公共预算的演变发展.doc

The 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, with 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; target-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 develop 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-item 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 were 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 the 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 macro 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 with 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 concept wsas released from many of 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 government 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 budgeting 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 “ with 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 classifications, 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,management 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 not 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(PPB) is a system of resouce allocation designed to improve government efficiency and effectiveness by establishing long-range planning goals, analyzing the costs and benefits of alternative programs that would meet these goals, and articulating programs as budgetary and legislative porposal and long-term projections.PPB is concerned not only with inputs and outputs, but also with effects and alternatives. management by objectives，1972-1977 目标管理（MBO）(预算制定者转向了新的预算思路，或者说是一种变形的预算，目标管理)With the abandonment of PPB by the federal government in the late 1960s, budgeteers turned to a new concept of budgeting ( or more precisely, to a variant of project management): management by objectives (MBO). MBO got its start in the private sector, and in 1954, Peter Drucker wrote a book titled The practice of Management, which generally is thought to be the first major expression of the MBO concept.MBO may be defined as a process whereby organizatational goals and objectives are set through the participation of organizational members in terms of results expected, and resources are allocated according to the degree to which organizational goals and objectives are met.MBO is concerned with inputs, outputs, and effects, but not necessarily with alternatives. It deals primarily with agency performance and the effectiveness of governmental programs, but when it comes to forcing policyakers to ask what else might government do to accomplish a particular social mission, MBO appears to be at somewhat of a loss. MBO has a managerial orientation that stesses, in terms of personnel skills, sth. Called common sense. It is concerned paramountly with program effectiveness, and its policymaking style is decentralized. In terms of planning, and very much unlike PPB. MBO is comprehensive in one sense, that is ,it sets operational goals centrally, but it allocates the implementation of tht comprehensive planning responsibility to online managers. Thus, the budgetary agency becomes concerned chiefly with program effectiveness and efficiency, much in the style of performance budgeting of the 1950s. zero-base budgeting，1977-1980零基预算(ZBB)Jimmy Carter was the first elected executive to introduce ZBB to the public sector.He is a nonstablishmentarian fresh from Georgia who had had a good experience with a concept called ZBB when he was governor.ZBB is the allocation of resources to agencies on the basis of those agencies periodically reevaluating the need for all of the programs for which the agency is responsible, and justifying the continuance or termination of each program in the agency budget proposal. In other words, an agency reassesses what it is doing from top to bottom from a hypothetical zero base.Sunset, sunrise: sunset legislation in the states,1976-1981 target-base budgeting,1980-1992 目标基础预算/从上至下预算(TBB)Target-base budgeting, also known as target budgeting, fixed-ceiling budgeting, or top-down budgeting, is a method of allocating resources to agencies in which agency spending limits, or targets, are set by the chief executive officer of the government; agency heads are permitted to attain their goals in the manner that they deem to be most effective within these centrally set spending limits, and are expected to demonstrate progess in the acievement of agency goas in next years budget request. Increasingly, agencies are provided with budgetary incentives by chief executive officers to attain their goals. Often, a second part of the budget request is also present, which is those agency fund requests that are not part of the target, but which the agency still wants, and these are ranked by priority. budgeting for results,1993-结果预算，1993年至今A new budgeting phase is emerging in the twenty-first century, and it goes by several names; mission budgeting, entrepreneurial budgeting,performance budgeting,and performance-based budgeting are some of them. We prefer the terms, results budgeting, or budgeting for results. Budgeting for results. is budgeting that links the allocation of funds to performance measures. Results budgeting is ,most definitely,a return to the traditions of performance budgeting of the 1950s.6Budget types: Periods of Prominence and Selected FeaturesFeatureLine Item(1921-1939)Performance(1940-1964)PPB(1965-1971)MBO(1972-1977)ZBB(1977-1980)TBB(1980-1992)Budgeting for Results(1993-)Basic orientationControlManagementPlanningManagementDecision makingControl and attainmentof a single,systemwide missionManagementScopeInputsInputs and outputsInputs,outputs, effects,and alternativesInputs,outputs,and eff