## 2.1 Boundary between government-controlled nonmarket producers engaged in nonfinancial activities (government units) and public nonfinancial corporations

## Source details

**Canonical URL:** [2.1 Boundary between government-controlled nonmarket producers engaged in nonfinancial activities (government units) and public nonfinancial corporations](https://www.imf.org/-/media/files/data/statistics/gfsm/global-consultations/march-2026/summary-of-consultation-responses-april-2026.pdf)

## Other formats

- [Markdown version](/-/media/files/data/statistics/gfsm/global-consultations/march-2026/summary-of-consultation-responses-april-2026.pdf.md)
- [Structured JSON version](/-/media/files/data/statistics/gfsm/global-consultations/march-2026/summary-of-consultation-responses-april-2026.pdf.json)

---

### DN 2.1 — Delineation between government units and public nonfinancial corporations
- Overall sentiment:
  - Broad support for strengthening guidance on the delineation between government units and public nonfinancial corporations.
  - Preference for more detailed principle-based guidance that combines quantitative and qualitative criteria, including through the use of decision trees, to improve consistency and transparency.
  - Less support for more rule-based options as being potentially over prescriptive or too focused on specific scenarios.
  - Emphasis on alignment with the 2025 SNA and flexibility to account for country circumstances, including data and capacity constraints.
- Market test and quantitative threshold:
  - Current 50 percent quantitative threshold generally seen as appropriate but insufficient on its own.
  - Most countries apply a combination of quantitative and qualitative criteria (control, competition, government intervention, profit motive) in line with GFSM 2014; three respondents apply exclusively the quantitative market test; one respondent applies only qualitative criteria.
  - Many advocate complementary qualitative criteria and multi‑year assessments; two respondents question the 50 percent threshold’s conceptual basis or prefer avoiding hard thresholds.
- Sum of costs approach (WACC and capital costs):
  - Respondents largely supported Option B2 (alignment with 2025 SNA and inclusion of debt and equity in capital costs).
  - Data constraints noted; several respondents favored flexibility or simplified/proxy approaches when full data are unavailable.
  - Data availability for calculating weighted cost of capital: mixed but leaning negative; under half reported having at least partial data.
  - Limited evidence that inclusion of depletion and/or rent would change sector classification; two respondents noted potential impacts for companies reliant on publicly owned natural resources.
- Public utility companies:
  - Large support for more detailed guidance (Task Team recommendation Option C2); cautions that monopoly status or regulation alone should not determine classification.
  - Classification challenges mainly arise for new entities, mixed activities, or where data gaps exist.
- Regulatory agencies — sectoral classification and market test:
  - Strong support for a simple decision‑tree (Task Team recommendation Option D2) to provide clearer, consistent classification and to distinguish regulatory functions from subsidy distribution.
  - Around one third of respondents indicated regulatory agencies both regulate markets and distribute subsidies; these dual‑role regulators are predominantly classified within general government.
  - Strong support for applying the same market test criteria used for other public corporations (Task Team recommendation Option E1); difficulty in separately identifying and reporting regulatory vs subsidy functions noted.
- Regulatory agencies — treatment of fees, licenses, revenue:
  - Majority support for excluding compulsory nontransferable license revenues from the market test (Task Team recommendation either Option F2 or F3), emphasizing principle‑based treatment aligned with 2025 SNA and exclusion of taxes from sales.
  - Some respondents noted agencies with tax‑imposing powers should be classified as government units.
- Regional/international classification and NPIs:
  - Broad support for following BPM7 approach for agencies controlled by economic unions (Task Team recommendation Option G3).
  - NPIs controlled by public corporations: responses split (Option H1: 10; Option H2: 8) with slight majority preferring current GFSM 2014 guidance.

