The Use of Budgeting/Management Tools by State Governments

Bibliographic Data

ID6366187
AuthorsStanley B Botner (corresponding author)
Year1985
Volume45
Issue5
Pages616-616
Publication date1985-09-01
Peer ReviewedYes
Open AccessNo
TypeARTICLE
VenuePublic Administration Review (JOURNAL)
Journal identifiersISSN: 0033-3352 • E-ISSN: 1540-6210
PublisherWiley (PUBLISHER • GB)
DOI10.2307/3109938
OpenAlexW2322203956
LanguageEN
Citations received14

State governments have been confronted since the early 1970s with increasingly complex public management problems, compounded by an environment of revenue limits. Financial difficulties have been exacerbated by a major economic recession in 1982-83, shifting demographics, tax and expenditure ceilings, and a less generous federal government. These factors, and others, have led to efforts by state governments to improve their management capability in order to utilize available resources more efficiently and effectively. While improved economic conditions in 1984-85 increased state revenue collections somewhat, costcontainment remains a necessity in most jurisdictions. In 1984 the author conducted a survey to determine the extent of use and the perceived effectiveness of several sophisticated budgeting/management tools by state governments. Additional objectives were to identify trends in state budgeting and to assess the role played by legislatures in the budgeting and appropriations process. Questionnaires were mailed to the budget officers of the 50 states, and follow-up mailings were subsequently conducted. Replies were received from all of the 50 states. The results of the survey show that state governments are making extensive use of sophisticated budgeting/ management tools (Table 1). indicated by Table 2, more than half of the states employ program budgeting; computerized management information systems; performance measurement, reporting, and monitoring; program analysis; program evaluation; and forwardyear projections of expenditures and revenues. Further, a high percentage of the states which use these techniques report that they have found them to be either effective or somewhat effective.' It should be noted that budgeting is an evolutionary process, and the techniques now being utilized are, at least in part, altered and more contemporary forms of procedures and systems developed in previous cycles of innovation. Schick stated with respect to PPB, that innovation might fail or fade away, but its concepts will have an increasing influence over budget practice.I The same observation is pertinent with respect to other techniques such as performance budgeting and ZBB. a consequence, most states operate under hybrid systems which make the categorization reflected by Table 1 less than definitive. The Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations recently reported: As states adopted, then abandoned, performance budgeting, PPB, ZBB, or parts of these systems, they were left with increasingly variegated systems, custom tailored for each state.' * State governments are incorporating more sophisticated tools into their budgeting/management processes and finding them effective. The increased interest in developing more effective procedures and providing a stronger data base for program analysis and evaluation is shared by both executive and legislative branches. A 1984 survey of all 50 states reflects trends which have important implications for decision making and resource allocation

Business · Political science · Process management · State (computer science · Computer Science · Local Government Finance and Decentralization · Public Administration

Tools

Open DOISci-Hub