Suchergebnisse

The politics of public budgets -- Revenue politics -- The politics of process -- The dynamics of changing budget processes -- Expenditures : strategies, structures, and the environment -- The politics of balancing the budget -- Budget execution : the politics of adaptation -- Controlling waste, fraud, and abuse -- Budgetary decision making and politics -- Notes -- Author index -- Subject index -- Detailed contents --

This article defines budget reform perennials at the national level as those that reoccur multiple times, with little chance of passage and little change from one iteration to the next. The literature has seldom examined proposals that do not pass or the staff effort that goes into keeping flawed proposals from passing. The article describes the sources of such proposals and what can conceivably be done to lessen the tension they cause. The research is based primarily on qualitative interviews and legislative testimony. Examples of reform perennials include biennial and capital budgeting.

An examination of the writings of the early budget reformers suggests a major break between the progressive era reform proposals in the early 1900s and the budget proposals of the Taft era conservatives beginning in 1912. Progressives favored expansionary, activist government; Taft conservatives wanted to shrink government. Progressives focused more on cost effectiveness; Taft conservatives focused more on efficiency and cost cutting. Progressive reformers trusted the public and, to some extent, its representatives in the legislature, while Taft conservatives lacked confidence in the public and its representatives. The Taft era proposals had a major influence on the 1921 Budget and Accounting Act, which gave the federal government an executive budget process and also influenced budgeting in some states, such as New York and Maryland.