Suchergebnisse

Neste artigo nós aplicamos a teoria de Wildavsky de guardian-spender para analisar o impacto das reformas da Nova Gestão Pública nas políticas orçamentárias, bem como para testar o contínuo valor explicativo dessa teoria. O estudo tem foco em três objetivos amplos da reforma orçamentária e financeira da New Public Managemnet — NPM; a reformulação dos objetivos e da cultura orçamentária, a centralização dos controles de gastos agregados e o aumento da delegação e de flexibilidade na gestão financeira detalhada.

The 'guardian-spender' framework formulated by Aaron Wildavsky has defined the way in which most political scientists think about government budgeting since it first appeared in 1964 (Wildavsky 1975; Green and Thompson 1999). Wildavsky argued that budgetary outcomes could be explained (or at least analyzed) by focusing on the interplay of budget actors performing the highly stylized institutional roles of guardian (of the public purse) and spender. This behavioral framework proved sufficiently flexible to account for the differences in budgetary performance across different political systems (see studies by Savoie 1990; Heclo and Wildavsky 1974; Wildavsky 1986); as well as explaining the impact of budgetary reform and divergent economic environments on budget politics (Caiden and Wildavsky 1974; Wildavsky 1975). Reference to 'guardians' and 'spenders' still pervades discussions of government budgeting in the academic literature of political science and economics (Campos and Pradhan 1997), and has become accepted as conventional descriptions by practitioners in national governments and international bodies (such as the OECD, World Bank and the IMF).

In 1999 Australia embarked on an accrual budgetary methodology in conjunction with an ambitious outcomesoutputs framework. The changes were entirely driven by central budgetary agencies who wanted to see the total costs (or prices) of outputs reflected in budgetary documentation and evidence of value for money in declared results. The government also decided to implement the changes within 1 year, and by adopting a crash-through mentality the central actors persevered and successfully achieved their main objective. Many problems, dilemmas, and inconsistencies were encountered along the way, not the least of which raised questions about the very nature of the annual budget. This article examines the trajectory of these reforms and asks how successfully they were implemented and accepted. It also raises questions about many of the decisions made in the process of change and whether the quality of budgetary information has improved the cabinet decision-making process. The article argues that accrual budgeting was implemented in Australia with many compromises and adaptations, but that the exercise should be understood primarily as part of a broader process of public sector reform.

In recent years, reallocation has become increasingly important as a means to finance new needs in the spheres of internal and external security, integration of immigrants, education, health and pensions, especially in countries where economic growth has been weak. At a time when public expenditure is undergoing change to accommodate new needs, this report studies the impact of four institutions of the budget process upon reallocation: medium-term expenditure frameworks, rules of budgetary discipline, the role of the minister of finance, and program review. It develops a micro-economic classification of public expenditures and gives insight into the shifting pattern of central government expenditure in the last 20 years in 12 selected OECD countries (Canada, Czech Republic, France, Germany, Italy, Mexico, Netherlands, New Zealand, Spain, Sweden, United Kingdom, United States) on the basis of that classification.--Publisher's description

How do Australian governments budget? How well do they spend and manage our money? Governments seem to be locked in a constant struggle with the problems of budgeting. Cabinet never has enough resources to go around, and while some agencies 'guard' public expenditure, others find endless ways to make new claims on budgets.Managing Public Expenditure in Australia provides the first systematic analysis of government budgeting and the politics of the budgetary process. Drawing on extensive original sources, the authors examine debates and reforms in public finance from Whitlam and Fraser to Hawke, Keating and Howard, and assess their impacts on policy development. In tracking the way governments actually spend money, Managing Public Expenditure in Australia provides an alternate and complementary political history of federal government over the past forty years.This book also includes accessible discussions on topics such as budget theory, financial management in government, and debt and deficit reduction. An explanation of new resource management techniques and initiatives help to illuminate the ongoing changes to budget and expenditure management practices. This is an essential purchase for students, teachers and practitioners of public finance, and for anyone involved in the continuing debate over the nature and role of the public sector.