### DN 2.6 — Extrabudgetary units (EBUs)
- General view:
  - Strong support for clarifying and refining guidance on EBUs and aligning language with the 2025 SNA.
  - Most respondents cautioned against further sub-sectorization of EBUs and viewed added reporting burden as likely to outweigh analytical benefits.
- Preferred approaches and examples:
  - Task Team recommendation Option A3 strongly supported (Responses: A1: 1; A2: 2; A3: 18).
  - Strong preference for expanded examples and principle‑based guidance to distinguish true extrabudgetary units from off‑budget funds (Task Team recommendation Option B3; Responses: B1: 1; B2: 2; B3: 18).
  - Strong support for keeping the status quo on sub‑sectorization (Task Team recommendation Option C1; Responses: C1: 20; C2: 1).
  - Common EBU types identified: public hospitals, universities, statutory boards, public trusts, autonomous special purpose funds, pension funds, regulatory agencies, sovereign wealth funds.

### DN 2.8 — Debt valuation issues
- Overall preferences:
  - Broad support for clarifying current guidance on debt valuation and aligning it with the 2025 SNA; caution against including detailed examples or excessive complexity within the GFSM.
  - Preference for principle‑based guidance in the GFSM supplemented by examples and additional compilation material outside of the GFSM.
- Nominal value of debt liabilities:
  - Strong support for aligning modified GFSM text with the 2025 SNA (Task Team recommendation Option A3; Responses: A1: 2; A2: 0; A3: 14).
  - Compilation practice: many derive nominal value using GFSM/SNA‑consistent methods; others rely on proxies (amortized cost, face value, modified cash systems).
- Interest accrual on debt securities:
  - Preference to retain existing GFSM 2014 guidance (Task Team recommendation Option B1; Responses: B1: 12; B2: 2; B3: 2).
  - Noted diverse practices (dirty price, clean price, effective interest method); many do not compile interest on an accrued basis.
- Asset‑backed securities (ABS):
  - Support for alignment with 2025 SNA without added prescriptive lists or examples (Task Team recommendation Option C1; Responses: C1: 12; C2: 2; C3: 2).
  - ABS generally not material in most respondents’ countries.
- Remaining / residual maturity:
  - Most report debt split into short‑ and long‑term by a one‑year (12‑month) threshold and support clarifying existing GFSM guidance without adding complexity (Task Team recommendation Option D1; Responses: D1: 10; D2: 4; D3: 2).

### DN 2.9 — Debt assumption and debt payments on behalf of others
- General stance:
  - Strong support for proposals clarifying treatment of debt assumption and debt payments on behalf of others and for consistency with the 2025 SNA and BPM7.
  - Need for improved guidance to distinguish temporary liquidity support from permanent debt assumption.
- Treatment of debt assumption:
  - Strong support for revising guidance in line with the 2025 SNA (Task Team recommendation Option A2; Responses: A1: 2; A2: 11; A3: 0).
  - Requests for practical guidance on interpreting “effective legal claim” and “a realistic probability that the claim will be paid”; preference for operational criteria drawn from legally enforceable contracts and forward‑looking financial indicators; some favor simplified objective criteria from IPSAS/IFRS.
- Debt assumption when former debtor no longer exists:
  - Strong support for revising guidance in line with BPM7 to avoid fictitious transfers (Task Team recommendation Option B2; Responses: B1: 2; B2: 11).
- Debt payments on behalf of others:
  - Strong support for maintaining baseline GFSM guidance with further clarifications (Task Team recommendation Option C2; Responses: C1: 2; C2: 11; C3: 0).
  - Practical guidance requested to distinguish “temporary liquidity difficulties” from “permanent solvency problems” using past repayment history and forward‑looking projections; preference for simple objective criteria feasible under data and capacity constraints.
- Cash-basis reporting:
  - Support for memorandum reporting of debt assumptions for countries reporting GFS on a cash basis (Task Team recommendation Option D3; Responses: D1: 3; D2: 2; D3: 8); phased implementation and feasibility noted.

