《公共预算的演变发展》由会员分享，可在线阅读，更多相关《公共预算的演变发展（6页珍藏版）》请在金锄头文库上搜索。
1、1The development of the public budget公共预算的发展演变The centrality of the budget to governance is why it is important to understand the evolution of budgetary thinking by public officials. Briefly, the development of the budget can be categorized into seven periods: traditional. Or line item budgeting, wi
2、th its control orientation; performance budgeting , with management orientation; planning-programming-budgeting, with its economic planning orientation; management by objectives, with its emphasis on bugetary decentralization; zero-base budgeting, with its stress on ranking program priorities; targe
3、t-base budgeting, with its centralizing overtones; budgeting for results, which incorporates the values of the new public management into the budgetary process.The times periods associated with each of these phases is not as neat as we indicate; some levels of government, for example, continue to de
4、velop one concept of budgeting while other levels move onto new concepts , or regress to old ones. line item budgeting,1921-1939 逐项预算A line-item budget is simply the allocation of resources according to the cost of each object of expenditure.As a result of these very limited objectives, the line-ite
5、m budget emphasized such factors as skilled accountancy, the objects needed to run an office or program and their costs, incremental policymaking throughout government, dispersed responsibility for management and planning, and a fiduciary role for the budget agency.Technical definitions of items wer
6、e stressed( for example, pencils, 112, with 1 inch erasers, wood, No.2 grade lead, 6*1/4)，and dthe use of such phrases as “watchdog of the tresury” were common, indicating the mentality of this control-oriented stage of budgetary thought.As we shall see, the absence of abstraction inherent in, and t
7、he simplicity of , the line-item budget does not render it suitable for larger purposes, and it is best used at the lower levels of the organization. Occasionally, this is not fully appreciated by executives, and when it is not, use of the line-item budget can result “in micro-management at the macr
8、o level.” performance budgeting，1940-1964 绩效预算(预算思想发生转向的若干历史因素)Although lone voices were hear throughout the 1920s and 1930s advocating a budget attuned to identifying broader programs and government performance as well as objects of expenditure, the meaningful shift to this kind of thinking came wi
9、th President Franklin D. Roosevelts New Deal. A number of historical factors influenced this movement. One was the firm establishment of the control techniques advocated by the line-item budgeteers. With tdhe setting up of accurate accounting, purchaing, and personnel practices, budgeting as a conce
10、pt wsas released from many 2of its traditional watchdog duties. Second, the government was expanding enormously, and there emerged a corresponding need to centralize and coordinate managerial activities more effectively. The budget provided the obvious salient tool for systematically coordinating go
11、vernment management. Third, government was incresingly perceived as an instititution that delivered benefits, and the budget in turn was seen as a means by which the appropriate managerial delivery system could be measured.Performance budgeting is known either as a program budget,emphasizing its bud
12、geting of programs, or a performance budget, stressing its focus on agency performance and its measurement. In reality, we define it as a system of resource allocation that organizes the budget document by operations and programs, and “ links performance levels” of those operations and programs “ wi
13、th specifc budget amounts”.Performance budgeting covers more administrative activites than had the traditional line-item budget. Now outputs as well as inputs were considered.Budget officers saw their mission not only as one of precise and controlled accounting, but the development of program classi
14、fications, the description of an agencys program and its performance, and the exploration of varous kind of work/cost meansurements. Managerial, as opposed to accounting, skills were stressed, activities of the agency were given precedence over the purchase of items required to run the office,manage
15、ment responsibility became newly centralized, although planning responsibility remained dispersed, policymaking remained incremental, and the role of the budget agency evolved from a fiduciary to an efficiency function. planning-programming-budgeting,1965-1971 计划规划预算（PPB）Performance budgeting did no
16、t delve into the deeper levels of government while it represented a step forward in budgetary theory. There were many problems with performance budgeting. Performance budgeting tended t o gradually expand the scope and cost of various programs within agenciest. It did not link federal programs with their real cost.These concerns eventually led to the displacement of performance budgeting in government by planning- programming-budgeting(PPB)Planning- programming-budgeting
