A Standard for Fiscal Transparency in Government
Introduction
Fiscal transparency is a bedrock of democratic accountability. The International Monetary Fund (IMF) defines it as “openness toward the public at large about government structure and functions, fiscal policy intentions, public sector accounts, and projections,” a standard that enables citizens, investors, and policymakers alike to judge a government’s true fiscal position, assess the efficiency of its spending in terms of outcomes, and identify the long-term consequences of its budget choices. When the flow of public money is visible–down to individual contracts and line-item appropriations–taxpayers can verify that resources are used as intended, markets can price sovereign risk more accurately, and elected officials face meaningful discipline for waste and corruption. As the National Institute of Government Purchasing notes, “Public awareness and understanding of government practice ensures stability and confidence in governing systems,” which underscores transparency’s central role in preserving the strength and legitimacy of democratic institutions and protecting the public purse.
Two decades after these principles were first codified, fiscal transparency in the United States remains partial and uneven. U.S. PIRG’s Following the Money series–most recently updated in 2018–helped spur the creation of state transparency portals and identified persistent fragmentation, inconsistent data standards, and limited statutory mandates. Yet its scoring framework remained high-level: it rewarded the existence of a portal and listed major checkbook items but did not consider whether the data were granular, machine-readable, or linked across systems in ways that enable causal analysis. This review shows that the shortcomings the series flagged persist and matter more than ever. In many states, core datasets such as contract awards, line-item expenditures, and vendor payment records are either missing altogether or locked behind PDFs and static charts that defeat bulk download, time-series construction, or entity matching. Without radically open, well-structured data, independent economists cannot trace dollars from appropriation to outcome, policy analysts cannot run quasi-experimental evaluations, and watchdogs cannot pinpoint waste or self-dealing. The result is a transparency gap that frustrates citizens, journalists, and legislators alike—and leaves billions in taxpayer funds effectively beyond systematic scrutiny.
Closing this gap is critical if states are to steward public dollars with integrity, efficiency, and democratic accountability. This report therefore proceeds in six parts: first, a focused literature review distills what scholars have learned about the fiscal, economic, and governance benefits of radical transparency; next, a methodological section explains the data‐collection and scoring framework used in this paper; this is followed by a summary of the main findings, map the statutory landscape, and evaluation of the design and performance of every state transparency portal, illustrating best practice through detailed case studies. Finally, states are ranked in a comparative scorecard and offer model statutory language and technical standards that legislators, controllers, and agency leaders can adopt to make their fiscal data truly fit for causal analysis and public oversight.
Stay Informed
Sign up to receive updates about our fight for policies at the state level that restore liberty through transparency and accountability in American governance.