### DN 2.30 — Methodological guidance on compilation and analyzing SOE data
- Overall direction:
  - Broad support for targeted changes to enhance guidance on compiling and analyzing state-owned enterprise (SOE) data.
  - Most respondents favored introduction of a supplementary statement on government–SOE interactions with additional guidance throughout the GFSM via focused paragraphs or text boxes.
  - Support for not introducing new guidance on the application of COFOG to SOEs and for developing separate applied guidance, outside of the GFSM, to address practical compilation challenges.
- Presentation of transactions and stocks between general government and public corporations:
  - Task Team recommendation Option A2; responses mixed but majority view adoption practical where accounting records and public corporation financial statements exist; phased implementation recommended and challenges noted (data quality, subnational coverage, reporting burden).
  - Responses by option (chart values shown): Option A1: 3; Option A2: 2; Option A3: 8.
- Application of COFOG to market SOEs:
  - Most do not compile COFOG for public corporations due to conceptual concerns and capacity constraints (Task Team recommendation Option B1; Responses: B1: 15; B2: 0; B3: 3; B4: 1).
  - Limited user demand for COFOG-based expenditure data for public corporations; where demand exists it is often issue‑specific.
- Structure of SOE guidance:
  - Broad support for retaining the present GFSM structure with targeted clarifications and text boxes on SOE considerations (Task Team recommendation Option C4; Responses: C1: 3; C2: 0; C3: 2; C4: 14).
- Supplementary applied guidance outside GFSM:
  - Majority favor a stand‑alone applied guide to enhance reporting quality and scope (Task Team recommendation Option D1; Responses: D1: 15; D2: 4).

### DN 2.31 — GFS within fiscal analysis and policymaking
- General preference:
  - Broad support for strengthening use of government finance statistics (GFS) for fiscal analysis and policymaking while keeping such guidance outside the core GFSM.
  - Respondents favored retaining fiscal indicators as supplementary material and welcomed expanded guidance on links with PFM, fiscal surveillance, and risk analysis.
- Specific issues and responses:
  - Remove Annex of Chapter 4 but retain Fiscal Indicators as appendix/supplementary reference: Agree: 13; Disagree: 3. Over three‑quarters supported removing the Annex while retaining Fiscal Indicators as supplementary material to keep GFSM focused on core conceptual guidance.
  - Integration of GFS and Public Financial Management (PFM): Agree: 14; Disagree: 2. Strong support for expanded guidance outside the GFSM with suggested practical tools and visual aids.
  - GFS links with international fiscal analysis and surveillance: Agree: 14; Disagree: 2. Nearly all favor expanded guidance outside the GFSM to strengthen cross‑country comparisons, IMF surveillance, debt sustainability analysis, fiscal risk assessment, and trend analysis.
  - GFS supplementary information to support fiscal analysis: Agree: 14; Disagree: 2. Wide support for expanded supplementary guidance outside the GFSM for more detailed, practical, and frequently updated analytical support including country examples and case studies.

- Implementation note:
  - All feedback from the consultation will be carefully considered when advancing each research project and drafting Proposed Recommendations.

### Annex 1 — Detailed responses: respondents overview
- Number of responses: 24
- By respondent type and region:
  - Country authorities in: 21* (21 responses were received from authorities in 15 different countries)
  - Africa (AFR): 2
  - Asia & Pacific (APD): 3
  - Europe (EUR): 4
  - Middle East & Central Asia (MCD): 3
  - Western Hemisphere (WHD): 9
  - Individuals (Experts): 3
  - Total: 24
- By organization:
  - Ministry of Finance (MoF): 10
  - National Central Bank (NCB): 4
  - National Statistics Institute (NSI): 7
  - Independent Expert (Expert): 3
  - Total: 24
- By areas of expertise / interest (main interest in Government Finance Statistics):
  - GFS compilation: 16
  - Compilation of other macroeconomic statistics (e.g., national accounts, balance of payments): 3
  - Policymaking: 1
  - GFS analysis and use (e.g., analyst, academic): 1
  - Other (2 compilers, 1 user): 3
  - Total: 24
- Respondent composition note: majority compilers (87%) vs users (13%) as indicated.

