## 2.30 Methodological guidance on compilation and analyzing SOE data

## Source details

**Canonical URL:** [2.30 Methodological guidance on compilation and analyzing SOE data](https://www.imf.org/-/media/files/data/statistics/gfsm/global-consultations/discussion-note-230-methodological-guidance-on-compilation-and-analyzing-soe-data-consultatio.pdf)

## Other formats

- [Markdown version](/-/media/files/data/statistics/gfsm/global-consultations/discussion-note-230-methodological-guidance-on-compilation-and-analyzing-soe-data-consultatio.pdf.md)
- [Structured JSON version](/-/media/files/data/statistics/gfsm/global-consultations/discussion-note-230-methodological-guidance-on-compilation-and-analyzing-soe-data-consultatio.pdf.json)

---

### Introduction: scope, demand, and challenges
- Coverage and relevance:
  - GFSM 2014 principle: GFS should cover all entities that materially affect fiscal policies, irrespective of the country’s institutional or legal structure.
  - In practice, many countries base GFS coverage on narrower administrative boundaries of the government sector; omission of entities owned or controlled by government impairs fiscal risk and sustainability analysis.
- User demand and IMF response:
  - Growing demand for more comprehensive, granular and internationally comparable public sector data from fiscal analysts, policymakers, and international organizations.
  - The IMF has provided dedicated SOE training and technical assistance to support countries in compiling SOE data.
- Conceptual and practical barriers:
  - Conceptual: establishing statistical public sector boundary and delineating subsectors (market vs non-market producers); accurate sector classification is a critical prerequisite.
  - Practical: need to collect source data outside budget and administrative processes for core ministries, departments and agencies (MDAs).
- Note’s focus:
  - Presentation of transactions and stocks between general government and market SOEs classified as public corporations.
  - Application of COFOG to expenditure incurred by market SOEs.
  - Restructuring SOE-related guidance within GFSM for accessibility and usability.
  - Potential for supplementary applied guidance with pragmatic examples and case studies.
- Cost-benefit framing:
  - Expanding the core manual, reporting, or introducing supplementary guides imposes compiler costs; approaches are weighed by potential to reduce compilation challenges and improve analytical usefulness.

### Common compilation and analysis failures the note aims to reduce
- I. Use of administrative or legal definition of the public sector instead of the statistical notion of government control.
- II. Failure to conduct market / non-market tests, using administrative/legal classification to delineate subsectors.
- III. Failure to map SOE data to the GFSM taxonomy during compilation, causing misclassification of transactions and stocks.
- IV. Recording transactions between general government and public corporations according to legal/accounting arrangements rather than statistical guidance.
- V. Delays in compiling public sector statistics due to longer lags in sourcing SOE data relative to budgetary government.
- VI. Failure to identify transactions and stock positions between government and SOEs, causing overstatement of public sector positions and aggregates.
- VII. Failure to meaningfully apply COFOG to public expenditure administered through SOEs, limiting disaggregated functional analysis.

### Issue A — Presentation of transactions and stocks between general government and public corporations
- Background observations:
  - GFSM 2014 analytic framework does not sufficiently support comprehensive analysis of interactions between general government and public corporations; market SOEs frequently fall outside general government boundary.
  - Government transactions with public corporations are often indistinguishable from transactions with the private sector when consolidated public sector statistics are not produced.
- Specific transaction identification gaps:
  - Separately identifiable transaction category largely limited to subsidies to public corporations (GFSM 2014 expense code 251).
  - Common interactions referenced but not distinguishable: capital injections; debt assumptions; debt relief; guarantee calls; asset transfers.
  - Such transactions often classified under broad categories such as transfers not elsewhere classified (GFSM 2014 expense code 282).
  - Governments may receive property income from public corporations (interest on loans, dividends, rent) and pay interest on government debt held by them; these can be indistinguishable from private sector equivalents.
- Balance sheet identification gaps:
  - Government claims on and obligations to public corporations are not distinguished from those with private corporations (for example, on-lending to public corporations; equity holdings; government debt held by public corporations).
- Analytical benefit:
  - Better identification of government–public corporation transactions and positions facilitates consolidated public sector statistics and enhances fiscal risk reporting and fiscal analysis even if GFS coverage remains limited to general government.

### Options identified to address presentation and reporting gaps (Issue A)
- Option A1: Maintain status quo (no change beyond other GFSM 2014 updates).
  - Rationale: Additional breakdowns increase compiler burden where resources are low or information is not easily available.
  - Trade-off: Preserves current workload but maintains limitations in granularity and fiscal-risk analysis.
- Option A2: Introduce a supplementary statement on interactions between general government and public corporations into the GFS analytic framework.
  - Design: Add a third supplementary statement to present data detailing interactions; Annex Table 1 provides an example with revenue and expense items commonly associated with SOEs and breakdowns by asset type and type of public corporation.
  - Advantages: Flexibility; allows additional reporting without changing core statements.
  - Limitations: Supplementary statements may be overlooked in practice.
- Option A3: Incorporate additional breakdowns of flow and stock types within the core statements as standard reporting items.
  - Design: Embed disaggregation for relevant transactions and asset/liability items directly in core statements; Annex Tables 2 and 3 illustrate examples, including debt security liabilities breakdowns for all instruments except monetary gold and Special Drawing Rights (SDRs).
  - Advantages: Ensures consistent availability of additional information.
  - Limitations: Requires increased data collection and reporting effort; may be impractical for some countries.
- Option A4: Incorporate additional breakdowns within core statements as “of which” reporting items.
  - Design: Use “of which” categories to highlight key subcomponents rather than full line items; keeps core statements concise.
  - Advantages: Greater flexibility than Option A3; increases visibility without expansive core statement growth.
- Option A5: Incorporate additional breakdowns within core statements as memorandum reporting items.
  - Positioning: Additional pathway to present detailed SOE interaction data, alternative to full integration into core statements.
- Task Team draft recommendation: Recommend Option A2 (introduce a supplementary statement) for greater clarity on relationships and exposures and for implementation without changing the core framework.

