Implementing budgetary reforms in Greece

2. Programme and performance budgeting in Greece

2.1. Introducing programme and performance budgeting in Greece

Greece’s transition towards programme and performance budgeting has been gradual, with progress marked by a series of milestones over the past decade (Figure 1). First efforts to introduce programme and performance budgeting in Greece predated the 2008 financial crisis (OECD, 2008[1]), with early pilots led by the Budget Reform Unit between 2007 and 2010. However, these initiatives were only partially implemented as government priorities shifted towards fiscal consolidation during the crisis.

The adoption of the Organic Budget Law in 2014 marked a turning point, providing the legal foundation for the implementation of programme and performance budgeting (OECD, 2019[2]). Building on this, a performance budgeting strategy was endorsed in 2018, and the 2019 budget formally introduced a roadmap for implementation. This was accompanied by the publication of a Performance Budgeting Manual and pilot exercises in six ministries, later expanded to the entire central administration.

Since 2022, Greece has further refined the framework by improving methodologies, strengthening the quality of performance information, and investing in capacity-building. At this stage, the Performance Budget is prepared on a programme basis and published as supplementary information to the line-item budget. However, Parliament continues to vote only on the traditional line-item budget.

The next step refers to monitoring the execution for performance budgeting Programmes, planned for 2027. Achieving this will require major IT investments. A detailed IT blueprint has already been developed, and implementation is underway to enable the monitoring of budget execution, better performance data management, and more comprehensive financial and performance reporting.

Figure 1. Introducing performance budgeting in Greece

2.2. Programme structure in Greece

Greece’s programme structure is organised into three hierarchical levels: policy sector, programme, and sub-programme (Figure 2). At the highest level, twelve broad policy sectors have been established, aligned with the international Classification of the Functions of Government (COFOG) to ensure statistical consistency and reflect the main areas of government activity.

Within these sectors, in the 2026 budget, 185 programmes have been defined, each corresponding to a major policy area and forming the second level of classification. Programmes have been developed jointly by the Ministry of Economy and Finance and the relevant line ministries. At present, each programme is linked to a single ministry, and no cross-ministerial programmes have been introduced.

The third level consists of sub-programmes, which currently serve as an internal informational layer and are not yet part of the published performance budget. This level is intended to provide a more detailed breakdown of activities within each programme, linking policy objectives with specific outputs and supporting more effective monitoring and reporting. Since 2022, the General Accounting Office (GAO) has worked with central administration bodies to develop this classification and ensure its alignment with the second level of the functional classification (COFOG), in close co-operation with ELSTAT and the Secretariat responsible for the public investment budget (PIB).

Figure 2. Programme structure in Greece

In addition, each ministry has established separate administrative programmes to account for general administrative actions for supporting all other programmes (policy formulation, staff co-ordination, etc.). This Programme is called Staff Coordination, Investments and Policy Formulation Programme (Table 1).

Table 1. Examples of programme structure of several ministries in Greece

Ministry of Education and Religious Affairs	Ministry of Health	Ministry of Labor and Social Affairs
Primary/secondary education Higher education Vocational education and lifelong learning School and University Sports Public libraries and archives University hospitals Education of Greek students abroad Religion Religious education	Emergency pre-hospital care Provision of primary health care services Hospital care Prevention and protection of public care Support for mental health NGOs Treatment of addictions	Social solidarity and poverty alleviation policies Social security policies Policies on Demographic and Family Policy and Gender Equality Policies to support employment and employment promotion Labor market control
Administrative programme: Staff Coordination, Investments and Policy Formulation	Administrative programme: Staff Coordination, Investments and Policy Formulation	Administrative programme: Staff Coordination, Investments and Policy Formulation

2.3. Performance information in Greece

2.3.1. Availability of performance information

In Greece, performance information (objectives, indicators, and targets) is developed by line ministries in co-operation with DEGGA for each programme. Every programme is required to include at least one performance objective with an associated indicator, while more complex programmes spanning multiple policy areas may include up to three to five objectives. To maintain focus and avoid data overload, GAO sets limits on the number of objectives and indicators assigned to each programme.

In the early years, many performance indicators included in the Performance Budget were largely process- or input-oriented, such as the percentage of the annual budget executed, or the number of administrative procedures completed. More recently, there has been a shift towards output- and outcome-oriented measures, as illustrated in Table 2. Despite this progress, some inconsistencies still persist across ministries, with some continuing to rely heavily on activity-based metrics such as the number of inspections carried out.