*Summary of consultation responses, April 2026.*

### 2.1 Boundary between government-controlled nonmarket producers engaged in

### 2.1 Boundary between government-controlled nonmarket producers engaged in nonfinancial activities (government units) and public nonfinancial corporations

### DN 2.1 — Delineation between government units and public nonfinancial corporations
- Broad support for strengthening guidance on the delineation between government units and public nonfinancial corporations.
- Preference for more detailed principle-based guidance that combines quantitative and qualitative criteria, including through the use of decision trees, to improve consistency and transparency.
- Less support for more rule-based options due to concerns they would be over prescriptive and/or too focused on specific scenarios.
- Some support for using select indicators alongside a decision tree approach when assessing sector classification for units engaged in nonfinancial activities.
- The current 50 percent quantitative threshold was generally seen as appropriate but insufficient on its own.
- Emphasis on alignment with the 2025 SNA and flexibility to account for country circumstances, including data and capacity constraints.

### DN 2.6 — Extrabudgetary units (EBUs)
- Strong support for clarifying and refining guidance on EBUs.
- Most respondents cautioned against further sub-sectorization of EBUs.
- Valued clearer definitions, expanded examples, and principle-based criteria to distinguish EBUs from off-budget funds.
- Nearly all respondents viewed the added reporting burden of further sub-sectorization as likely to outweigh analytical benefits.

### DN 2.8 — Debt valuation issues
- Broad support for clarifying current guidance on debt valuation and aligning it with the 2025 SNA.
- Caution against including detailed examples or excessive complexity within the GFSM.
- Support for:
  - Clearer definitions of nominal value,
  - Improved guidance on interest accrual,
  - Clarification on residual maturity.
- Preference for principle-based guidance in the GFSM supplemented by examples and additional compilation material outside of the GFSM.

### DN 2.9 — Debt assumption and debt payments on behalf of others
- Strong support for proposals clarifying treatment of debt assumption and debt payments on behalf of others.
- Emphasis on consistency with the 2025 SNA and BPM7.
- Need for improved guidance to distinguish between temporary liquidity support (indicating debt payments on behalf of others) and permanent debt assumption.

### DN 2.30 — Methodological guidance on compilation and analyzing SOE data
- Broad support for targeted changes to enhance guidance on compiling and analyzing state-owned enterprise (SOE) data.
- Most respondents favored introduction of a supplementary statement on government–SOE interactions with additional guidance provided throughout the GFSM via focused paragraphs or text boxes.
- Support for:
  - Not introducing new guidance on the application of COFOG to SOEs,
  - Developing separate applied guidance, outside of the GFSM, to address practical compilation challenges.

### DN 2.31 — GFS within fiscal analysis and policymaking
- Broad support for strengthening the use of government finance statistics (GFS) for fiscal analysis and policymaking while keeping such guidance outside the core GFSM.
- Respondents favored retaining fiscal indicators as supplementary material and welcomed expanded guidance on links with PFM, fiscal surveillance, and risk analysis.
- Many emphasized flexibility, clearer use cases, and the value of practical examples, while cautioning against significantly expanding the core GFSM.

- All feedback from the consultation will be carefully considered when advancing each research project and drafting Proposed Recommendations.

*Summary of consultation responses, April 2026.*

### Annex 1: Detailed Responses

### Annex 1: Detailed Responses (summary-of-consultation-responses-april-2026)

### Respondents — overview
- Number of responses: 24
- By region:
  - Country authorities in: 21* (21 responses were received from authorities in 15 different countries)
  - Africa (AFR): 2
  - Asia & Pacific (APD): 3
  - Europe (EUR): 4
  - Middle East & Central Asia (MCD): 3
  - Western Hemisphere (WHD): 9
  - Individuals (Experts): 3
  - Total: 24
- By organization:
  - Ministry of Finance (MoF): 10
  - National Central Bank (NCB): 4
  - National Statistics Institute (NSI): 7
  - Independent Expert (Expert): 3
  - Total: 24
- By areas of expertise / interest (main interest in Government Finance Statistics):
  - GFS compilation: 16
  - Compilation of other macroeconomic statistics (e.g., national accounts, balance of payments): 3
  - Policymaking: 1
  - GFS analysis and use (e.g., analyst, academic): 1
  - Other (2 compilers, 1 user): 3
  - Total: 24

*Respondent composition: majority compilers (87%) vs users (13%) as indicated.