### Key elements proposed for Option A2 (example supplementary statement)
- Revenue from public corporations lines include:
  - 1PC Revenue from public corporations; 11PC Taxes from public corporations; 14PC Other revenue from public corporations; 141PC Property income from public corporations; 1411PC Interest from public corporations; 1412PC Dividends from public corporations; 1413 Withdrawals of income from quasi-corporations; 1414 Property income from investment income disbursements; 1415PC Rent from public corporations; 1416 Reinvested earnings on foreign direct investment; 144PC Transfers not elsewhere classified from public corporations; 1441PC Current transfers from public corporations; 1442PC Capital transfers from public corporations; 142PC Sales and goods and services from public corporations; 143PC Fines, penalties, and forfeits from public corporations; 145PC Premiums, fees, and claims related to nonlife insurance and standardized guarantee schemes.
- Expense to public corporations lines include:
  - 2PC Expense to public corporations; 24PC Interest to public corporations; 251 Subsidies to public corporations; 28PC Other expense to public corporations; 2812 Withdrawals of income from quasi-corporations; 2813 Property expense for investment income disbursements; 2813PC Property expense for investment income disbursements; 2815PC Reinvested earnings on foreign direct investment; 282PC Transfers not elsewhere classified to public corporations; 2821PC Current to public corporations; 2822PC Capital to public corporations; 283PC Premiums, fees, and claims related to nonlife insurance and standardized guarantee schemes to public corporations.
- Other lines: 31 Net/gross investment in nonfinancial assets with public corporations; placeholders for transactions in financial assets and liabilities; asset and liability positions with public corporations.

### Option A3 (examples) — Additional breakdowns incorporated into GFS statements
- Sample Statement of Operations lines:
  - 1 Revenue; 2 Expense; 11 Taxes; 21 Compensation of employees; 12 Social Contributions; 211 Wages and salaries; 212 Employers' social contributions; 2121 Actual employers’ social contributions; 2122 Imputed employers’ social contributions; 22 Use of goods and services; 23 Consumption of fixed capital; 24 Interest; 241 To nonresidents; 242 To residents other than general government; 2421 To resident public corporations; 2422 To residents other than public corporations; 25 Subsidies; 251 To public corporations; ... 281 Property expense other than interest; 2811 Dividends; 2812 Withdrawals of income from quasi-corporations; 2813 Property expense for investment income disbursements; 2814 Rent; 2815 Reinvested earnings on foreign direct investment; 282 Transfers not elsewhere classified; 283 Premiums, fees, and claims related to nonlife insurance and standardized guarantee schemes.
- Sample property income breakdowns:
  - 141 Property income; 1411 Interest; 14111 From nonresidents; 14112 From residents other than general government; 141121 From resident public corporations; 141122 From residents other than public corporations; 14113 From other general government units; 1412 Dividends; 14121 From public corporations; 14122 From units other than public corporations; 1413 Withdrawals of income from quasi-corporations; 1414 Property income from investment income disbursements; 1415 Rent; 14151 From public corporations; 14152 From units other than public corporations.
- Sample sales breakdowns:
  - 142 Sales of goods and services; 1421 Sales of market establishments; 1422 Administrative fees; 1423 Incidental sales by nonmarket establishments; 1424 Imputed sales of goods and services.

### Option A4 (“of which” categories) — examples
- Statement of Operations “of which” qualifiers:
  - Examples: 141121 of which, from public corporations; 14121 of which, from public corporations; 14151 of which, from public corporations; 14411 of which, from public corporations; 28211 of which, to public corporations.
- Balance sheet “of which” qualifiers:
  - 63 Liabilities; 6303 Debt securities [6213+6223] with “of which with public corporations”; 631 Domestic creditors; 6313 Debt securities with “of which with public corporations”; 632 External creditors; 6323 Debt securities.

### Memorandum items vs. supplementary statement (paragraphs 33–36)
- Appending core statements with memorandum items could capture interactions without changing core classifications (GFSM 2014 precedent for memorandum items includes definitions/valuations of debt, stocks of arrears, explicit contingent liabilities, acquisitions and disposals of non‑financial assets).
- Practical challenges with memorandum items:
  - Memorandum items often remain unreported and receive less attention.
  - Interactions with public corporations are diverse; memorandum items would require very broad definitions or a very large number of items, making the approach less coherent than a supplementary table.
- Draft Task Team recommendation:
  - Recommend Option A2 (introduce a supplementary statement) for clarity regarding relationships and exposures and because it can be implemented without changing the core framework.

### Issue B — Application of COFOG to expenditure incurred by market SOEs
- Background:
  - GFSM 2014 encourages COFOG for government expenditure but lacks explicit guidance on whether/how it should extend to public corporations.
  - UN Statistics Division and Eurostat manuals offer no reference to functional classification of public corporations’ expenditure.
  - Global Consultation on the Initial List of Issues for the Update of COFOG found COFOG data for public corporations (or SOEs) were produced by 11% (n=8) of compiler respondents; 14% (n=7) of user respondents indicated use of COFOG data for public corporations (or SOEs).
  - Inconsistent application hinders international comparability and may bias public sector-level functional analysis where activities are administered through market SOEs.
- Options identified:
  - Option B1: Maintain current guidance without explicit direction on COFOG use for public corporations.
    - Pros: preserves flexibility; avoids demands on limited resources and data collection/processing changes.
    - Cons: absence of functional information on public corporations’ expenditure can limit assessment of public sector involvement across functions and reduce international comparability.
  - Option B2: Encourage use of COFOG for reporting public corporations’ expenditure.
    - Benefits: enhances functional comparability and transparency.
    - Challenges: COFOG designed for non-market government expenditure; public corporations’ expenditures may not reflect value of goods/services delivered and financial statements often lack purpose-level detail needed to map to COFOG.
    - Note: Additional guidance development could exceed GFSM 2014 update scope; issue not on COFOG update research agenda; research could be post-update.
  - Option B3: Discourage use of COFOG for reporting public corporations’ expenditure.
    - Rationale: recognizes distinct nature of public corporations and conceptual/practical challenges.
    - Risk: could reduce transparency where meaningful public corporation data are or could be produced.
  - Option B4: Offer guidance on how and when COFOG could be applied to public corporations (circumstances analytically useful, e.g., quasi‑fiscal activities), and explain why COFOG is unsuitable for market activities. Preparation may need post-update research agenda.
- Draft Task Team recommendation:
  - Recommend Option B1 (maintain current guidance). The global consultation will assess compilation and use of COFOG data for public corporations to determine if further research is warranted. Any research should be conducted jointly by the IMF and the UN Statistics Division.

