Search results

In the United States, the 1993 Government Performance and Result Act (GPRA) has increased public demand for governments not only to produce and deliver public goods and services, but also to demonstrate program effectiveness, which is the ultimate goal of a public program's existence, mission, and spending. This public management approach parallels the results-oriented management, which aims to strengthen organizational effectiveness and emphasize the need to integrate all major activities and functions, an activity that will direct them toward advancing organization-wide strategic goals or fundamental policy agendas (Kettl, 1997). Managers use program outputs and outcomes as implementation benchmarks to identify implementation means or directions (Kettl, 1997). By reporting performance measurement results to the public and policy makers, public managers are held accountable for the tax-dollars spent to produce and deliver public services in the most efficient and effective way (Aristigueta, 2007). Performance measurement results, especially those related to outcome achievement, are partially useful in budget allocation from the perspective that the tax-dollars spent are tied to desirable outcomes rather than to program input costs that may or may not correspond with public desires (DuPont-Morales & Harris, 1994).

This paper aims to respond to the recent calls to discover the research developments in the field of public budgeting. Particularly, it explores whether and how research dialogue unfolds within the public budgeting field over time and how to stimulate it further, by investigating the case of a specific journal oriented to budgeting topics.

Applying a case study strategy, this paper reviews previous studies on public budgeting published in one specific journal, the Journal of Public Budgeting, Accounting and Financial Management (JPBAFM), from its “online inception” in 1994 to 2020. Borrowing ideas from dialogue literature, the authors analyse 108 selected papers according to a multi-dimensional framework for exploring research dialogues taking into account the year of publication, authorship (and affiliation), research setting, method and theoretical approach, and, above all, research topics on budgeting.

The findings illustrate that whilst public budgeting research has been fluctuating over time in the JPBAFM, there is a growing interest in the topic over the last several years (2015–2020). Yet, the journal illustrates a limited dialogic development of the field of public budgeting, where produced knowledge has been significantly North America-oriented, normative and quantitative-dominated. Until recently, only a limited role has been given to dialogue formation between researchers and practitioners, but the current debate is increasingly being enriched by new perspectives and a wider range of experiences. Finally, public budgeting has been addressed from multiple perspectives over time, with a significant impact determined by performance and participatory budgeting. Although multiple topics are receiving growing attention, it is still under-developed in the inter-dialogue formation between topics and theories, despite the more recently growing use of different theoretical approaches and empirical and analytical rigour.

The research is limited to one journal as a case study and does not claim to provide an overall reflection of public budgeting research and related empirical generalisations. Instead, the authors strive for a theoretical generalisation of multi-dimensional dialogue importance in the field.

The value of the research lies in a comprehensive analysis of research dialogue formation within public sector budgeting over time in an international journal that has actively engaged with public sector issues and, specifically, with budgeting. By so doing, this paper adds a critical stand on the value of dialogue in fostering inter-contextual and inter-disciplinary research in the field of public budgeting.

This paper aims to analyse the implementation of Islamic principles and values within the budgetary management of one of Indonesia’s local governments, that of Aceh provincial government. The authors investigate the extent of Islamic teachings in Aceh’s public budgeting to gain an understanding of the challenges in implementing such ideas in practice.

To investigate these issues, the authors used a qualitative interpretive approach in this study, gathering written materials related to the budgeting process and conducting 19 interviews with local government officials, politicians, scholars and a corruption watchdog. Data was manually coded and thematically analysed.

In this study, the authors find that the budgetary management problems Aceh provincial government faces (including poor resource allocation, budget delays and poor accountability and transparency) indicate unsatisfactory performance in incorporating Islamic principles and values into government. The authors argue that a key challenge to a more complete implementation is that the Acehnese’ perspectives of Sharī’ah and its enactment remain limited to particular aspects, such as criminal law, rituals and symbols, and are not extended to wider governance and budgetary practices.

The findings are likely to be of interest to policymakers and those who hold them to account, in a region/country where Islamic values and principles largely influence the government and social affairs. They indicate that a broader conception of Sharī’ah would facilitate a more thorough implementation of Islamic principles and values within public budgeting.