Table 2. Examples of performance information included in budget documentation

Ministry	Programme	Objective	Indicator
Ministry of Justice	International Judicial Cooperation	Improving the processing time of requests for issuance, covering all actions required from the moment the request is submitted to the Central Authority until the final decision is issued	Average processing times of extradition cases
Ministry of Education and Religious Affairs	University hospitals	Optimal patient service	Average length of stay in hospitals, neurological clinics, and psychiatric clinics
Ministry of Health	Hospital care	Strengthening of the solid organ transplant system in Greece	The percentage increases in the annual number of new registrations in the National Registry of Organ and Tissue Donors

For administrative programmes, Greece has introduced a set of standard cross-cutting indicators that all ministries are required to track, as shown in Box 1. These indicators are intended to strengthen comparability across ministries provide a clearer picture of administrative efficiency and, sometimes, identify areas for spending reviews.

Box 1. Cross-cutting indicators for administrative programmes

Greece monitors a set of standard cross-cutting indicators for administrative programmes:

• Staff of horizontal services (HR, etc.)/Total staff

• m2/worker

• Cost/kilometer (for state vehicles)

• % coverage of information needs by Integrated Information Systems

• Average settlement time for arrears

• Procurement completion time/competition process

• Number of internal audited body services per year

• Average time (hours) of education/worker per year

Based on the 2026 budget circular, additional indicators have been added to monitor the accessibility to the Central/General Government buildings:

• Total number of buildings that meet the requirements for accessible routes for people with disabilities/ Total number of buildings housing the institution's services x %.

• Total number of buildings that meet the requirements for accessible sanitary areas for people with disabilities/ Total number of buildings housing the institution's services x %.

• Total number of buildings that meet the conditions/requirements for protected waiting and escape in case of emergency for people with disabilities/ Total number of buildings where the organisation's services are housed x %.

2.3.2. Improving the quality of performance information

To address the challenges of quality and consistency, Greece has established processes to strengthen the development of performance information, which is essential for the effective implementation of performance budgeting. GAO has set out clear standards and criteria in the Performance Budgeting Manual, which introduces key concepts and detailed guidance for formulating performance objectives and indicators.

These standards are reinforced annually through the budget circulars, which underline that performance information should be aligned with government priorities, outcome-focused, and developed in line with the SMART principles (Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Relevant, Time-bound). In addition, GAO plays a central role in ensuring the quality of performance information through an iterative process and ongoing dialogue with line ministries, as described in Box 2.

Box 2. Quality assurance process

To ensure the quality of performance information, GAO has established a robust quality assurance process that begins during the budget preparation stage. Submissions from line ministries are reviewed against established criteria such as clarity, relevance, and outcome-orientation.

When inconsistencies or weaknesses are identified, GAO engages directly with the respective ministries in an ongoing, collaborative process. Rather than a one-time review, this dialogue allows ministries to refine their performance objectives, indicators, and targets, with GAO feedback helping to ensure alignment with overall government priorities.

In 2023, the OECD conducted a complementary review of performance information, providing feedback to line ministries on how to strengthen the quality of objectives and indicators.

A dedicated Working Group on Performance Budgeting and Spending Reviews underpins this process. Comprising representatives from line ministries and the Ministry of Economy and Finance, the group meets regularly to review feedback, discuss best practices, and agree on improvements. This collaborative approach helps ensure greater consistency and higher quality performance information across government.

To ensure consistency and clarity, the Ministry of Economy and Finance also provides standardised templates for collecting performance and financial information, as the one shown in Table 3. Currently, the collection of performance information in Greece is managed manually through spreadsheets. However, the integration of this process to IT systems is being prepared, which will streamline the collection and management of performance and financial information.

Table 3. Template for collecting performance information

Programme title
Upper hierarchical level in charge
Programme strategy, challenges, and planned developments
Goals and expected results and outcomes
Main outputs
Main activities
Number of personnel
Supervised entities contributing to programme goals
Spending reviews
Planned reforms
Results (indicators)	2020	2021	2022	2023	2024
Resources (ordinary budget)
Public investment budget
Funding from own resources of supervised entities
Total programme funding

2.4. Presenting performance information in budget documentation

Greece prepares a Performance Budget on an annual basis, which is submitted to Parliament for information purposes in mid-November along with the introductory report of the annual budget. Each budgetary chapter is dedicated to a specific ministry and begins with detailed financial information on all programmes under its responsibility (Box 3).

