The First OECD-SouthEast
Asia Regional Forum
Jakarta, 23-24 January 2007
Belgium’s experience with Peer Reviews
By Patrick van Haute,
Belgian Ambassador to the OECD
Permanent Delegation of Belgium to the OECD
Representation Permanente de la Belgique aupres de l’OCDE
Permanente Vertegenwoordiging van Belgie bij de OESO
1
2
Belgium’s experience
with Peer Reviews
Contents
•
•
•
•
Historical background
Today
The 2007 Belgian economic review in detail
Pro’s and Con’s
Permanent Delegation of Belgium to the OECD
Representation Permanente de la Belgique aupres de l’OCDE
Permanente Vertegenwoordiging van Belgie bij de OESO
3
Belgium’s experience with Peer Reviews
Historical Background (1)
1914-1929-1945: Two World Wars, one Big Depression.
World War I: 6 to 10 millions dead
1929 depression:
•
Governments try to isolate their economy from external
shocks with competitive devaluations, withdrawal from FDI,
tariffs increases, creation of trade preferences…
•
Failure of uncoordinated solutions
World War II: 62.5 millions dead: 23 in Soviet Union, 20 in Asia,
19 in WE and 600.000 in the US. The European economy is
destroyed.
Permanent Delegation of Belgium to the OECD
Representation Permanente de la Belgique aupres de l’OCDE
Permanente Vertegenwoordiging van Belgie bij de OESO
4
Belgium’s experience with Peer Reviews
Historical Background (2)
1945-1961
•
•
•
•
Multilateral reaction to rebuild the European economy:
Marshall Plan (1947), OECE (1949), OECD (1961)
European reaction: ECCS (1951), Common Market (1957),
EC, EU
OECD Convention Article 5
In order to achieve its aims, the Organisation may:
(a) take decisions which…shall be binding on all the
Members
(b) make recommandations to Members; and
(c) enter into agreements with Members, non-member
States and international organisations.
Commitment by Member States to accept being reviewed.
Permanent Delegation of Belgium to the OECD
Representation Permanente de la Belgique aupres de l’OCDE
Permanente Vertegenwoordiging van Belgie bij de OESO
5
Belgium’s experience with Peer Reviews
Historical Background (3)
1961-2007
•
•
•
45 years of experience, changes, evolutions, … the
peer review system is tailormade for the OECD
countries. It is not a one-size-fits-all system.
Started with review of economic policy. During 45
years, extended to many other areas: energy,
environment, regulatory reform, competition, egovernment, development cooperation, …
In 2006, Belgium was under review in six different
fields: energy, environment, economic review, antibribery, money laundering and development
cooperation.
Permanent Delegation of Belgium to the OECD
Representation Permanente de la Belgique aupres de l’OCDE
Permanente Vertegenwoordiging van Belgie bij de OESO
6
Belgium’s experience with Peer Reviews
Today
Features of the Peer Review process
•
•
•
•
•
•
Checks and balances between 3 parties: the country
examined, the Committee and the Secretariat.
The Secretariat drafts, the country replies, the Committee
discusses.
Two lead-examiners.
Adoption of the report by the EDRC Committee by consensus
(i.e. with the approval of the reviewed country).
One or two visits to the country under review
Publication
Permanent Delegation of Belgium to the OECD
Representation Permanente de la Belgique aupres de l’OCDE
Permanente Vertegenwoordiging van Belgie bij de OESO
7
Belgium’s experience with Peer Reviews
A detailed example: the Belgian Economic Review 2007
(1)
•
The whole process takes almost 12 months.
•
Step 1 (End May 06): First questionnaire
11 pages, 166 questions sent by the ECO Directorate.
Questions are precise and targeted. No general political
questions.

Topics: financial sector, labour market developments,
tertiary education, …

The PM Office in Brussels allocates the questions
between the different ministeries and agencies. They
prepare written answers.
Step 2 (19-23 June 06): First visit:

a 4 persons team comes to Brussels for a full week of
discussions: 5 days, 50 hours, meetings with 103
persons.