### Issue C — Structure and presentation of SOE guidance in the GFSM
- Background:
  - GFSM provides general guidance on treatment of publicly controlled entities, but SOE-related information and transactions between SOEs and government are dispersed across the manual.
  - Lack of tangible examples complicates interpretation; practical considerations and applied examples are largely missing at the global level.
  - Eurostat’s Manual on Government Deficit and Debt contains practical case studies but is largely aligned with European practice.
- Options to address presentation:
  - Option C1: Maintain status quo (no change).
    - Observation: SOE-related guidance dispersed; retaining present structure unlikely to improve accessibility or compliance.
  - Option C2: Move guidance on transactions between SOEs and government to a newly created chapter.
    - Benefits: single coherent chapter could aid understanding and reduce expertise required.
    - If additional statements/breakdowns are added, the new chapter would contain compilation-relevant information.
  - Option C3: Introduce an appendix summarizing SOE-related guidance and referencing core chapters without significant changes to core chapters.
  - Option C4: Maintain present structure, appending core chapters with paragraphs or text boxes on SOE-specific considerations.
- Accessibility concerns:
  - Sector classification guidance is nearly 30 pages and among the less understood; classification decision tree requires familiarity with institutional units, market production, and economically significant prices.
  - Interpretation difficulties affect finance officials lacking macroeconomic statistics exposure.
- Use of targeted text boxes and table amendments (proposed examples):
  - Chapter 2 box: delineation between corporations (market) and extrabudgetary (nonmarket) units controlled by government; distinguishing SOE term from statistical "public corporation".
  - Chapter 4 box: interpretation and analytical use of fiscal aggregates for public corporations and public sector as a whole.
  - Chapters 5/6 box: SOE transactions that should be rearranged through government accounts.
  - Chapter 6 box: application of COFOG to public corporations.
  - Appendix A6 box: use of financial statements prepared under IFRS (if not already covered).
  - Table amendments: append Table 5.1 Summary Classification of Revenue and Table 6.1 Summary Classification of Expense with a column indicating applicability to GG and PC; or annexes with matrices of permissible transaction × subsector combinations.
- Draft Task Team recommendation:
  - Recommend Option C4 (maintain present structure, appending core chapters with paragraphs and text boxes on SOE-specific considerations) to preserve familiar structure, keep guidance context-specific, and minimize substantive changes beyond other GFSM update projects.

### Issue D — Need for supplementary applied guidance outside GFSM
- Background:
  - Many common issues hindering SOE compilation fall outside core manual scope; compilers would benefit from clear examples and case studies.
  - Compilers often lack access to primary financial data held in SOE financial management systems and rely on financial statements or questionnaires.
  - IPSAS/IFRS and SNA/GFSM accrual methodologies are not fully aligned; new divergences include IFRS 16 Leases / IPSAS 43 Leases, IFRS 17 Insurance contracts, and recognition of data assets in the 2025 SNA.
  - Regional guidance (e.g., MGDD) is practice-specific and may have limited global applicability.
- Options for supplementary applied guidance:
  - Option D1: Produce a stand-alone applied compilation guide.
    - Suggested comprehensive topics:
      - Sector classification of SOEs (including national vs statistical classification, market/non-market tests, PSIT).
      - Data collection and compilation issues (common data sources; periodicity; timeliness; nowcasting, linear interpolation, time series models, Kalman filter; data mapping; conceptual adjustments; consolidation of SOE subsidiaries; identification of intra-public sector flows and stocks).
      - Selected issues (reconciliation between accounting and statistical aggregates; dealing with data sources not compliant with statistical requirements; guidance based on IAS 20; IFRS 16 Leases / IPSAS 43 Leases; IFRS 17 Insurance contracts).
    - Caveat: production is a major undertaking and should be justified by strong demand and likelihood of material improvements to GFS compilation.
  - Option D2: Do not produce a stand-alone applied compilation guide.
    - Rationale: Obstacles to SOE data compilation often stem from national PFM practices, administrative/political decisions, persistent resource constraints, or data-sharing restrictions that technical guidance alone cannot overcome.
- Draft Task Team recommendation:
  - Recommend Option D1 (produce a stand-alone applied compilation guide) provided there is evidence of strong support among the international GFS community. Feasibility and resource requirements should be weighed against GFSM 2014 update priorities and timeframe.

### Procedural notes and related research projects
- Substantive technical amendments and clarifications related to SOEs are being considered through GFSM Update Research Projects:
  - 2.1 Boundary between government and nonfinancial public corporations
  - 2.2 Boundary between government and financial public corporations
  - 2.9 Debt assumption and debt payments on behalf of others
  - 2.13 Equity for public corporations
  - 2.15 Treatment of capital injections by government into corporations
  - 2.16 Treatment of privatization
  - 2.27 Relationship between GFS and IPSAS (noted regarding accounting/statistical divergences)
- Preliminary views of the GFSAC were discussed; an earlier version of the discussion note was discussed at the GFSAC meeting of January.
- Version: 2026. This version has addressed suggestions made by GFSAC members and the task team recommendations in the note are consistent with preliminary views of most GFSAC members.

### Questions for Global Consultation — overview and action requested
- Respondents are asked to indicate preferred options and explain reasons, and to comment on practicality, data compilation capacity, opportunities, and challenges across four main issues: Issue A, Issue B, Issue C, Issue D.
- Issue A: Indicate preferred choice: Option A1, Option A2, Option A3, Option A4 or Option A5 and explain reason; if Option A2–A5 chosen, assess practicality and likelihood to compile necessary data, and describe opportunities/challenges.
- Issue B: Indicate preferred choice: Option B1, Option B2 or Option B3 (Option B4 described in the note) and provide details on whether the country compiles COFOG for public corporations, methods, user demand, and feasibility.
- Issue C: Indicate preferred choice: Option C1, Option C2, Option C3 or Option C4 and explain how recommendations would affect quality, scope, or initiation of SOE data compilation.
- Issue D: Indicate preferred choice: Option D1 or Option D2 and describe whether a stand-alone applied guide would enhance quality, scope, or initiation of SOE data compilation.
- Annex: Proposed tables and statement formats provided as examples for Options A2–A4 and A3 balance sheet variants to aid consultation responses.

*Source: International Monetary Fund — GFSM 2014 Update Consultation: March 2026 — Discussion note on methodological guidance on compilation and analyzing SOE data (Task Team recommendations and options).*

### 2.30 Methodological guidance on compilation and analyzing SOE data

### 2.30 Methodological guidance on compilation and analyzing SOE data

### Summary details and key recommendations
- Task Team Responsible: Fiscal Analysis and GFS  
- Communication TT (TT4)  
- Authors of Discussion Note: Eduard Moskalenko (Lead author), Foyzunnesa Khatun (Co-author)

- Core problem statements:
  - Information relating to state-owned enterprises (SOEs) and transactions between SOEs and government is dispersed across the Government Finance Statistics Manual 2014 (GFSM 2014).
  - GFSM 2014 does not comprehensively address the application of guidance designed for government to market producers.
  - Lack of tangible examples on application of the conceptual framework complicates interpretation.
  - Resource constraints and limitations in national public financial management frameworks may be as important as the lack of technical guidance in constraining SOE data compilation.

