Session Profile: Aivar Sõerd
15th Riigikogu, 4th session, plenary session.
2024-11-13
Political Position
The political stance is strongly opposed to the current practice of activity-based budgeting, which is deemed ineffective, artificial, and incapable of achieving its theoretical objectives. It advocates for the budget to be adopted as law in the traditional cost- and resource-based form, relegating performance indicators to merely an informative appendix. The position is distinctly procedural and outcome-oriented, stressing the necessity of transparency regarding where the funds are actually allocated.
3 Speeches Analyzed
Topic Expertise
The speaker demonstrates profound expertise in state budget methodology and public finance, focusing on the practical shortcomings of activity-based budgeting. He/She employs technical terminology (metrics, interest cost) and provides specific, detailed examples drawn from the programs of the Ministry of Justice and the Ministry of Finance. To support his/her arguments, he/she references analyses conducted by the National Audit Office concerning five years of activity-based budgeting practice.
3 Speeches Analyzed
Rhetorical Style
The style is analytical, critical, and logic-based, relying on concrete examples and facts regarding the system's inadequacy. The tone is serious and emphasizes the practical failure of the system, while maintaining polite language. He/She presents his/her views argumentatively, also employing rhetorical questions ("Why couldn't it be so?").
3 Speeches Analyzed
Activity Patterns
The speaker is actively engaged in legislative oversight, evidenced by repeated questioning of ministry representatives, both within the Finance Committee and during the state budget proceedings in the Riigikogu. This demonstrates consistent involvement in scrutinizing the details of the budgetary process.
3 Speeches Analyzed
Opposition Stance
The main criticism is directed at the methodological guidelines issued by the Ministry of Finance and the inability of ministries (e.g., the Ministry of Justice) to link expenditures with results. The criticism is strong and focuses on the inadequacy of the system and procedures, rather than on individuals. He/She also disputes the position of the chairman of the Finance Committee that the activity-based budget can be improved in the coming years.
3 Speeches Analyzed
Collaboration Style
The style of cooperation indicates a reliance on the conclusions and summaries of the National Audit Office to strengthen their arguments and demonstrate the system's broader failure. There is no data regarding cooperation with other political factions or colleagues in supporting or opposing the draft legislation.
3 Speeches Analyzed
Regional Focus
The focus is entirely at the national level, addressing ministerial budgets, the state's debt burden, and nationwide programs (e.g., road investments). There is no regional or local focus present in the speeches, apart from a reference to the role of local government in street lighting.
3 Speeches Analyzed
Economic Views
Economic perspectives emphasize fiscal transparency, strict traceability of expenditures, and a lack of efficiency, citing 13% of unspent budget funds. Concern is expressed over the growth of the state's debt burden and the increased risk of insolvency, which is linked to the interest expenditure program. He/She advocates for adopting the budget in the traditional cost-based format.
3 Speeches Analyzed
Social Issues
Social issues are addressed solely to illustrate the inadequacy of budget metrics, citing as examples the public's sense of security on their home streets and the number of traffic fatalities. Direct stances on social policy topics are not presented; rather, these issues are utilized to criticize the budgetary methodology.
3 Speeches Analyzed
Legislative Focus
The legislative focus is on changing the structure of the State Budget Act, specifically opposing the current activity-based approach. The priority is restoring a cost-based budget as the foundation of the law and moving performance indicators into an informative appendix. He/She is critical of the draft bill in question, arguing that it fails to solve the underlying problems.
3 Speeches Analyzed