The “Macro and Aggregate Analysis of the 2016 Budget Bill” aims to examine the fiscal aggregates and overall fiscal management reflected in the 2016 budget and fund management plans to assist the National Assembly with its budget review at macro and aggregate levels. Key features of the report include:
  The Aggregate Analysis section of the report outlines existing fiscal and economic conditions as well as the outlook before discussing the aggregate characteristics of the 2016 budget bill, including changes in the growth of total revenue and expenditure, and comments on fiscal management in welfare, SOC, education, and other key areas.
  In the following section titled Focus Analysis, the report examines the following: new fiscal projects, similar and overlapping projects, projects with poor annual budget execution, the accommodation of correction requests made in the review of final accounts, and compliance with the Detailed Guidelines on Budgeting. 
  Firstly, discussions on new fiscal projects focus on those found to have issues in a ministry-by-ministry analysis of 150 new programs set for 2016. The issues are grouped into different categories for the analysis, including inadequate legal grounds, the non-performance of preliminary procedures, and overestimated budgeting.
  Secondly, our analysis found 33 projects which are similar to, or overlapping with, other projects in the 2016 budget bill: 16 of them are classified as projects with intra-ministry similarities or redundancies and 17 are classified as projects with inter-ministry similarities or overlaps. The report calls for an in-depth review of this aspect of the budgeting process.
  Thirdly, the report analyses 130 projects which have displayed poor budget execution on an annual basis, with poor execution defined as both the budget execution rate in 2014 and an average annual budget execution rate from 2011 to 2014 below 70 percent. It presents a view that the projects with poor budget execution records and no budget cuts should be looked at more throughly in the budget review.
  Fourthly, the report assesses how the 2016 budget bill incorporates projects which received correction requests in the FY2014 final accounts review on the basis of overestimated budgeting, poor execution, or similarities or overlaps.
  Fifthly, highlighted within are cases in which the Detailed Guidelines on Budgeting were not followed, for instance, by failing to include a specific budget under the appropriate expenditure item, by exceeding the budget allocation threshold in terms of the years of project implementation, or by not performing required preliminary procedures.