If you work anywhere near public finance, you will be familiar with a paradox: Ministries of finance are stronger. Fiscal transparency has improved. Supreme Audit Institutions (SAIs) are stepping up. Civil society and the media are more engaged. And yet the hardest outcomes – systemic shifts in fiscal accountability and equity - remain elusive. Gains exist, but too often they are isolated, fragile, and hard to scale. Meanwhile, democracy is under strain, inequalities keep rising, and fiscal space is very tight. If public resources are to serve the common good, the way we work must change.

That is why the Trust, Accountability, and Inclusion Collaborative (TAI), together with the Swiss State Secretariat (SECO), the Gates Foundation and the Ford Foundation, gathered 36 practitioners from across the fiscal landscape for four intensive days in Gerzensee, Switzerland (22–25 September 2025). We set out to test a different theory of change: to stop treating fiscal reform as a single-institution project and start working with the fiscal ecosystem—the strategic web of actors, incentives, relationships, and feedback loops that can shift power toward accountability and equity. The convening was part of the “Strengthening Fiscal Ecosystems for Accountability and Equity” project.

This post shares meeting highlights. You can find further information on the project on our website, including previous blog posts that help set the scene. Background research that shaped the dialogue - including country case studies on Brazil, Indonesia, and South Africa, plus a cross-country synthesis – will be released soon.

Why we met (and why now)

Democracy is under pressure, trust is eroding, and inequality is rising. At the same time, public finances are strained, forcing tough trade-offs in most countries. Whether those choices advance accountability and equity is not pre-ordained; it depends on political decisions in the public interest. Given this tension, our guiding question was: How do we help build powerful coalitions of state and non-state actors to bolster political commitment to manage these trade-offs responsibly and fairly?

The last two decades delivered real gains but they have not consistently added up to better services, fewer leakages, or fairer outcomes. Budgets shift when coalitions align and systems change – not when one agency improves on its own. Institutions are necessary; the relationships among them and the incentives shaping those relationships are decisive.

What we mean by an ecosystems approach

Public finance has become more complex and now involves more actors and deeper interdependence. An ecosystem lens embraces this complexity. The core insight is straightforward: no single institution drives fiscal outcomes. Instead, networks of actors – inside and outside government, foreign and domestic – form a dynamic system shaped by formal and informal rules, power, and incentives. If we want different budget outcomes, we must understand and leverage those relationships.

Three propositions drive the approach:

Inclusion strengthens accountability and equity: The more inclusive the process and the more balanced the power, the likelier decisions will serve the public interest.
Relationships drive change: An ecosystem approach focuses on relationships, mapping who depends on whom, how incentives work, and where politics enables or blocks progress.
Context is pivotal: There is no formula. The approach identifies strategic actors, coalitions, and reform openings that fit the country context.

We favored this approach for pragmatic reasons. Today’s shocks are interconnected and often unpredictable - an ecosystem approach is built for this. It also complements three decades of fiscal reform that centered on executives, by spotlighting how accountability actors can work as critical allies of the executive to improve outcomes. The approach focuses on network interdependence and illuminates reform pathways, showing where to push, where to build coalitions, and when to adapt strategy.

An ecosystems approach builds on shifts already emerging in practice. Civil society organizations – such as the International Budget Partnership, the Natural Resource Governance Institute, the Open Contracting Partnership – and many country partners are pursuing systemic strategies. SAIs are deepening ties with media, ministries of finance, and the courts to convert oversight into impact. In some countries, legislatures are testing their powers and partnering more widely. Donors like FCDO, SECO, and GIZ are supporting and using more ecosystemic approaches. And a growing body of research – from political science, systems thinking, political settlements and New Public Governance – provide intellectual scaffolding. (Our next blog will explore these connections.)

In short, in a tough political and fiscal environment, fiscal processes are both vital and contested arenas. The fiscal ecosystems project uses research, convening, and a systems lens to name these shifts, make sense of them, and nurture the relationships that can turn promising practices into broader change.

Who was in the room and how we worked

We invited a group that mirrors the system we hope to strengthen: ministries of finance, legislatures, SAIs, CSOs and social movements, journalists, academics, and donors and international institutions. It is rare for such a cross-section of practitioners to spend four days together. We designed the agenda to facilitate a candid, practical, sometimes challenging dialogue.