---

### DN 2.1 — Boundary between government-controlled nonmarket producers and public nonfinancial corporations (government units)

- Issue A: More prescriptive guidance on the market test
  - Options presented: A1, A2, A3, A4
  - Task Team recommendation: any of Options A2, A3 and A4
  - Responses by option (chart values shown): Option A1: 2; Option A2: 9; Option A3: 1; Option A4: 6
  - Key respondent findings:
    - Most countries do not rely solely on the market test; they apply a combination of quantitative and qualitative criteria in line with GFSM 2014 (control, competition, government intervention, profit motive).
    - Three respondents apply exclusively the quantitative market test.
    - One respondent applies only qualitative criteria and does not use the market test.
    - Majority consider the 50 percent threshold appropriate as a simple, standardized reference, but many stress it should not be applied in isolation and advocate complementary qualitative criteria and multi‑year assessments.
    - Two respondents question the 50 percent threshold’s conceptual basis or prefer avoiding hard thresholds.

- Issue B: Sum of Costs Approach
  - Options presented: B1, B2, B3
  - Task Team recommendation: Option B2
  - Responses by option (chart values shown): Option B1: 2; Option B2: 9; Option B3: 1; (chart repeated shows 6 elsewhere — indicative of multiple charts)
  - Key respondent findings:
    - Respondents largely supported Option B2 for conceptual soundness and alignment with the 2025 SNA, noting inclusion of both debt and equity in capital costs (WACC).
    - Data constraints noted; several respondents favored flexibility or simplified/proxy approaches when full data are unavailable.
    - Data availability for calculating weighted cost of capital: mixed but leaning negative; under half reported having at least partial data (mainly audited financial statements under IPSAS/IFRS); many reported data unavailable, uneven, or not systematized, especially for government own‑account capital formation.
    - Limited evidence that inclusion of depletion and/or rent would change sector classification; most respondents not aware of affected public entities; two respondents noted potential impacts for companies reliant on publicly owned natural resources.

- Issue C: Public utility companies
  - Options presented: C1, C2, C3
  - Task Team recommendation: Option C2
  - Responses by option (chart values shown): Option C1: 3; Option C2: 13; Option C3: 2
  - Key respondent findings:
    - Large support for more detailed guidance (Option C2); cautions that monopoly status or regulation alone should not determine classification.
    - Option C3 seen by some as overly prescriptive or complex.
    - Classification challenges mainly arise for new entities, distinguishing market vs nonmarket activities, or where data gaps exist; many long‑established entities with accounting data pose few challenges.

- Issue D: Regulatory agencies — clarity in sectoral classification
  - Options presented: D1, D2, D3
  - Task Team recommendation: Option D2
  - Responses by option (chart values shown): Option D1: 1; Option D2: 17; Option D3: 0
  - Key respondent findings:
    - Strong support for a simple decision‑tree (Option D2) to provide clearer, more consistent guidance for classifying regulatory agencies and distinguishing regulatory functions from subsidy distribution.
    - Around one third of respondents indicated regulatory agencies exist that both regulate markets and distribute subsidies; these dual‑role regulators are predominantly classified within general government.

- Issue E: Regulatory agencies — market test
  - Options presented: E1, E2
  - Task Team recommendation: Option E1
  - Responses by option (chart values shown): Option E1: 17; Option E2: 1
  - Key respondent findings:
    - Strong support for applying the same market test criteria used for other public corporations (Option E1) and maintaining coherence with GFSM and SNA principles.
    - Around one third of respondents reported regulatory agencies involved in both subsidy distribution and market activities; most noted it is difficult or not feasible to separately identify and report these functions.