- Draft recommendations from the Discussion Note:
  1. Introduce a supplementary statement on interactions between general government and public corporation sectors into the GFS analytic framework.
  2. Include research on how and under what circumstances the classification of the functions of government (COFOG) could be applied to market SOEs into the post-GFSM 2014 update research agenda.
  3. Maintain the present structure of the manual, appending core chapters with paragraphs and text boxes on SOE-specific considerations.
  4. Produce a stand-alone applied compilation guide provided there is evidence of strong support for it among the international GFS community.

### Introduction: scope, demand, and challenges
- Coverage and relevance:
  - GFSM 2014 principle: GFS should cover all entities that materially affect fiscal policies, irrespective of the country’s institutional or legal structure.
  - In practice, GFS coverage in many countries is based on narrower administrative boundaries of the government sector; omission of entities owned or controlled by government impairs fiscal risk and sustainability analysis.

- User demand and IMF response:
  - Growing demand for more comprehensive, granular and internationally comparable public sector data from fiscal analysts, policymakers, and international organizations.
  - IMF has provided dedicated SOE training and technical assistance to support countries in compiling SOE data.

- Conceptual and practical barriers:
  - Conceptual: establishing the statistical public sector boundary and delineating subsectors (market vs non-market producers); accurate sector classification is a critical prerequisite.
  - Practical: need to collect source data outside budget and administrative processes for core ministries, departments and agencies (MDAs).

- Note’s focus:
  - Examine presentation of transactions and stocks between general government and market SOEs classified as public corporations.
  - Explore application of COFOG to expenditure incurred by market SOEs.
  - Consider restructuring SOE-related guidance within GFSM for accessibility and usability.
  - Discuss potential for supplementary applied guidance with pragmatic examples and case studies.

- Cost-benefit framing:
  - Expanding the core manual, reporting, or introducing supplementary guides has costs; the note weighs approaches by potential to reduce common compilation challenges and improve analytical usefulness.

### Common compilation and analysis failures the note aims to reduce
- I. Failure to apply the statistical notion of government control resulting in the use of administrative or legal definition of the public sector in GFS.
- II. Failure to conduct market / non-market tests, resulting in the use of administrative or legal classification to delineate between general government and public corporation subsectors.
- III. Failure to map the SOE data to the GFSM taxonomy during the compilation process, resulting in misclassification of SOE transactions and stocks.
- IV. Failure to record transactions between the general government and public corporation subsectors in accordance with statistical guidance, resulting in the use of legal arrangements or their accounting recording to inform the statistical treatment.
- V. Failure to compile timely statistics as a result of longer lags associated with sourcing the SOE data relative to that of the budgetary government, resulting delays in compiling public sector level statistics.
- VI. Failure to identify transactions and stock positions between government and SOEs, resulting in an overstatement of public sector positions and aggregates due to lack of adequate consolidation.
- VII. Failure to meaningfully apply the COFOG classification to public expenditure administered through SOEs, resulting in lack of sufficiently disaggregated functional spending analysis at the public sector level.

### Issue A — Presentation of transactions and stocks between general government and public corporations

- Background observations:
  - GFSM 2014 analytic framework does not sufficiently support comprehensive analysis of interactions between general government and public corporations.
  - In many countries, market SOEs (public corporations) fall outside the general government boundary and are less likely to be reported on; in countries not producing consolidated public sector statistics, government transactions with public corporations are often indistinguishable from transactions with the private sector.

- Specific transaction identification gaps:
  - Separately identifiable transaction category largely limited to subsidies to public corporations (GFSM 2014 expense code 251).
  - Common government–public corporation interactions referenced in GFSM 2014 but not distinguishable in current framework:
    - Capital injections
    - Debt assumptions
    - Debt relief
    - Guarantee calls
    - Asset transfers
  - Such transactions often classified under broad categories such as transfers not elsewhere classified (GFSM 2014 expense code 282), reducing detail available for analysis.
  - Governments may receive property income from public corporations (interest on loans, dividends and rent) and pay interest on government debt held by them; these can be indistinguishable from private sector equivalents.

- Balance sheet identification gaps:
  - Government claims on and obligations to public corporations are not distinguished from those with private corporations.
  - Examples: government on-lending to public corporations not separately identifiable; government equity holdings in public corporations may be indistinguishable from private sector investments; government debt held by public corporations may be hard to identify.

- Analytical benefit:
  - Better identification of government transactions with public corporations facilitates production of consolidated public sector statistics and enhances fiscal risk reporting and fiscal analysis even when GFS coverage remains limited to general government.

### Options identified to address presentation and reporting gaps
- Option A1: Maintain status quo by making no changes to the GFS analytic framework (beyond amendments introduced by other GFSM 2014 update projects)
  - Rationale: Additional breakdowns increase compiler burden, particularly where resources are low or information is not easily available.
  - Trade-off: Preserves current compilation workload but maintains limitations in granularity and fiscal-risk analysis.

- Option A2: Introduce a supplementary statement on interactions between general government and public corporations into the GFS analytic framework
  - Design: Add a third supplementary statement to present data detailing interactions between general government and public corporations; Annex (Table 1) presents an example including general government revenue and expense items commonly associated with SOEs and breakdowns by asset type and type of public corporation (financial or non-financial).
  - Advantages: Flexibility; allows additional reporting without changing core statements; adaptable to evolving analytical needs.
  - Limitations: Supplementary statements may be overlooked in practice, potentially undermining efforts to improve data availability.

- Option A3: Incorporate additional breakdowns of flow and stock types within the core statements of the GFS analytic framework as standard reporting items
  - Design: Embed disaggregation for relevant transactions and asset and liability items commonly linked to public corporations directly in core statements; Annex (Tables 2 and 3) illustrate examples (Annex Table 3 uses debt security liabilities as an example; breakdowns would apply to all instruments except monetary gold and Special Drawing Rights (SDRs), as well as transactions in financial assets and liabilities).
  - Advantages: Ensures consistent availability of additional information for users; addresses key gap in current framework.
  - Limitations: Requires increased data collection and reporting effort; may be impractical for some countries; adapting compilation systems increases workload.

- Option A4: Incorporate additional breakdowns of flow and stock types within the core statements as “of which” reporting items
  - Design: Use “of which” categories to highlight key subcomponents rather than full line items; example: omit a separate line for “from residents other than public corporations” while allowing identification via “of which”.
  - Advantages: Greater flexibility than Option A3; helps keep core statements concise and easier to interpret, particularly on the balance sheet (Annex Tables 4 and 5).
  - Trade-off: Balances added visibility of SOE interactions with limits on expansion of core statements.