•
Permanent Delegation of Belgium to the OECD
Representation Permanente de la Belgique aupres de l’OCDE
Permanente Vertegenwoordiging van Belgie bij de OESO
8
Belgium’s experience with Peer Reviews
A detailed example: the Belgian Economic Review 2007
(2)
•
Step 3 (End August 06): Second questionnaire




•
4 pages, 60 questions.
The PM Office in Brussels allocates the questions
between the different agencies. They prepare written
answers.
Topics: fiscal policy, labour market policies, tertiary
education, financial markets, consumer policy, …
Prepared answers to the 2 questionnaires amounted 996
pages + 1043 pages of additional documentation.
Step 4 (11-13 September 06) Second visit

A 5 persons team comes to Brussels: 3 days, 30 hours
of meetings with 66 persons.
Permanent Delegation of Belgium to the OECD
Representation Permanente de la Belgique aupres de l’OCDE
Permanente Vertegenwoordiging van Belgie bij de OESO
9
Belgium’s experience with Peer Reviews
A detailed example: the Belgian Economic Review 2007
(3)
•
Step 5 (20 November 06) Draft Report




•
135 pages : 1 page executive summary, 6 pages of
assessment and recommandaations, 15 recommandations.
Examples: a more ambitious fiscal objective is welcome, the
labour market is still not functioning properly, tax incentives to
savings should be reconsidered.
Report sent to PM Office which requests the agencies to react
by 30 November.
Coordination of reactions by 7 December. 92 pages of redrafting
proposals
Step 6 (11 December 06) EDRC session


The Economic Development Review Committee meets to
examine the report: 6 hours, 15 Belgian delegation members,
lead by PM Economic adviser.
Two lead-examiners: Portugal and Switzerland
Permanent Delegation of Belgium to the OECD
Representation Permanente de la Belgique aupres de l’OCDE
Permanente Vertegenwoordiging van Belgie bij de OESO
10
Belgium’s experience with Peer Reviews
A detailed example: the Belgian Economic Review 2007
(4)
•
Step 7 (12 December 2006) Session for redrafting the
recommandations: 6 hours
•
Step 8 (During January 07) Written procedure to clear the
definitive version by the EDRC committee (consensus)
•
Step 9 ( February 07) Translation and Printing
•
•
Step 10 (13 March 2007): Press conference in Brussels
by the Prime Minister and the OECD Secretary General to
present the review
Permanent Delegation of Belgium to the OECD
Representation Permanente de la Belgique aupres de l’OCDE
Permanente Vertegenwoordiging van Belgie bij de OESO
11
Belgium’s experience with Peer Reviews
Pro’s and Con’s (1)
•
•
•
•
•
Peer review is not naming and shaming: today’s reviewer
will be reviewed tomorrow. All MS must hear the comments
and recommandations by others.
The process is important, not just the book: through
discussion with OECD staff, the authorities get a neutral and
non-political view on their policies. Example: tuition fees for
tertiary education.
Long term advice for short term policy makers.
Recommandations not mandatory: since the MS reviewed is
free to implement the recommandations, the Secretariat (if
followed by the Committee) is also free to make clear
recommandations.
Quality: the level of expertise offered by the Secretariat
needs to be matched in the capital. Statistics.
Permanent Delegation of Belgium to the OECD
Representation Permanente de la Belgique aupres de l’OCDE
Permanente Vertegenwoordiging van Belgie bij de OESO
12
Belgium’s experience with Peer Reviews
Pro’s and Con’s (2)
•
•
•
•
•
Purpose is to help, not to fingerpoint. Avoid
counterproductive results (example: the automatic
indexation of wages)
Recommandations are based on theory, on expertise, on
best practices, on shared experience. They are not based on
national politics.
OECD recommandations represent a neutral view, from
outside. They carry more weight than national
recommandations.
Recommandations get more weigth through publication of
the review.
Non members have also been reviewed: China, Chile,
Argentina, Russia, … with positive results. For instance, the
first Chinese review was concluded last year very
successfully.
Permanent Delegation of Belgium to the OECD
Representation Permanente de la Belgique aupres de l’OCDE
Permanente Vertegenwoordiging van Belgie bij de OESO
13
Belgium’s experience with Peer Reviews
Conclusion:
Governments like the review processes
by the OECD because it helps them to
convince their public opinion when
policy adjustments are necessary.
Thank you
Permanent Delegation of Belgium to the OECD
Representation Permanente de la Belgique aupres de l’OCDE
Permanente Vertegenwoordiging van Belgie bij de OESO