- Issue F: Regulatory agencies — fees, licenses and revenue in the market test
  - Options presented: F1, F2, F3
  - Task Team recommendation: either Option F2 or Option F3
  - Responses by option (chart values shown): Option F1: 3; Option F2: 13; Option F3: 2
  - Key respondent findings:
    - Majority support for excluding compulsory nontransferable license revenues from the market test (Option F2); emphasis on principle‑based treatment aligned with 2025 SNA and exclusion of taxes from sales.
    - Some respondents noted agencies with tax‑imposing powers should be classified as government units, but saw no need for a specific rule (Option F3).

- Issue G: Regulatory agencies — classification as regional or international institutions
  - Options presented: G1, G2, G3
  - Task Team recommendation: Option G3
  - Responses by option (chart values shown): Option G1: 2; Option G2: 1; Option G3: 15
  - Key respondent findings:
    - Broad support for G3 (follow BPM7 approach) and consistency with BPM7 and other international standards; limited national experience with agencies controlled by economic unions but guidance seen as useful.

- Issue H: NPIs controlled by public corporations
  - Options presented: H1, H2
  - Task Team recommendation: Option H1
  - Responses by option (chart values shown): Option H1: 10; Option H2: 8
  - Key respondent findings:
    - Responses broadly split; slight majority preferred maintaining current GFSM 2014 guidance (H1). Supporters of H1 feel current guidance is adequate; supporters of H2 want additional clarification to distinguish legal/funding relationships from control and sector classification.

---

### DN 2.6 — Further defining and subclassifying extrabudgetary units (EBUs)

- Issue A: Reviewing definition of EBUs in light of changes in the 2025 SNA
  - Options presented: A1, A2, A3
  - Task Team recommendation: Option A3
  - Responses by option (chart values shown): Option A1: 1; Option A2: 2; Option A3: 18
  - Key respondent findings:
    - Strong support for aligning language with the 2025 SNA and expanding coverage and clarifications (Option A3).
    - Common EBU types identified: public hospitals, universities, statutory boards, public trusts, autonomous special purpose funds, pension funds, regulatory agencies, sovereign wealth funds.

- Issue B: Clarifying guidance on identifying and differentiating EBUs
  - Options presented: B1, B2, B3
  - Task Team recommendation: Option B3
  - Responses by option (chart values shown): Option B1: 1; Option B2: 2; Option B3: 18
  - Key respondent findings:
    - Strong preference for expanded examples and principle‑based guidance that distinguishes true extrabudgetary units from off‑budget funds within central government (Option B3).

- Issue C: Sub‑sectorization of EBUs
  - Options presented: C1, C2
  - Task Team recommendation: Option C1
  - Responses by option (chart values shown): Option C1: 20; Option C2: 1
  - Key respondent findings:
    - Strong support for keeping the status quo and not splitting the extrabudgetary sector (Option C1), citing high compilation costs and limited analytical benefit.
    - Only one respondent favored sub‑sectorization (Option C2); several supporters of C1 noted that if a breakdown were required, a simple distinction between EBU funds and EBU producers or prioritizing COFOG classifications could be considered.

---

### DN 2.8 — Debt valuation issues

- Issue A: Nominal value of debt liabilities
  - Options presented: A1, A2, A3
  - Task Team recommendation: Option A3
  - Responses by option (chart values shown): Option A1: 2; Option A2: 0; Option A3: 14
  - Key respondent findings:
    - Strong support for aligning modified GFSM text with the 2025 SNA (Option A3).
    - Compilation practice for deriving nominal value: many derive nominal value using GFSM/SNA‑consistent methods (value at creation plus subsequent transactions and accrued interest) using accounting records or debt management systems; others rely on proxies (amortized cost, face value, or modified cash systems) due to data limitations.

