000			01846naa a2200205uu 4500
001			7080715544210
003			OSt
005			20190211163049.0
008			070807s2007 xx ||||gr |0|| 0 eng d
100	1		_aSTERCK, Miekatrien _932514
245	1	0	_aTrends in performance budgeting in seven OECD countries
260			_aArmonk, NY : _bM.E. Sharpe, _cSeptember 2006
520	3		_aAn 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
650		4	_aperformance budgeting _932515
700	1		_aSCHEERS, Bram _932516
773	0	8	_tPublic Performance & Management Review _g30, 1, p. 47-72 _dArmonk, NY : M.E. Sharpe, September 2006 _xISSN 1530-9576 _w
942			_cS
998			_a20070807 _b1554^b _cTiago
998			_a20091214 _b1438^b _cDaiane
999			_aConvertido do Formato PHL _bPHL2MARC21 1.1 _c24362 _d24362
041			_aeng