- Option A5: Incorporate additional breakdowns of flow and stock types within the core statements of the GFS analytic framework as memorandum reporting items
  - (Option introduced in the Discussion Note as an additional pathway to present detailed SOE interaction data, positioned as an alternative to full integration into core statements.)

### Considerations for restructuring guidance and applied materials
- Presentation approaches considered:
  - Maintain present structure of GFSM 2014 with SOE-specific paragraphs and text boxes appended to core chapters (Recommendation 3).
  - Produce a stand-alone applied compilation guide if strong international GFS community support exists (Recommendation 4).
  - Introduce a supplementary statement in the analytic framework for interactions between general government and public corporations (Recommendation 1).
  - Research COFOG application to market SOEs as part of post-GFSM 2014 update research agenda (Recommendation 2).

- Practical constraints and potential benefits:
  - Any approach should balance compiler burden against analytical gains.
  - Supplementary materials and case studies can provide pragmatic examples to address national practice differences.
  - Even with refined conceptual guidance, national institutional, legal, and resource constraints may continue to hinder complete public sector coverage.

*Discussion Note authors and Task Team: Eduard Moskalenko (Lead author), Foyzunnesa Khatun (Co-author).*


### 33.      Appending core statements with new memorandum items presents an alternative to

### Appending core statements with memorandum items; COFOG application to public corporations; structure of SOE guidance

### Memorandum items vs. supplementary statement (paragraphs 33–36)
- Appending core statements with new memorandum items is presented as an alternative to embedding new breakdowns into the core table structure (33).
- GFSM 2014 suggests reporting memorandum items including various definitions and valuations of debt, stocks of arrears and explicit contingent liabilities, as well as acquisitions and disposals of non-financial assets (33).
- Hypothetical introduction of additional memorandum items could capture interactions between government and public corporations, disclosing analytically useful information while avoiding changes to core transaction and stock classifications or introducing a supplementary statement (33).
- Practical challenges of memorandum items:
  - Memorandum items are not given the same attention as core reporting elements and often remain unreported (34).
  - Interactions with public corporations take many forms; memorandum items would need either very broad definitions (potentially reducing usefulness) or a very large number (making the option substantively similar but less coherent than a supplementary table described under option A2) (34).
- Draft recommendation:
  - The Task Team recommends Option A2: Introduce a supplementary statement on interactions between general government and public corporation sectors into the GFS analytic framework (35).
  - Rationale for Option A2:
    - Offers greater clarity regarding relationships and exposures between general government and public corporation sectors (36).
    - Recognizes scope for further improvements as country capacity and data availability improve (36).
    - Can be implemented without requiring changes to the core framework, supporting enhanced analysis of fiscal risks and government obligations linked to public corporations (36).

### Issue B — Application of COFOG to expenditure incurred by market SOEs (paragraphs 37–50)
- Background:
  - GFSM 2014 encourages use of COFOG for reporting government expenditure but does not provide explicit guidance on whether or how it should be extended to public corporations (37).
  - Manuals by the UN Statistics Division and Eurostat offer no reference to functional classification of public corporations’ expenditure (37).
  - The Global Consultation on the Initial List of Issues for the Update of COFOG found COFOG data for public corporations (or SOEs) were produced by 11% (n=8) of compiler respondents; 14% (n=7) of user respondents indicated use of COFOG data for public corporations (or SOEs) (38).
  - Inconsistent application of COFOG to public corporations hinders international comparability of functional breakdowns and may bias public sector-level functional analysis where activities are administered through market SOEs (39).
- Options identified (40–49):
  - Option B1: Maintain current guidance without explicit direction on COFOG use for public corporations (42).
    - Pros: preserves flexibility; avoids demands on limited resources; avoids changes to data collection/processing (42).
    - Cons: absence of functional information on public corporations’ expenditure can limit assessment of public sector involvement across functions and reduce international comparability (42).
  - Option B2: Encourage use of COFOG for reporting public corporations’ expenditure (43–46).
    - Potential benefits: enhances functional comparability across the public sector; improves transparency and comprehensiveness of public sector activities (43).
    - Conceptual challenges: COFOG was designed for non-market government expenditure; public corporations are market producers and their expenditures may not reflect the value of goods/services delivered or may relate to commercial operations, risking conflation with government service provision (44).
    - Practical barriers: many countries lack systems, resources, or institutional mandates to collect and classify detailed expenditure data for public corporations; financial statements often lack transaction-level purpose information needed to map to COFOG (45).
    - Additional guidance development could exceed the GFSM 2014 update scope and the issue is not on the COFOG update research agenda; research could be included in a post-GFSM Update agenda to assess demand and feasibility (46).
  - Option B3: Discourage use of COFOG for reporting public corporations’ expenditure (47).
    - Rationale: recognizes distinct nature of public corporations and challenges of applying COFOG.
    - Risk: could be perceived as reducing transparency where meaningful PC data are or could be produced (47).
  - Option B4: Offer guidance on how and when COFOG could be applied to public corporations (48–49).
    - Approach: outline circumstances where COFOG application is analytically useful (e.g., quasi-fiscal activities aligned with government functions) and explain why COFOG is unsuitable for market activities (48).
    - Limitation: conceptual challenges from Option B2 apply; preparing such guidance may not be viable within the GFSM 2014 update timescale and may need inclusion in a post-update research agenda (49).
- Draft recommendation:
  - The Task Team recommends Option B1 (50).
    - The global consultation on the discussion note will assess compilation and use of COFOG data for public corporations to determine if further research is warranted (50).
    - The issue is not currently part of the COFOG update’s research agenda; assessing actual demand will inform whether future recommendations are needed (50).
    - Any research should be conducted jointly by the IMF and the UN Statistics Division, custodians of the GFSM and COFOG respectively, responsible for managing associated revision processes (50).

### Issue C — Structure and presentation of SOE guidance in the GFSM (background and options; paragraphs 31–36)
- Background:
  - The GFSM already provides ample general guidance on treatment of all publicly controlled entities, including SOEs, but information relating to SOEs and transactions between SOEs and government is dispersed across the manual (31).
  - Lack of tangible examples of conceptual application to real-world SOEs complicates interpretation; global challenges in applying GFSM 2014 methodology to SOEs suggest considering improved presentation and elaboration on practical data compilation and analysis (31).
  - GFSM 2014 and GFSM 2001 have been largely limited to conceptual guidance; practical considerations and applied examples have been discussed in stand-alone papers or guides (33).
  - European practice: Eurostat’s Manual on Government Deficit and Debt provides practical application and case studies; such relatable examples are generally missing at a global level (33, footnote context).
- Options to address presentation (32–36):
  - Option C1: Maintain status quo with no changes to presentation of conceptual guidance applicable to SOEs (34–35).
    - Observation: SOE-related conceptual guidance is dispersed; finding relevant information requires familiarity with the manual structure or search effort (34).
    - Retaining present structure and content (subject to other research projects) is unlikely to improve accessibility and may perpetuate interpretation and compliance challenges (35).
  - Option C2: Move guidance on transactions between SOEs and government to a newly created chapter (36).
    - Potential benefits: a single coherent chapter could aid understanding, reduce expertise required to apply guidance, and be particularly beneficial in countries with high staff turnover (36).
    - If additional statements on interactions between general government and SOEs (or equivalent breakdowns within core statements) are added to the framework, the new chapter would contain compilation-relevant information (36).