- Issue B: Interest accrual on debt securities
  - Options presented: B1, B2, B3
  - Task Team recommendation: Option B1
  - Responses by option (chart values shown): Option B1: 12; Option B2: 2; Option B3: 2
  - Key respondent findings:
    - Preference to retain existing GFSM 2014 guidance (Option B1); respondents emphasize flexibility and note diverse practices (dirty price, clean price, effective interest method) and that many do not compile interest on an accrued basis.

- Issue C: Asset‑backed securities (ABS)
  - Options presented: C1, C2, C3
  - Task Team recommendation: Option C1
  - Responses by option (chart values shown): Option C1: 12; Option C2: 2; Option C3: 2
  - Key respondent findings:
    - Support for alignment with 2025 SNA without adding prescriptive lists or examples (Option C1).
    - ABS generally not material in most respondents’ countries; few reported ABS issuance or routine reporting in public sector debt statistics.

- Issue D: Remaining / residual maturity
  - Options presented: D1, D2, D3
  - Task Team recommendation: Option D1
  - Responses by option (chart values shown): Option D1: 10; Option D2: 4; Option D3: 2
  - Key respondent findings:
    - Most report debt split into short‑ and long‑term by a one‑year (12‑month) threshold, relying on contractual payment schedules and debt management systems.
    - Respondents mostly supported clarifying existing GFSM guidance without adding complexity (Option D1).

---

### DN 2.9 — Debt assumption and debt payments on behalf of others

- Issue A: Treatment of debt assumption
  - Options presented: A1, A2, A3
  - Task Team recommendation: Option A2
  - Responses by option (chart values shown): Option A1: 2; Option A2: 11; Option A3: 0
  - Key respondent findings:
    - Strong support for revising guidance in line with the 2025 SNA (Option A2).
    - Practical guidance requested on interpreting “effective legal claim” and “a realistic probability that the claim will be paid”; respondents prefer operational criteria drawn from legally enforceable contracts and forward‑looking financial indicators (cash flows, assets, repayment history), with some favoring simplified objective criteria from accounting standards (IPSAS/IFRS).

- Issue B: Debt assumption when the former debtor no longer exists
  - Options presented: B1, B2
  - Task Team recommendation: Option B2
  - Responses by option (chart values shown): Option B1: 2; Option B2: 11; Option B3: 0 (B3 label appears but only two options described)
  - Key respondent findings:
    - Strong support for revising guidance in line with BPM7 (Option B2) to avoid fictitious transfers and improve economic interpretation.

- Issue C: Treatment of debt payments on behalf of others
  - Options presented: C1, C2, C3
  - Task Team recommendation: Option C2
  - Responses by option (chart values shown): Option C1: 2; Option C2: 11; Option C3: 0
  - Key respondent findings:
    - Strong support for maintaining baseline GFSM guidance with further clarifications (Option C2).
    - Practical guidance requested to distinguish “temporary liquidity difficulties” from “permanent solvency problems” using both past repayment history and forward‑looking projections; respondents favor simple, objective criteria feasible under data and capacity constraints.

- Issue D: Treatment of debt assumption under cash basis of recording
  - Options presented: D1, D2, D3
  - Task Team recommendation: Option D3
  - Responses by option (chart values shown): Option D1: 3; Option D2: 2; Option D3: 8
  - Key respondent findings:
    - Support for memorandum reporting of debt assumptions for countries reporting GFS on a cash basis (Option D3) as useful for fiscal analysis; phased implementation and feasibility noted.

---

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

- Issue A: Presentation of transactions and stocks between general government and public corporations
  - Options presented: A1, A2, A3, A4, A5
  - Task Team recommendation: Option A2
  - Responses by option (chart values shown): Option A1: 3; Option A2: 2; Option A3: 8; Option A4: (not shown); Option A5: (not shown)
  - Key respondent findings:
    - Majority view adoption as practical/feasible where accounting records and public corporation financial statements exist; phased implementation recommended starting with most material items.
    - Challenges: data quality, subnational coverage, reporting burden, institutional capacity constraints outside central government.

