Search results

This paper presents a review of literature, aimed at analyzing and understanding the nexus of knowledge on the topic of government budgetary responses to COVID-19 and identifying gaps for future research directions on crisis budgeting.

A systematic literature review approach was conducted by considering scientific journal articles written in English and published through 2020–2022. The databases used for the literature search in this paper were Scopus and Web of Science, resulting in 41 articles for final review.

This review found that in a crisis, budgetary responses were greatly determined by perceived uncertainties. In the case of the COVID-19 crisis, governments seemed to prioritize economic recovery. While many studies have documented budgetary responses to the crisis, most were written in the beginning of the crisis through documentary content analysis, leaving significant research gaps. Thus, this review offers directions for future research concerning governmental response to perceived uncertainty, logic behind governments' budgeting strategies, sustainable development principles within crisis budgeting and the prioritization of economic considerations in a health crisis.

This paper is one of the first to present insights into the state of research regarding the topic of government budgeting during the COVID-19 crisis. In addition, it provides insights from the literature for anticipating future shocks and crises, along with directions for future researchers in developing their research agenda.

The peer review history for this article is available at: https://publons.com/publon/10.1108/IJSE-01-2023-0057

Hypothesizes that, for academics, while budgetary communication may be positively related to budgetary attitudinal response, this relationship is dependent on the level of influence allowed over the medium/long term goal set. For university administrators, it is not expected that the interaction between the level of influence and budgetary communication will be significant. These differing outcomes are expected because of the conflicting objectives that exist between the two groups. Tests the hypotheses by surveying academic heads of department and administrators from New Zealand universities. The results support the theorized expectations. Outlines the implications for university management and in particular the potential impact for planning structures.

The authors examine the Taiwanese government's budgetary responses to COVID-19, with a focus on the special budgets created for containing the virus, undertaking bailouts and providing economic stimulus. The authors assess the short-term and long-term fiscal implications of the budgetary measures and discuss how Taiwan's experiences could provide lessons for other countries for future emergencies.

The authors collect data from Taiwan's official documents and news reports and compare the special budgets proposed by the Taiwanese government during the Great Recession and the COVID-19 pandemic. The authors discuss lessons learned from the 2008–09 special budget and possible concerns of the 2020 special budgets. In the conclusions, the authors discuss potential long-term implications for Taiwan's budgetary system as well as possible lessons for other countries based on Taiwan's experiences

The authors found that the 2008–09 special budgets focused only on economic stimulus, whereas the 2020 special budgets covered COVID-19 treatments, bailouts and economic stimulus. In 2020, the Taiwanese government devised targeted bailout plans for industries and individuals most affected by the pandemic and created the Triple Stimulus Vouchers to boost the economy. Since the special budgets were largely funded through borrowing, the authors pointed out concerns for fiscal sustainability and intergenerational equity.

COVID-19 has changed how the world functions massively. This work adds to the literature on COVID-19 by providing Taiwan's budgetary responses to the pandemic. This work also identifies ways for Taiwan to improve the existing budgetary system and discusses lessons for other countries.

The authors explore the Australian Government's implementation of budgetary measures to manage the social and economic impacts of COVID-19, paying particular attention to how the country's history of inequality has shaped these actions, and the effect inequality may have on outcomes.

In this qualitative case study of public budgeting, the authors draw on the latest research into inequality to consider the implications of policy responses to COVID-19 in Australia. In particular, we examine the short-term introduction of what we term “people-focused” budgetary measures. These appeared contrary to the dominant neoliberalist approach to Australian welfare policymaking.

This paper foregrounds the relationship between budgeting, public policy and inequality and explores how decades of increasingly regressive tax systems and stagnating living wages have made both people, and the state, vulnerable to crises like COVID.

There is still much to learn about the role of accounting in the shaping of growing economic inequality. In focusing on public budgeting within the context of COVID, the authors suggest ways accounting researchers can contribute to our understanding of economic inequality, both in terms of drivers and consequences. The authors hope to contribute to a growing body of accounting research that can influence social movements, political debates and policymaking, while also raising awareness of the consequences of wealth and income inequality.

The authors explore ways accounting scholars might help articulate a post-COVID future that avoids recreating the inequalities of the past and present.

This research uses structural .equation modeling to investigate the relationships between environmental uncertainty, budget communication, budget influence, budget goal commitment and managerial performance. To this end, data from 173 U.S. individual managers were used for the study. The results show that environmental uncertainty significantly affects both budget communication and budget influence which, in turn, impact budget goal commitment. Also, budget goal commitment is significantly related to managerial performance. Implications, limitations and directions for future research are discussed.