Within each chapter, an Annual Programme Plan (APP) is presented for every programme, following the same outline (Box 3). The APP outlines the programme’s strategy, objectives, expected results, key outputs and activities, the human resources allocated, and any related spending review actions. While comprehensive, the explanatory texts are often lengthy and inconsistent across ministries.

Performance information is presented in a dedicated, standardised table within each APP. This table provides information on the key objective, performance indicators, and targets for the upcoming budget year. In addition, it clearly identifies the authority responsible for implementing and achieving the targets, contributing to accountability.

More recently, the Performance Budget also includes a chapter on Green Budgeting, integrating more closely green budgeting efforts into the overall performance budgeting framework.

Box 3. Outline of the Performance Budget chapter

Chapter X: line ministry A

 

Code	Programmes	Budget (Euro)
		Regular	Investment		Total
			National	Co-funded
XX	Programme A	x	x	x	x
	General Secretariat	x	x	x	x
	Employee benefits	x	x	x	x
	Transfers	x	x	x	x
	Purchases of goods and services	x	x	x	x
	Fixed assets	x	x	x	x
	Appropriations under allocation	x	x	x	x
	Expenditure of the Recovery and Resilience Fund	x	x	x	x
	Appropriations under allocation	x	x	x	x
XX	Programme B	x	x	x	x

XX. Annual Programme Plan (APP) for Programme A

Total human resources	X
Central administration bodies	x
Other general government bodies	x

• Top level of the hierarchical structure responsible for the Programme

• Programme strategy

• Objectives – expected results and impacts (outcomes)

• Main outputs

• Main activities – programme actions

• Other general government agencies active in the programme

 

	Performance measurement data
Policy implementation officer
Service responsible for indicator monitoring
Objective
Indicator
Indicator analysis
Target value for y	Result for year y-1	Estimated value for year y		Target value for y+1
x	x	x		x
Monitoring frequency
Unit of measurement

2.5. Strengthening the performance budgeting framework in Greece

Greece has made significant progress in developing its performance budgeting framework, which is well aligned with the OECD Performance Budgeting Framework (OECD, 2023[3]). Greece’s framework is underpinned by strong political commitment, clear leadership from GAO, and active engagement of line ministries in generating performance information. The establishment of a well-defined programme structure aligned with COFOG, together with robust quality assurance processes and ongoing capacity-building efforts, provides a solid foundation for further reform.

Despite these advances, important challenges remain. The Performance Budget is not subject to a parliamentary vote, and financial and performance data are still not fully integrated. Many objectives and indicators lack a clear outcome orientation, and both formal reporting practices and the parliamentary use of performance information remain limited, as shown in Table 4 and ‎Annex A.

Table 4. Assessment of the Greek performance budgeting framework

Tools and methods for developing performance information		Accountability and transparency		Enabling environment		Use of performance information to inform decisions around the budget
Sequencing performance information	In development	Managerial flexibility and accountability	In development	Budget structured around programmes	In development	Role of the Parliament	Not yet established
Avoiding overload of performance information	In development	Reporting practices	In development	Centrally issued guidelines and templates	Established	Role of sectoral committees in the Parliament	Not yet established
Criteria for developing performance information	Established	Roles and responsibilities	In development	Capacity-building efforts	In development	Presentation of relevant information in budget documents	In development
Quality assurance process	Established	Public access to performance information	In development	Supporting IT environment	Not yet established
				Incentive mechanisms	Not yet established

2.5.1. Key strenghts of the Greek performance budgeting framework

Strong political and administrative leadership

The reform is anchored in strong political commitment and senior administrative leadership. The Ministry of Economy and Finance has been central in driving the agenda forward, supported by broad buy-in from key stakeholders. Clear institutional roles have been established: GAO provides strategic direction, methodological guidance, and capacity-building, while line ministries are responsible for developing performance information and embedding it into programme management. This distribution of responsibilities enhances ownership across government and supports the long-term sustainability of the reform.