- Issue B: Application of COFOG to expenditure incurred by market SOEs
  - Options presented: B1, B2, B3, B4
  - Task Team recommendation: Option B1
  - Responses by option (chart values shown): Option B1: 15; Option B2: 0; Option B3: 3; Option B4: 1
  - Key respondent findings:
    - Most respondents do not compile COFOG for public corporations due to conceptual concerns, commercial accounting focus, and data/capacity constraints.
    - Limited user demand for COFOG-based expenditure data for public corporations; where demand exists it is often issue‑specific (e.g., climate‑related expenditure analysis).

- Issue C: Structure of the SOE guidance in the GFSM
  - Options presented: C1, C2, C3, C4
  - Task Team recommendation: Option C4
  - Responses by option (chart values shown): Option C1: 3; Option C2: 0; Option C3: 2; Option C4: 14
  - Key respondent findings:
    - Broad support for retaining the present GFSM structure with targeted clarifications and text boxes on SOE considerations (Option C4).
    - Mixed views on whether recommendations would enhance quality/scope: some expect improvements in consolidation, transaction classification and fiscal risk analysis; others see limited benefit if SOE guidance is already well understood.

- Issue D: Supplementary applied guidance outside GFSM
  - Options presented: D1, D2
  - Task Team recommendation: Option D1
  - Responses by option (chart values shown): Option D1: 15; Option D2: 4
  - Key respondent findings:
    - Majority of respondents compiling SOE data consider a stand‑alone applied guide would enhance reporting quality and scope (improved consolidation, clearer treatment of dividends and transactions, stronger fiscal risk analysis).
    - Respondents not compiling SOE data broadly agreed a stand‑alone applied guide would facilitate initiation of data collection and reporting.

---

### DN 2.31 — GFS within fiscal analysis and policy making

- Issue A: Existing Guidance in GFSM 2014 (remove Annex of Chapter 4 but retain Fiscal Indicators as appendix/supplementary reference)
  - Responses by position (chart values shown): Agree: 13; Disagree: 3
  - Key respondent findings:
    - Over three‑quarters supported removing the Annex while retaining Fiscal Indicators as supplementary material to keep GFSM focused on core conceptual guidance and allow more flexible updates of indicators.
    - Opponents value the Annex’s familiarity and utility and argued for retention or substantial revision.

- Issue B: Integration of GFS and Public Financial Management (PFM)
  - Responses by position (chart values shown): Agree: 14; Disagree: 2
  - Key respondent findings:
    - Strong support for providing expanded guidance outside the GFSM on integration of GFS and PFM to strengthen policy analysis, budget processes, fiscal transparency and risk management.
    - Suggested practical tools and visual aids to demonstrate how GFS supports PFM outcomes.
    - Two respondents expressed reservations citing resource constraints or unclear added value.

- Issue C: GFS links with international fiscal analysis and surveillance
  - Responses by position (chart values shown): Agree: 14; Disagree: 2
  - Key respondent findings:
    - Nearly all respondents favor expanded guidance outside the GFSM to strengthen cross‑country comparisons, IMF surveillance, debt sustainability analysis, fiscal risk assessment, and trend analysis.
    - Supplementary format preferred to allow frequent updates and to preserve Manual as a stable principle‑based framework; two respondents raised concerns about perceived user demand and national relevance.

- Issue D: GFS supplementary information to support fiscal analysis
  - Responses by position (chart values shown): Agree: 14; Disagree: 2
  - Key respondent findings:
    - Wide support for providing expanded supplementary guidance outside the GFSM to enhance fiscal analysis, decision‑making, transparency, subsector coverage (including subnational governments), and cross‑cutting analyses relevant to fiscal sustainability and risk management.
    - Supplementary material seen as appropriate for more detailed, practical, and frequently updated analytical support including country examples and case studies.

---

---


_Source: https://www.imf.org/-/media/files/data/statistics/gfsm/global-consultations/march-2026/summary-of-consultation-responses-april-2026.pdf_