*Source: GFSM 2014 Update Consultation: March 2026 — discussion note (Task Team recommendations and options).*

### 37. Consolidation of guidance on transactions between government and SOEs in a single new

### 37. Consolidation of guidance on transactions between government and SOEs in a single new chapter may lead to duplication

### Core issue and context
- GFSM 2014 Appendix A3: Debt and Related Operations covers debt-related operations that typically take place between government and SOEs but can also happen between government and private sector entities (examples: private infrastructure companies and banks deemed to be of national importance).
- Consolidating all SOE-related guidance into a single new chapter or appendix would risk duplicating guidance that applies equally to transactions with public and private corporations.
- Many principles applicable to government interactions with “market” SOEs are equally applicable to government interactions with private corporations; “non-market” SOEs are treated similarly to other extrabudgetary units of government (EBUs).
- GFSM 2014 Update Consultation: March 2026.

### Options considered for consolidation
- Option C3: Introduce an appendix summarizing SOE-related guidance and providing references to the relevant text in the core chapters, without making significant changes to those core chapters (beyond amendments from other GFSM 2014 update projects).
- Option C4: Maintain the present structure of the manual, appending core chapters with paragraphs (or text boxes) on SOE-specific considerations.

### Assessment of an appendix vs. preserving core structure
- The extensiveness of existing guidance applicable to SOEs may render a new appendix redundant because:
  - Difficulty in separating SOE-specific and not SOE-specific transaction guidance in core GFSM chapters would force paraphrasing or referencing much of Chapters 2 and Appendix A3 and consolidating specific guidance distributed across the manual.
  - GFSM appendices generally add genuinely new material; the SOE appendix would largely repeat or repackage existing core content unless accompanied by substantive presentation changes (for example, new “of which” breakdowns or supplementary statements).
- A new appendix may be justified if it also consolidates guidance on compilation of new statements or breakdowns introduced elsewhere.

### Accessibility of existing guidance
- GFSM 2014 provides ample conceptual guidance on SOEs but the sector classification guidance is not universally accessible:
  - The sector classification guidance is nearly 30 pages and is among the most comprehensive and among the less understood.
  - Chapter 2 follows the System of National Accounts 2008 (2008 SNA) structure and terminology; the sector classification decision tree in Figure 2.4 requires familiarity with institutional units, market production, and economically significant prices.
  - These concepts are intuitive to national accountants but challenging for finance officials lacking exposure to macroeconomic statistics beyond GFS.
- The interpretation difficulties complicate application of GFS principles in countries where Ministry of Finance staff produce fiscal statistics.

### Use of targeted text boxes and table amendments to improve accessibility
- Recommendation to add a small number of additional text boxes to summarize complex methodology areas while preserving core harmonized terminology consistent with the System of National Accounts 2025 (2025 SNA) and BPM7.
- Proposed targeted text boxes (examples):
  - Chapter 2: Box on delineation between corporations (market) and extrabudgetary (nonmarket) units controlled by government; distinguishing the term SOE from the statistical notion of public corporation.
  - Chapter 4: Box on interpretation and analytical use of fiscal aggregates for public corporations and public sector as a whole.
  - Chapters 5 and/or 6: Box on SOE transactions that should be rearranged through government accounts.
  - Chapter 6: Box on application of the classification of the functions of government (COFOG) to public corporations.
  - Appendix A6: Box on the use of financial statements prepared in accordance with International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS), provided the topic is not already covered in the main text of the updated appendix.
- Existing tables and figures could be amended where differences between market and nonmarket units exist:
  - Append Table 5.1 Summary Classification of Revenue and Table 6.1 Summary Classification of Expense (and their derivatives) by inserting a column indicating whether each transaction can be applied to both or either GG and PC.
  - Alternatively, insert Annexes in Chapters 5 and 6 with a detailed matrix of permissible transaction x subsector combinations, noting some differences between subsectors of GG and PCs.
- Expected outcome: decrease risk of misclassifications where sector classification should be considered during transaction classification (examples of common mistakes include misclassifications of types of transfers and erroneous recording of tax revenue in the PC subsector).

### Draft recommendations on consolidation
- The Task Team recommends Option C4: Maintain the present structure of the manual, appending core chapters with paragraphs and text boxes on SOE-specific considerations.
- Rationale:
  - Requires limited changes to the manual, maintaining a familiar structure consistent with earlier GFSMs.
  - Embedding SOE considerations directly within relevant chapters makes guidance immediately accessible and context-specific.
  - The proposal does not seek to provide substantively new guidance beyond accommodating changes introduced through other GFSM update research projects; text boxes aim to clarify ambiguous or inaccessible core guidance.

### Issue D — Need for supplementary applied guidance outside GFSM
- Background:
  - Many common issues hindering SOE compilation fall outside the core manual scope; clarifications in the GFSM will not fully resolve compilation challenges.
  - Compilers would benefit from clear examples and case studies; application of sector classification and recording rules requires intermediate to advanced GFSM knowledge.
  - Increasing sophistication of accounting and statistical standards raises the relevance of applied guidance:
    - Compilers often lack access to primary financial data held in SOE financial management systems and rely on financial statements or questionnaires.
    - IPSAS/IFRS and SNA/GFSM accrual methodologies are not fully aligned.
    - New divergences include IFRS 16 Leases / IPSAS 43 Leases, IFRS 17 Insurance contracts, and recognition of data assets in the 2025 SNA.
- Regional guidance variation limits utility as a global supplementary resource:
  - Example: Manual on Government Deficit and Debt (MGDD) provides case studies mainly aligned with ESA 2010 and European practice, limiting its applicability outside Europe.