This study is one of a handful of studies exploring Islamic public budgeting, with its originality lying in the investigation of the challenges faced in implementing Islamic principles in government budgeting.

This article highlights key aspects of capital management, including capital planning, capital budgeting, capital financing, decision making and capital spending outcomes. We provide a background discussion of public sector capital management, followed by a summary of the articles that comprise this symposium. Combined, these articles illustrate the complexity of and challenges to capital management at the state and local government levels. We discuss common themes that emerge from reading these articles as a collective symposium, including: (1) modest progress in applying and empirically testing theoretical frameworks; (2) the variety of actors and institutions; and (3) the deteriorating condition and poor performance of public infrastructure. We use the articles to illustrate gaps in the research and offer suggestions for future research on capital management theory and practice.

Reviewing the development of budgeting in America in the twentieth century, this article assesses where public budgeting is as it approaches the twenty-first century. Five periods are identified in American budgeting, drawing upon the work of Schick and Rubin: control, management, planning, prioritization and accountability. Budgeting in the 1990s is described as characterized by accountability and a “new” performance budgeting emphasis. The authors argue that the budget reform movement is still alive and well in American government, with local governments once more leading the way.

The knowledge base in public budgeting has certainly grown during the twentieth century, but the most enduring features of public budgeting were developed or documented in the first half of the century. The line item budget is still the dominant format in government budgeting; incremental adjustment to the previous year’s allocation is still the dominant budget process. Later developments in public budgeting, like planning-programming-budgeting system (PPBS), management by objective (MBO), zero-based budgeting (ZBB), and performance budgeting have had very little enduring impact on the practice of budgeting, largely because they reflected presidential attitudes about the role of government in society rather than theoretical advances in budgeting.

The purpose of this study is to understand the efforts of key social actors in influencing the reform of Iranian public universities budgeting system, from incremental to performance-based budgeting (PBB), the tensions that arose as competing efforts of institutional change were undertaken, and ultimately the impact of these efforts on the extent to which the Iranian government transitioned to a system of PBB in public universities.

Data comprises of semi-structured interviews with managers and experts involved in the budget setting process and an analysis of budgetary policy documents, reports and archival material such as legislation. An institutional work lens is employed to interpret the findings.

While actors advocating the change were engaged in institutional work directed at disrupting the old budgetary rules by disassociating the rules moral foundations and creating new budgetary rules (through new legislation), universities undertook subtle resistance by engaging in extended evaluation of the new proposed PBB rules thereby maintaining the old budgetary rules. The reforms undertaken to introduce PBB in Iranian universities achieved minimal success whereby incremental budgeting continued to constitute by far a larger percentage of the budget allocation formula for university budgets. This finding illustrates change and continuity in university budgetary systems resulting from institutional work of actors competing to control the basis of resource allocation under the proposed PBB system by proposing contradicting models.

The findings highlight the importance of understanding the interplay of institutional work undertaken by competing social actors as they seek to advance their goals in shaping budgetary reforms in the public-sector. Such an understanding may inform policy makers who intend to introduce major reforms in public-sector budgeting approaches.

Unlike prior studies that largely focused on how organization-level budgeting practices responded to changes in public budgeting rules (i.e. at the site of implementation of the rules), this paper highlights how strategies of change and resistance are played out at the site of setting budgetary norms.

A public library budget can serve varied purposes: a contract, a management tool, a communication mechanism, a financial control mechanism, a motivator, a plan, a major policy‐making tool and as an instrument of democracy. This paper presents a methodology that public library directors can use to determine if the budget contains the information they need in order to make decisions.

Citizen participation in budgeting is often achieved by compliance with legal statutes on public hearing requirements. These pragmatic and legalistically-based approaches to citizen participation are examined, and the potential for creating participation that realizes more than meeting legal requirements is discussed. The author suggests that recommendations from recent work on citizen participation and governance can be used as standards for evaluating and improving citizen participation in budgeting, and applies these suggestions to a case example in city government finance.