Clearly defined programme structure

Greece has introduced a clearly defined and stable programme structure, organised into three hierarchical levels: twelve policy sectors, 185 programmes in 2026, and a progressively developed sub-programme layer. The structure is aligned with COFOG, ensuring both comparability and consistency in reporting. Administrative programmes have also been established to consolidate mainly horizontal administrative costs and track cross-cutting indicators. Maintaining stability in this structure will be critical to strengthen transparency, accountability, and year-on-year comparability.

Strong processes to support quality performance information

Robust processes have been established to strengthen the quality and consistency of performance information. A quality assurance mechanism led by GAO provides systematic feedback to line ministries and promotes continuous improvement of objectives and indicators. Standardised manuals, templates, and annual budget circulars help harmonise practices across government, while ongoing dialogue with ministries reinforces the relevance of information. These processes are further supported by continuous capacity-building efforts, ensuring that civil servants are well equipped to generate and use performance information in budget preparation and programme management.

2.5.2. Areas for improvement

The Performance Budget is not yet subject to parliamentary vote

A key limitation is that the Performance Budget, although prepared annually on a programme basis and published alongside the traditional line-item budget, is not yet voted on by Parliament. Appropriations continue to be approved on a line-item basis, which limits the extent to which performance information shapes resource allocation. The rollout of the upgraded IT system, expected for 2027, will be essential to enable programme-based budget monitoring (first) and execution, as well as lay the groundwork for full programme appropriations at a next stage.

Weak integration of performance and financial information

While performance data is presented in a standardised format within each ministry’s budget chapter, they remain largely disconnected from financial data. This separation makes it difficult for decision-makers to directly link resources to results, reducing the potential of performance information to influence allocation decisions. The forthcoming IT system provides an opportunity to integrate financial and performance data more effectively and to enhance their practical usability.

Presentation of performance information in budget documentation

Despite recent progress, further improvements are needed to enhance the clarity and relevance of performance information. Some objectives remain overly detailed, activity-focused, or insufficiently outcome-oriented. Inconsistencies persist across programmes, with duplication of information between outcomes, outputs, and activities. In many cases, the link between objectives and indicators is weak, and activities are not described in a way that clearly shows how they contribute to results. The new IT system could help improve consistency, clarity, and integration of information across programmes.

Performance reporting practices remain underdeveloped

There is no formal system in place to track and report on actual results achieved during budget execution. Without regular and timely reporting, performance information risks being viewed as an isolated technical exercise rather than a core tool for decision-making, accountability and policy adjustments.

Parliamentary engagement

While performance information is included in budget documentation, it is not yet systematically used in parliamentary debates or oversight. The Parliamentary Budget Office (PBO) has shown growing interest in integrating such information into its analyses, and the GAO has supported parliamentarians through workshops and simplified tools. However, these efforts remain at an early stage. Strengthening parliamentary oversight - particularly through the engagement of sectoral committees - will be essential to ensure that performance information informs decision-making in both the executive and legislative branches.

2.5.3. OECD Recommendations to strengthen Performance Budgeting in Greece

• Once the upgraded IT systems are fully operational, a transition to programme-based appropriations with Parliament voting on the budget by programme, should be examined. This will embed performance information more directly into the decision-making process and strengthen accountability in resource allocation.

• Improve the quality of performance information by aligning performance objectives more closely with government priorities and ensure that indicators clearly measure progress towards these objectives. Where feasible, incorporate a medium-term perspective into target setting to better capture policy impact over time.

• Enhance the presentation of performance data in budget documents by integrating financial and performance information at the programme level, and by using visuals (e.g. charts, tables) to improve clarity and usability.

• Establish regular performance reporting that combines financial and performance information, published in a timely manner (e.g. in spring alongside financial reporting). Once IT systems are in place, improve the accessibility of performance information through web-based dashboards to better inform both decision-makers and the public.

• Define clear budget execution rules for transfers between and within programmes to improve transparency, consistency, and accountability.

• Increase political engagement with performance information by developing concise one-page summaries for each programme that highlight key results and financial information. This should be presented systematically to ministers and Cabinet to inform budget discussions.

• Strengthen parliamentary oversight by providing timely and accessible performance information in user-friendly formats, offering capacity-building workshops and practical guides for MPs, and enhancing the role of the Parliamentary Budget Office and sectoral committees in budget analysis and scrutiny.