### Options for supplementary applied guidance
- Option D1: Produce a stand-alone applied compilation guide.
  - Suggested topics for a comprehensive guide:
    - Sector classification of SOEs:
      - Distinction between national and statistical sector classification, including case studies and special cases.
      - Distinction between market and non-market entities, including case studies of market/non-market test, special cases, and advice on performing quantitative assessment.
      - Public sector institutional table (PSIT) and its use in wider economic statistics and public financial management (PFM).
    - Data collection and compilation issues:
      - Common data sources, periodicity, timeliness, and statistical techniques for predicting missing time series data (examples: nowcasting, linear interpolation, time series models, Kalman filter).
      - Approaches to data mapping and applicability of GFSM transaction categories to market and non-market entities.
      - Common conceptual adjustments: transaction and instrument recognition boundary, time of recording, valuation, and consistency between flow and balance sheet adjustments.
      - Consolidation: dealing with SOE subsidiaries; identification of intra-public sector flows and stocks; treatment of estimates recorded asymmetrically in accounting (examples: leased assets and grant revenue).
    - Selected issues:
      - Reconciliation between accounting and statistical aggregates.
      - Practical approaches to dealing with data sources not compliant with statistical requirements, including guidance based on IAS 20; IFRS 16 Leases / IPSAS 43 Leases; IFRS 17 Insurance contracts.
  - Caveat: production of a new guide is a major undertaking and should be justified by strong demand and likelihood of material improvements to GFS compilation.
- Option D2: Do not produce a stand-alone applied compilation guide.
  - Reasons this might be appropriate:
    - Obstacles to SOE data compilation often arise from national PFM practices (administrative or political decisions, persistent resource constraints, or data-sharing restrictions) that technical guidance alone cannot overcome.

### Draft recommendation on supplementary guidance
- The Task Team recommends Option D1: Produce a stand-alone applied compilation guide provided there is evidence of strong support for it among the international GFS community.
- Rationale:
  - There is clear demand for additional guidance demonstrated by global consultation results on the GFSM 2014 update research agenda and ongoing IMF interactions with country authorities.
  - Such guidance would support compilers and help resolve a range of compilation challenges not fully addressed in the core manual.
  - The feasibility and resource requirements of producing the guide should be weighed against the GFSM 2014 update priorities and timeframe.

### Procedural notes and related research projects
- Substantive technical amendments and clarifications related to SOEs are being considered through GFSM Update Research Projects:
  - 2.1 Boundary between government and nonfinancial public corporations
  - 2.2 Boundary between government and financial public corporations
  - 2.9 Debt assumption and debt payments on behalf of others
  - 2.13 Equity for public corporations
  - 2.15 Treatment of capital injections by government into corporations
  - 2.16 Treatment of privatization
  - 2.27 Relationship between GFS and IPSAS (noted in relation to accounting/statistical divergences)
- Preliminary views of the GFSAC were discussed (an earlier version of the discussion note was discussed at the GFSAC meeting of January).

*GFSM 2014 Update Consultation: March 2026 — Discussion note on methodological guidance on compilation and analyzing SOE data (Consolidation of guidance on transactions between government and SOEs).*

### 2026. This version of the discussion note has addressed suggestions made by GFSAC members at that

### discussion-note-230-methodological-guidance-on-compilation-and-analyzing-soe-data-consultatio - 2026

### Background and status
- Version: 2026. This version of the discussion note has addressed suggestions made by GFSAC members at that meeting and the task team recommendations in the note are consistent with the preliminary views of most GFSAC members.
- Additional documentation: More information is available in the Summary of Discussions of the January 2026 GFSAC meeting.

### Questions for Global Consultation — overview
- Respondents are asked to indicate preferred options and explain reasons, and to comment on practicality, data compilation capacity, opportunities, and challenges.
- Four main issues for consultation: Issue A, Issue B, Issue C, Issue D.
- For each issue, respondents are requested to indicate their preferred option and provide supporting detail about current country practices and potential impacts of adoption.

### Issue A: Presentation of transactions and stocks between general government and public corporations
- Action requested:
  - Indicate preferred choice: Option A1, Option A2, Option A3, Option A4 or Option A5.
  - Explain reason for choice and provide additional comments or alternative proposals.
  - If Option A2 to A5 is adopted, assess practicality and likelihood for the country to compile necessary data; describe opportunities or challenges.
- Annex: Proposed Tables to address Issue A by Option include example supplementary statements, statements of operations, balance sheet formats, and “of which” breakdown variants.

Key elements from proposed Option A2: Statement of operations and balances between general government and public corporations
- Revenue from public corporations entries:
  - 1PC Revenue from public corporations
  - 11PC Taxes from public corporations
  - 14PC Other revenue from public corporations
  - 141PC Property income from public corporations
  - 1411PC Interest from public corporations
  - 1412PC Dividends from public corporations
  - 1413 Withdrawals of income from quasi-corporations
  - 1414 Property income from investment income disbursements
  - 1415PC Rent from public corporations
  - 1416 Reinvested earnings on foreign direct investment
  - 144PC Transfers not elsewhere classified from public corporations
  - 1441PC Current transfers from public corporations
  - 1442PC Capital transfers from public corporations
  - 142PC Sales and goods and services from public corporations
  - 143PC Fines, penalties, and forfeits from public corporations
  - 145PC Premiums, fees, and claims related to nonlife insurance and standardized guarantee schemes
- Expense to public corporations entries:
  - 2PC Expense to public corporations
  - 24PC Interest to public corporations
  - 251 Subsidies to public corporations
  - 28PC Other expense to public corporations
  - 2812 Withdrawals of income from quasi-corporations
  - 2813 Property expense for investment income disbursements
  - 2813PC Property expense for investment income disbursements
  - 2815PC Reinvested earnings on foreign direct investment
  - 282PC Transfers not elsewhere classified to public corporations
  - 2821PC Current to public corporations
  - 2822PC Capital to public corporations
  - 283PC Premiums, fees, and claims related to nonlife insurance and standardized guarantee schemes to public corporations
- Other lines:
  - 31 Net/gross investment in nonfinancial assets with public corporations
  - Placeholders for Transactions in financial assets; Transactions in liabilities; Asset positions with public corporations; Liability positions with public corporations

