The invented Civic Ledger Compact on this demonstration front page points towards a sound principle but stops short of a complete settlement. Publishing 72% of procurement spending would make government more legible. It would not, by itself, make government answerable. A citizen who identifies an unexplained payment needs somewhere to take the question, and an institution obliged to consider it. Without that obligation, transparency risks becoming a service offered on the administration’s terms: extensive when convenient, incomplete when embarrassing and silent when challenged. That is a publishing policy, not a democratic guarantee.

The compact’s proposed 45-day response deadline should therefore be treated as a core provision, not administrative decoration. Its $240 million technical fund could finance useful infrastructure, but the economic significance of both commitments depends on implementation. Consider an illustrative member government with $10 billion in annual procurement: the 72% publication target would expose $7.2 billion to scrutiny while leaving $2.8 billion outside it. Those are hypothetical amounts, not additional reported commitments. They nevertheless clarify the stakes. A large disclosed majority can coexist with a substantial blind spot, particularly if exemptions cover the contracts most vulnerable to favouritism.

Public purchasing is where administrative procedure becomes economic policy. Contracts determine which firms obtain working capital, which suppliers can expand and whether taxpayers receive the goods they have financed. Poor records favour incumbents with personal access to officials; searchable records can lower the cost of entry for smaller competitors. But a database cannot explain why a bid was rejected or why a contract became more expensive after award. Nor can it distinguish an innocent accounting discrepancy from a deliberate attempt to obscure a payment. Those tasks require officials to give reasons and independent institutions to test them.

Read more: Productivity statistics should make room for the cost of waiting

The compact should consequently define coverage by value, not merely by the number of documents uploaded. In the same illustrative $10 billion budget, excluding just 20 contracts worth $50 million each would conceal $1 billion, or 10% of total procurement spending. Publishing thousands of minor purchases would not compensate for that omission. Coverage also needs to follow money through amendments, subcontracting and final settlement. Otherwise, an administration could disclose a modest initial award while leaving its eventual cost obscure. A credible annual report would reconcile published payments against audited procurement expenditure and explain every material gap.

The potential financial return is meaningful, but supporters should resist presenting it as automatic. A hypothetical 1% reduction in prices across the $7.2 billion disclosed portion would save $72 million annually, equal to 30% of the compact’s technical fund. That is an illustration of scale, not a forecast: disclosure alone may produce no saving at all. Equally, better scrutiny could initially raise recorded costs by exposing previously hidden liabilities. Success should therefore be measured through competition, delivery and correction as well as headline savings. Cheap contracts that fail to deliver are not efficient contracts.

There is a respectable argument for beginning with publication and adding enforcement later. Procurement offices may have incompatible accounting systems, incomplete archives and too few trained staff. Requiring an immediate answer to every inquiry could divert resources from paying suppliers and running tenders. Yet sequencing can easily become postponement. The proposed 45-day limit is already a concession to administrative complexity, not a demand for instant explanation. Any extension should be exceptional, reasoned and published. An acknowledgement should not count as an answer, and transferring a request between departments should not restart the clock.

Read more: A model compact puts public contracts at the centre of democratic renewal

Enforcement need not mean an expensive legal contest for every disputed invoice. Appeals must be affordable, decisions public and auditors protected from arbitrary removal. To illustrate a workable division of resources, reserving 15% of the $240 million fund would provide $36 million for training, secure case management and the practical infrastructure of review, leaving $204 million for other technical work. That allocation is a proposal, not an existing compact term. Independent oversight would still require durable domestic funding and legal authority. Software cannot supply institutional independence, and temporary grants cannot substitute for a recurring budget that ministers cannot casually withdraw.

The next negotiating round should convert these principles into tests that members can actually fail. Quarterly reporting should show the share of procurement value disclosed, the proportion of substantive answers delivered within 45 days and the number of appeal decisions left unimplemented. A suggested first-year benchmark of 90% timely responses would permit no more than 100 late cases in a caseload of 1,000; even then, each delay would need explanation. Such a benchmark should measure implementation, not weaken the legal deadline. Repeated failure should trigger a public corrective plan, independently assessed rather than self-certified.

The compact deserves support only if its members accept that disclosure begins an accountability process rather than concluding one. Its technical fund can help build the machinery, and its publication target can establish a useful floor. The decisive question is whether citizens can compel consideration of what that machinery reveals. A government that publishes payments but reserves the right to ignore questions has surrendered little power. Democracy requires not simply access to records, but a practical, enforceable right to answers.