Trends in performance budgeting in seven OECD countries
By: STERCK, Miekatrien
.
Contributor(s): SCHEERS, Bram.
Material type: 
ArticlePublisher: Armonk, NY : M.E. Sharpe, September 2006Subject(s): performance budgetingPublic Performance & Management Review 30, 1, p. 47-72Abstract: An international trend exists to use more information on results in public budgeting, but the focus of these initiatives varies from country to country, as demonstrated in this study of performance budgeting reforms in Australia, Canada, Sweden, the Netherlands, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, and the United States. On one hand, an evolution is taking place toward output and outcome budgeting, but on the other hand, a trend is moving toward accrual budgeting. The implementation of results-oriented budgeting evokes four major challenges: (a) to align the fiscal framework with the results-oriented budget reform, (b) to create legislative interest for performance, (c) to provide high-quality results information, and (d) to establish the leadership and authority of the central budget office. Are the results of performance budgeting worth the challenge? Very little evidence seems to exist that performance information is used in the political budgetary decision-making process or in the legislative oversight function. The major impact of results-oriented budget reform appears to be situated in the internal management of departments and agencies
An international trend exists to use more information on results in public budgeting, but the focus of these initiatives varies from country to country, as demonstrated in this study of performance budgeting reforms in Australia, Canada, Sweden, the Netherlands, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, and the United States. On one hand, an evolution is taking place toward output and outcome budgeting, but on the other hand, a trend is moving toward accrual budgeting. The implementation of results-oriented budgeting evokes four major challenges: (a) to align the fiscal framework with the results-oriented budget reform, (b) to create legislative interest for performance, (c) to provide high-quality results information, and (d) to establish the leadership and authority of the central budget office. Are the results of performance budgeting worth the challenge? Very little evidence seems to exist that performance information is used in the political budgetary decision-making process or in the legislative oversight function. The major impact of results-oriented budget reform appears to be situated in the internal management of departments and agencies
Click on an image to view it in the image viewer
There are no comments for this item.