Key elements from proposed Option A3: Incorporating additional breakdowns into GFS statements
- Sample lines in Option A3 Statement of Operations:
  - 1 Revenue; 2 Expense; 11 Taxes; 21 Compensation of employees; 12 Social Contributions; 211 Wages and salaries; 212 Employers' social contributions; 2121 Actual employers’ social contributions; 2122 Imputed employers’ social contributions; 22 Use of goods and services; 23 Consumption of fixed capital; 24 Interest; 241 To nonresidents; 242 To residents other than general government; 2421 To resident public corporations; 2422 To residents other than public corporations; 25 Subsidies; 251 To public corporations; 26 Grants; 27 Social benefits; 28 Other expense; 281 Property expense other than interest; 2811 Dividends; 2812 Withdrawals of income from quasi-corporations; 2813 Property expense for investment income disbursements; 2814 Rent; 2815 Reinvested earnings on foreign direct investment; 282 Transfers not elsewhere classified; 283 Premiums, fees, and claims related to nonlife insurance and standardized guarantee schemes
- Sample property income and sales breakdowns:
  - 141 Property income; 1411 Interest; 14111 From nonresidents; 14112 From residents other than general government; 141121 From resident public corporations; 141122 From residents other than public corporations; 14113 From other general government units; 1412 Dividends; 14121 From public corporations; 14122 From units other than public corporations; 1413 Withdrawals of income from quasi-corporations; 1414 Property income from investment income disbursements; 1415 Rent; 14151 From public corporations; 14152 From units other than public corporations
  - 142 Sales of goods and services; 1421 Sales of market establishments; 1422 Administrative fees; 1423 Incidental sales by nonmarket establishments; 1424 Imputed sales of goods and services

Key elements from proposed Option A4: “Of which” categories in Statement of Operations and Balance Sheet
- Statement of Operations highlights:
  - Inclusion of “of which” qualifiers such as:
    - 141121 of which, from public corporations
    - 14121 of which, from public corporations
    - 14151 of which, from public corporations
    - 14411 of which, from public corporations
    - 14421 of which, from public corporations
    - 28211 of which, to public corporations
    - 28221 of which, to public corporations
    - 28221 of which, to public corporations (appears in multiple contexts)
  - Example line: 24 Interest; 24? To nonresidents; 242 To residents other than general government; 2421 To resident public corporations; and 24? To residents other than general government with “of which” for public corporations
- Balance Sheet highlights (Option A4):
  - 63 Liabilities; 6303 Debt securities [6213+6223] with “of which with public corporations”
  - 631 Domestic creditors; 6313 Debt securities with “of which with public corporations”
  - 632 External creditors; 6323 Debt securities

### Issue B: Application of COFOG to expenditure incurred by market SOEs
- Action requested:
  - Indicate preferred choice: Option B1, Option B2 or Option B3; explain reason and provide additional comments or alternative proposals.
  - Does the country compile expenditure data for public corporations using COFOG classifications? If yes, describe methods and provide links to published data.
  - If not, is there user demand for such data?
- Consultation expects information on country practice, user demand, and methodological feasibility.

### Issue C: Structure of the SOE guidance in the GFSM
- Action requested:
  - Indicate preferred choice: Option C1, Option C2, Option C3 or Option C4; explain reason and provide additional comments or alternative proposals.
  - If country currently compiles SOE data, would proposed recommendations enhance quality or scope of reporting? Provide details on potential improvements.
  - If country does not currently compile SOE data, would recommendations facilitate initiation of data collection and reporting? Describe opportunities and challenges.
- Focus: whether to change presentation and placement of SOE guidance within GFSM, and how that affects country reporting practices.

### Issue D: Supplementary applied guidance outside GFSM
- Action requested:
  - Indicate preferred choice: Option D1 or Option D2; explain reason and provide additional comments or alternative proposals.
  - If country currently compiles SOE data, would a stand-alone applied guide enhance quality or scope of reporting? Provide details on potential improvements.
  - If country does not compile SOE data, would a stand-alone applied guide facilitate initiation of data collection and reporting? Describe opportunities and challenges.

### Annex: Proposed tables and statement formats (summary)
- Table 1: Example supplementary statement — Option A2 (Statement of operations and balances between general government and public corporations) — detailed revenue and expense line items focused on flows to/from public corporations.
- Table 2: Incorporating additional breakdowns into GFS statements — Option A3 (Statement of Operations) — expanded functional and economic breakdowns and sector-specific flows (e.g., from public corporations, from other general government units, from residents/nonresidents).
- Table 3: Balance Sheet incorporating additional breakdowns — Option A3: Balance Sheet — expanded creditor/debtor breakdowns by counterparty (other general government units; public corporations; units other than public sector).
- Table 4: Statement of Operations incorporating “of which” categories — Option A4 — adds “of which” qualifiers to indicate amounts specifically involving public corporations.
- Table 5: Balance Sheet incorporating “of which” categories — Option A4 — adds “of which with public corporations” qualifiers to liability and debt securities lines.

### GFSM 2014 conceptual excerpts included for reference
- GFSM 2014 paragraph 1.5:
  - The basic concepts, classifications, and definitions employed in this Manual reflect economic principles that should be universally valid regardless of the circumstances in which they are applied. Therefore, the GFS framework is applicable to all types of economies regardless of the institutional or legal structure of a country’s government, the sophistication of its statistical development, the financial accounting system of government, or the extent of public ownership of for-profit entities. Nevertheless, the fact that the institutional and economic structures of countries differ greatly means that the various parts of this Manual will not be equally relevant.
- GFSM 2014 paragraph 2.1:
  - In principle, GFS should cover all entities that materially affect fiscal policies. Normally, fiscal policies are carried out by entities, established by political processes, wholly devoted to the economic functions of government (see paragraph 2.38), such as government ministries or municipal councils. The term “government” is often used as a collective noun for various combinations of entities in a country involved in the functions of government, or reference is made to the various individual governments of a country. For example, a country may have one central government; several state, provincial, or regional governments; and many local governments. Nonprofit institutions under government control may also exist. In addition to those entities, government-owned or controlled enterprises that engage in some commercial activities may be instruments of fiscal policy (see paragraphs 2.104–2.105). These government-owned enterprises, such as the central bank, post office, or railroad, which are often referred to as public corporations, state-owned enterprises, or parastatals in a legal sense, may be part of the general government or public sector, and statistics should be compiled for all of them.
- GFSM 2014 paragraph 2.63:
  - The public sector consists of all resident institutional units controlled directly, or indirectly, by resident government units—that is, all units of the general government sector and resident public corporations. Figure 2.3 illustrates the main components of the public sector. Statistics should be compiled for the general government and public sectors, as well as for all the subsectors of the general government and the public corporations subsector.
- GFSM 2014 paragraph 2.31:
  - The key to classifying a unit as a corporation in macro-economic statistics is not its legal status but rather the economic substance of the nature of the entity. The laws governing the creation, management, and operations of legally constituted corporations and other entities may vary from country to country, so that it is not feasible to provide a legal definition of a corporation that would be universally valid. Therefore, in macroeconomic statistics, the term corporation is not necessarily used in the same way as in the legal sense.

---


_Source: https://www.imf.org/-/media/files/data/statistics/gfsm/global-consultations/discussion-note-230-methodological-guidance-on-compilation-and-analyzing-soe-data-consultatio.pdf_