Just recently the IMF has endorsed Somalia, which will affirm its commitment to the New Deal on Friday.
http://www.newdeal4peace.org/news-and-events/third-international-global-meeting-of-the-international-dialogue-washington-dc-pm-19-april-2013/

Revenue and services and strengthening of fiscal capacity is a fundament of the New Deal for Engagement with Fragile States and even more pertinent for fragile states where half of the world’s poor will live by 2015.

We are trying to get the word out there before the event on Friday in Washington to establish a robust discussion as we do not
think that enough has changed since the agreement was launched, despite
the highest political commitment, including from Ban Ki-moon, and some sporadic implementation examples.
The meeting brings together a group of ministers from fragile states and OECD countries – mostly finance and international development – in DC to discuss the New Deal for Engagement in Fragile States, which was an agreement signed in 2011 that was meant to be a game changer in the way fragile countries and their partners worked together on peacebuilding issues and how aid is disbursed in those countries.

It is highly likely that none of the fragile states are on course to achieve an MDG, this event could be quite important as ministers attempt to integrate the New Deal into the post-MDG framework.This would mean two main things in practice.

1. That Peace would be explicitly recognised as a development goal, which shockingly it isn’t in the MDGs now

2. Under the New Deal framework governments of fragile states can decide the priorities for where all the aid they receive should go, not the donor, so to avoid the disastrous situations in Afghanistan and Iraq and help achieve transitions peace by building institutions based on transparency and accountability in the long-term.

So if you were to feature a brief post on your blog and support our twitter outreach, we would be hugely grateful @New_Deal_ and #NewDeal4Peace

Let me know what you think!

All the best,
Katharina
–
New Deal Communications Team
http://www.newdeal4peace.org
direct line: +44 (0)207 470 8801
71 75 Shelton Street, London, WC2H 9JQ

2. Objective
Government accounting is maintained by the government offices to know the position of public fund. Commercial accounting is maintained by business organizations to know the profit or loss and the financial position of the business.

3. Budget
Government accounting strictly follows the government budgeting system. commercial accounting does not follow the government budgeting system.

4. Basis
Government accounting is prepared on cash basis. Commercial accounting is prepared on cash as well as accrual basis.

5. Level Of Accounting
Government accounting has the system of central level and operating level accounting. Commercial accounting has no provision of central level and operating level accounting.

6. Rules And Provisions
Government accounting is strictly maintained by following the financial rules and provisions of government. Commercial accounting is maintained by following the rules and principles of ‘Generally Accepted Accounting Principles’.

7. Information
Government accounting provides information to the government about the receipts, transfer and deposition of public funds. Commercial accounting provides information to the concerned parties about the operating result and financial position of the business.

8. Auditing
An Auditor General Office audits the book of accounts kept under government accounting. A professional auditor can audit the books of accounts kept under commercial accounting.

Looking at transparency in the US, for example, I find it interesting that it is something that both sides of the political spectrum agree on. One side tends towards a more ‘let’s cut out any bureaucratic waste’ approach and the other tends toward a more ‘let’s be open, the people have a right to information’. Unfortunately we don’t have much of any other political ‘side’ to counter those 2 sides… In any case, transparency is something that you can find an angle on for almost anyone. Once you get into the weeds, there will likely be different ideas on which information should be open and very different incentives for transparency and accountability. It seems common that people/leaders/parties want everyone else to be more transparent, but thinks that their own stuff may need to be kept away from public eye for different reasons. An extreme case perhaps, but here’s an interesting viewpoint on secrecy within the Obama Administration and the public’s varying reactions to secrecy depending on political affiliation. http://www.salon.com/2011/12/28/snapshots_of_washingtons_essence/?source=newsletter

This is probably way off topic, but I think Tim answered your main question very well!

Many government buyers think that contracting large companies reduces risk. It seems that the opposite is true. Government organizations have very little leverage with large companies.

Could it be that information is simply getting better for smaller countries that are receiving more global attention like Mongolia and Timor-Leste?

For Mongolia in particular, please see my blog for a post exploring Mongolia’s leap in the TI ranking (http://blogs.ubc.ca/mongolia/2012/corruption-transparency-international/).