The New Rules of the Federal Budget Game
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 6364744 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Naomi Caiden (corresponding author) |
| Year | 1984 |
| Volume | 44 |
| Issue | 2 |
| Pages | 109-109 |
| Publication date | 1984-03-01 |
| Open Access | No |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Public Administration Review (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 0033-3352 • E-ISSN: 1540-6210 |
| Publisher | Wiley (PUBLISHER • GB) |
| DOI | 10.2307/975861 |
| OpenAlex | W2323071749 |
| Language | EN |
| Citations received | 5 |
| References cited | 5 |
In recent years the capacity of the federal budget process has been more and more open to question. To some observers the process appears on the verge of collapse, disintegrating into a muddle of spiralling deficits, missed deadlines, ad hoc decision making and hazy budget figures.1 There are a large number of widely varying proposals for reform to remedy a multitude of perceived problems. 2 But what may be overlooked in the confusion of present tribulations is the extent to which the federal budget process has already adapted to the pressures upon it. Fiscal stress, economic fluctuations and the need to accommodate seemingly irreconcilable demands have narrowed options and heightened conflict. But even more significantly, they have also begun to transform the rules by which the federal budget game used to be played. While reforms may still be indicated, their potential for success may be enhanced by changes which have already taken place. What are these rules? They extend beyond the laws and regulations which stipulate the framework of the budget process. Such formal rules are generally reinforced, modified, or even superseded by informal understandings, the interplay of power relationships, and adaptations to trends and events. Where these informal means of doing business attain some regularity and stability and are sanctioned by mutual expectations of reciprocal behavior, they, too, constitute rules. The rules of a budget process derive from its nature. It is a means of simultaneously allocating and rationing resources for a future given time period within a specified time cycle. In the federal budget process this task is theoretically accomplished through annual comprehensive decision making governed by the provisions of the 1974 Congressional Budget and Impoundment Act. In the past, observers have indicated that the process has also been facilitated by incremental decision making dependent on budget growth which has blurred issues, prevented conflicts and maintained the structures of the budget process.I Over the past few years this pattern of conducting financial decision making has come under strain in two main ways. The most marked feature has been a change in the composition of federal expenditures, reflecting growth in the long-term commitments of the federal government and differentiation of its activities.4 These developments have built into the budget a paradoxical combination of both stability and sensitivity, inflexibility, and unpredictability. Prevailing concepts of budgeting, which have stressed an annual framework for decision making, have had difficulty in accommodating this transformation
Business · Federal budget · Fiscal year · Finance · Fiscal Policies and Political Economy
| Citations per year | 0.12 |
|---|---|
| Citation span | 1985 - 2005 (21) |
| Highly cited | No |