000			02881naa a2200253uu 4500
001			7080715480710
003			OSt
005			20190527151356.0
008			070807s2007 xx ||||gr |0|| 0 d
100	1		_aSMITH, Keneth A _932507
245	1	0	_aAssessing reforms of government accounting and budgeting
260			_aArmonk, NY : _bM.E. Sharpe, _cSeptember 2006
520	3		_aFiscal reforms in government are continually proposed, frequently adopted, and usually assessed as failing to achieve their desired outcomes. This paper develops a broad contingency framework that focuses on the third step—the assessment of fiscal reforms. The value of the framework is that it provides researchers as well as reformers a lens to assess the net benefits of reforms. Not only does it provide the lens, but it also suggests the accuracy or clarity of the lens in different circumstances. Our framework is contingent on two dimensions: type of fiscal reform (rules vs. judgment) and life cycle (innovators, early adopters, maturity). Our framework is broad in that it combines prior research from the budgeting and accounting literature. Recent budgeting research has suggested that an outcomes view of reform can be replaced with a process view. In addition to these viewpoints, we also analyze the monitoring and signaling viewpoints from accounting research. We believe the four viewpoints are complementary rather than mutually exclusive, and both accounting and budgeting researchers can learn from each other. We argue that signaling may be the best viewpoint for two reasons: (a) It provides insights into the net costs and benefits of adopting a reform, and (b) it provides insights into policy suggestions that are likely to increase the adoption of beneficial reforms. We then apply the framework to performance budgeting reforms of state governments in the United States. Our analysis suggests that performance measures might not be useful for the legislative decision process of allocating resources among disparate goals but appear to be useful for improving the quality and cost of providing services. Three policy suggestions are (a) legislators should focus on incentives for managers to report performance measures, (b) researchers and reformers should consider how performance budgeting could be done on a comparable basis across states, and (c) influential actors such as legislators and the media should be studied in greater detail
650		4	_aContabilidade _913757
650		4	_aOrçamento _912096
650		4	_aFiscal Reforms _932508
650		4	_aPerformance Measures _930738
650		4	_aState Budgeting Reforms _932509
700	1		_aCHENG, Rita _932510
773	0	8	_tPublic Performance & Management Review _g30, 1, p. 14-34 _dArmonk, NY : M.E. Sharpe, September 2006 _xISSN 1530-9576 _w
942			_cS
998			_a20070807 _b1548^b _cTiago
998			_a20130527 _b1421^b _ckarina
999			_aConvertido do Formato PHL _bPHL2MARC21 1.1 _c24360 _d24360
041			_aeng