This study analyzes the scope and magnitude of the budgetary responses of 17 developed countries to the COVID-19 pandemic and examines whether policy responses in March–June, 2020 are correlated with economic and fiscal conditions in these countries. It also suggests a few foreseeable economic, budgetary and social challenges and a future research agenda for assessing the pandemic's impact on finance and governance.

This study uses documents from different sources, including the IMF and the OECD, to analyze systematically the COVID-19 budgetary responses of different countries. It also uses data from the IMF and the European CDC to analyze the relationship between budgetary responses and the seriousness of the pandemic in different countries.

This study shows that budgetary and fiscal responses to the COVID-19 pandemic varied in magnitude but had many similarities in policy types across countries. The magnitude of the response is not significantly correlated with fiscal conditions but is positively correlated with the pandemic caseload and negatively with medium-term expenditure planning, healthcare spending and anticipated unemployment changes. The study concludes by discussing the medium- and long-term concerns of these policies, such as the growing debt concerns, the seeming irrelevancy of fiscal discipline in influencing the pandemic response, the setbacks on anti-poverty and equity enhancing initiatives in developing countries and the hidden social costs as a result of postponing the necessary responses to industrial restructuring and the global climate change problems.

This study offers an initial comparative analysis of COVID-19 budgetary responses among developed nations. It also provides a critical and long-term perspective of these policies. The study suggests what future research may do to analyze the factors that influence the magnitude of COVID-19 responses and the long-term social and political implications of these policies.

It discusses the long-term concerns of COVID-19 budgetary responses and suggests policymakers to have more open and transparent debates about difficult choices. It provides examples of creative solutions in pandemic responses to transition to a future economy and society that can be more sustainable, resilient and equitable. It also urges policymakers to pay more attention to democratic governance challenges.

The study highlights a few social concerns about the budgetary responses so far, such as deteriorating pension funding gaps, setbacks on anti-poverty initiatives in developing countries and hidden social costs by postponing the necessary responses to industrial restructuring and global climate change problems. It also discusses how COVID-19 reveals a lot of inequity problems in society that need long-term budgetary investment.

This study offers a systematic comparative analysis of COVID-19 budgetary responses among developed nations. It also provides a critical and long-term perspective of these policies and challenges policymakers and budgeters to think more creatively to address foreseeable economic, budgetary and social challenges.

The purpose of this study is to analyze the scope and magnitude of Chinese budgetary responses to the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic.

This study analyzes budgetary response in China by means of public reports, news reports and policy documents.

The Chinese responses were comprehensive, flexible and fast. Through the normal authorization process, simplifying procedures of budget allocation and special legislative approval after the surge of COVID-19 cases, China used many budgetary measures to help suffering businesses and households to buffer the economic difficulties caused by the pandemic. It also increased public health spending very quickly so subnational governments could control and prevent the pandemic with the necessary resources. International relief efforts have also been increased. These findings show the unique strength of the Chinese political system, which is very flexible and quick in resource mobilization.

This study offers a quick review of the Chinese budgetary responses to the COVID-19 pandemic. It also highlights some of the future concerns and needs of the Chinese government in domestic and global health areas.

This paper highlights the emergency budgetary measures taken by the French government in response to the COVID-19 pandemic health crisis and identifies some of the key political, economic, social and environmental factors and consequences associated with those measures.

The authors conduct a thorough analysis of official reports, bills and academic and news articles related to the pandemic management in France. The authors’ analysis covers the period from January 24 to July 31, 2020.

Despite previous austerity policies, France faced the health crisis with a very high level of debt, which has complicated the management of the COVID-19 crisis. Although significant, the response brought by the French government seems in the end to be rather choppy.

This paper highlights three elements of analysis that allow a better understanding of the budgetary management process in France. The authors first discuss the notion of budgetary flexibility. Then, they show that the growth of participatory budgets in local communities gives hope for a possible and much needed decentralization process implying a stronger commitment of citizens. Finally, they highlight a budgetary paradox; that is, massive funding of polluting industries versus ecological issues. These three elements of analysis all advocate the need for a deeper engagement among different levels of government and actors.

To compare Russian and Ukrainian central governments' reaction to the pandemic, reflected in extraordinary budgetary allocations and to provide our understanding of how those allocations can be attributed to the two countries’ different social, economic and political contexts.

The paper is built on secondary data analysis over a six-month period, i.e. January–June 2020, during which the real-time events were documented in a research diary. The data sources included budgetary and other relevant legislature, official reports from international agencies, news, press conferences and videos of interviews with key stakeholders.

The findings showed that uncertainty caused by COVID-19 and the corresponding lockdown policies in Russia and Ukraine have produced two divergent patterns of budgetary allocations: step-by-step budgetary allocations in Russia vs one emergency budget decision in Ukraine.

The paper explains the divergence of the central governments' budgetary decisions based on the same lockdown policy, in light of the different ideological and financial legitimized action spaces that frame governmental decisions.