It worked. Many participants underscored the value of the group’s diversity of participants, and the energy that comes from discovering shared purpose across roles. We heard versions of: “I now realize I am not alone” and “there are many more allies I can count on.”

We partnered with Reos Partners, whose systems change methodology grounded the process. Three principles guided our work: systemic (see the whole), collaborative (work across difference), and experimental (learn by doing). We followed Chatham House rules to enable candor and protect privacy.

The dialogue moved through three stages. Early on, differences dominated as we tested assumptions using country research and lived experience. The middle stretch was the hardest, as habits, fears, and judgements tugged us back into silos. But as the conversations deepened, new shared ideas took shape as we rediscovered common purpose. By the final day, we were converging on an action agenda.

Where we landed

Small group discussions on day three helped bridge divergence and convergence. We debated priority gaps, the entry points and connectors that can close them, how crises and macro-shifts create opportunities and constraints, and how progressive coalitions form. We also clarified what we mean by “ecosystem” and teased out different types of accountabilities that drive reform.

On the final day, we prioritized six workstreams and a roadmap.

Value proposition – Define and advocate for the value of a fiscal ecosystem approach to spark interest, open entry points, and attract support. Practical actions: engage priority audiences and movements; tailor messages to user needs; and embed the value case in a handbook, policy dialogues, and comparative research.
Building momentum – Generate visibility, broaden participation, and grow institutional commitment. Priorities: establish an advisory structure and communications plan, publish audience specific materials, and plug into existing networks.
Applying the approach – Road-test and refine the method. Actions: produce a mapping tool to identify countries, topics, and actors; launch pilots in multiple settings; consolidate lessons into a refined model; and share learning to encourage adoption.
Research agenda – Build the evidence base on institutional behavior, coalitions, and power while maintaining a research-practice network. Beyond finalizing the Brazil, Indonesia, and South Africa papers and synthesis, explore comparative cases, widen the actor set (e.g. subnational government, state-owned enterprises, and central banks), and connect to live issues (e.g. debt, tax justice, etc.)
Resourcing – Fund the table, not just the tools. Coordinating amongst practitioners, raise visibility at high profile meetings, and embed the framework in bilateral and multilateral funding so that it sticks locally and globally.
Measuring success – Define a clear theory of change and results framework that tracks collaboration and institutional change, not just outputs. Share a common tracking tool with baselines and periodic country updates.

The power of the plan is its compounding impact. All six follow the same arc – foundations, experimentation, consolidation, and learning – so progress in one accelerates the others. The value proposition and research agenda shape narrative and evidence; momentum and resourcing build the coalition and means; applying the approach turns ideas into practice; and measurement closes the loop as we learn and scale.

Commitments we heard

In the closing session, participants reflected on how they will test and adapt the approach in their own institutions.

Civil society will identify spaces to experiment, build cross-sector collaborations, deepen legislative engagement, amplify the work through networks, connect institutions, and contribute to country research.
SAIs and legislatures will broaden their lens from oversight to insight – moving beyond compliance to promote learning, collaborating with more diverse actors, focusing on systemic improvements, strengthening capabilities, and testing and replicating collaborative approaches. A shift from independence to interdependence is a priority.
Academics will advance comparative and bilateral research on fiscal ecosystems and promote scholar-practitioner dialogue.
International institutions will align diagnostics with an ecosystem lens and involve a wider set of actors; consider 1–2 joint country demonstration projects; use regional platforms to promote coherence of approaches, strengthen mechanisms for sustained engagement, and align widely used existing resources – while setting realistic expectations for collaborations.
Donors will step up coordination and engagement on a fiscal ecosystems agenda, share the synthesis with other funders and align priorities, and support integration of the approach within multilateral and country-level initiatives.

What will stay with us

Summarizing four intense days is hard: conveying the energy in the room is harder. What defined the meeting was openness, honesty, humor, collaborative spirit – and a sense that “a different way to tell the story” was taking shape. Sometimes the right people, process, and timing line up: problems come into focus and challenges are named – and in some magical moments, the potential for collective action among unusual allies becomes palpable, and a clearer path to systemic change suddenly comes into focus. This felt like one of those moments.

TAI Event: Closing the Impact Gap: Collaborative learning and action on data, use and accountability

Share this article

Keep updated with TAI WEEKLY

Keep updated with
TAI WEEKLY