvements in the coverage and quality of fiscal statistics, the move toward performance-based programme budgeting, and steps to align public-sector accounting with international standards are cited among the main factors behind the progress. Together, those reforms have strengthened the structure through which public financial information is prepared and presented.
An IMF Fiscal Transparency Evaluation examines how comprehensively, reliably and promptly a country discloses information about its public finances. It assesses areas including fiscal reporting, forecasting and budgeting, and the analysis and management of fiscal risks against the IMF’s Fiscal Transparency Code. The exercise should therefore not be read as a sovereign credit rating, a growth forecast or an all-purpose scorecard for the economy.
Progress from the 2000 and 2015 baselines
Earlier reviews provide context for the scale of the institutional change. The 2000 assessment identified weaknesses in budget preparation and execution, reporting that was largely cash-based, limited balance-sheet information and insufficient disclosure of fiscal risks. By 2015, the evaluation recorded a stronger legal framework, the development of medium-term budgeting and broader reporting across general government. The latest update indicates that this reform path has continued.
The new assessment also makes clear that the process is not complete. It points to room for further reform in fiscal risk analysis. That qualification matters because stronger reporting does not mean that every uncertainty connected with public finances has been eliminated or fully disclosed. Regularly identifying, measuring and explaining fiscal risks remains an essential part of credible public financial management and a key area for the next phase of reform.
Government response stresses institutional change
Treasury and Finance Minister Mehmet Şimşek said the share of principles assessed at good or advanced practice had risen from around half in 2015 to two-thirds in the latest review. He described the result as a concrete outcome of more than two decades of institutional transformation and said structural reforms would continue. His comments represent the government’s interpretation of the findings rather than a separate assessment by the IMF.
Greater fiscal transparency can make budget decisions easier to trace and public-finance data easier to compare across years. More comprehensive and standardised reporting can also help parliament, audit bodies, investors and citizens evaluate the state’s finances on a clearer basis. Yet the IMF update presents that progress alongside the continuing need to strengthen fiscal risk analysis. The result is best understood as evidence of substantial institutional gains, paired with a defined reform agenda rather than a claim that all fiscal vulnerabilities have been resolved.
