Annex E. OECD stakeholder survey methodology for review of election costings
The election costings improved transparency around the economic and budgetary consequences of election commitments (Strongly agree; Agree; Neither Agree nor Disagree; Disagree; Strongly Disagree)
The FPB was independent in the way that it carried out the election costings (Strongly agree; Agree; Neither Agree nor Disagree; Disagree; Strongly Disagree)
The FPB demonstrated that it had the skills and expertise to undertake election costings (Strongly agree; Agree; Neither Agree nor Disagree; Disagree; Strongly Disagree)
The FPB communicated clearly regarding election costings (Strongly agree; Agree; Neither Agree nor Disagree; Disagree; Strongly Disagree)
Please describe what you think worked well in relation to the 2019 election costings by the FPB
Please describe what you think did not work so well in relation to the 2019 election costings by the FPB
Information sessions organised by the FPB (Highly Satisfied; Satisfied; Neither Satisfied nor Dissatisfied; Dissatisfied; Highly Dissatisfied)
Working Papers presenting the models (Highly Satisfied; Satisfied; Neither Satisfied nor Dissatisfied; Dissatisfied; Highly Dissatisfied)
Seminars presenting the models (Highly Satisfied; Satisfied; Neither Satisfied nor Dissatisfied; Dissatisfied; Highly Dissatisfied)
Launch note (Highly Satisfied; Satisfied; Neither Satisfied nor Dissatisfied; Dissatisfied; Highly Dissatisfied)
FPB response to concerns expressed during meetings (Highly Satisfied; Satisfied; Neither Satisfied nor Dissatisfied; Dissatisfied; Highly Dissatisfied)
Do you have any other comments relating to the preparatory phase for the 2019 election costings?
The way the information regarding the measures was collected (Highly Satisfied; Satisfied; Neither Satisfied nor Dissatisfied; Dissatisfied; Highly Dissatisfied)
The first phase [examination of the measures, validation of the budgetary impulse] (Highly Satisfied; Satisfied; Neither Satisfied nor Dissatisfied; Dissatisfied; Highly Dissatisfied)
The arguments put forward by the FPB not to be able to cost certain measures [“measure is outside the scope of DC2019”] (Highly Satisfied; Satisfied; Neither Satisfied nor Dissatisfied; Dissatisfied; Highly Dissatisfied)
The second phase of the costing [impact assessment using the different models] (Highly Satisfied; Satisfied; Neither Satisfied nor Dissatisfied; Dissatisfied; Highly Dissatisfied)
Specific communication with the FPB contact person assigned to your party (Highly Satisfied; Satisfied; Neither Satisfied nor Dissatisfied; Dissatisfied; Highly Dissatisfied)
The general communication/guidelines coming from the Steering Committee (Highly Satisfied; Satisfied; Neither Satisfied nor Dissatisfied; Dissatisfied; Highly Dissatisfied)
The way the results were presented by the FPB [press conference, press release and the dc2019.be website] (Highly Satisfied; Satisfied; Neither Satisfied nor Dissatisfied; Dissatisfied; Highly Dissatisfied)
Would you like to see the FPB continue to cost election platforms for the 2024 election?
Is there anything that the FPB did in relation to the 2019 costings that it should not do for the 2024 exercise?
Is there anything that was missing from the 2019 costings that the FPB should do for the 2024 exercise?
Setting a common budgetary constraint or target for all political parties (Essential; High Priority; Medium Priority; Low Priority; Not a Priority)
Identifying a common list of areas covered by the costing (Essential; High Priority; Medium Priority; Low Priority; Not a Priority)
Restricting the number of measures contained in each priority (Essential; High Priority; Medium Priority; Low Priority; Not a Priority)
In light of your answers above, would you like to see any changes to the legal framework for election costings?
Do you have any other comments or proposals for how the FPB might improve the transparency of the economic and budgetary consequences of measures proposed by political parties in their election manifestos?