BUDGET THEORY IN THE PUBLIC SECTOR Aman Khan W. Bartley Hildreth Editors QUORUM BOOKS Budget Theory in the Public Sector BUDGET THEORY IN THE PUBLIC SECTOR Edited by Aman Khan and W. Bartley Hildreth QUORUM BOOKS Westport, Connecticut • London Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Budget theory in the public sector / edited by Aman Khan, and W. Bartley Hildreth. p. cm. Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 1–56720–281–0 (alk. paper) 1. Budget. 2. Finance, Public. I. Khan, Aman. II. Hildreth, W. Bartley, 1949– HJ2005.B7978 2002 352.4'8—dc21 2002023030 British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data is available. Copyright ᭧ 2002 by Aman Khan and W. Bartley Hildreth All rights reserved. No portion of this book may be reproduced, by any process or technique, without the express written consent of the publisher. Library of Congress Catalog Card Number: 2002023030 ISBN: 1–56720–281–0 First published in 2002 Quorum Books, 88 Post Road West, Westport, CT 06881 An imprint of Greenwood Publishing Group, Inc. www.quorumbooks.com Printed in the United States of America TM The paper used in this book complies with the Permanent Paper Standard issued by the National Information Standards Organization (Z39.48–1984). 10987654321 Dedicated to Marcia Lynn Whicker Contents Preface ix Acknowledgments xv 1 Budget Theory for a New Century 1 Lance T. LeLoup 2 Early Budget Theory: The Progressive Theory of Public Expenditures 22 Julia Beckett 3 The Separation of Powers Principle and Budget Decision Making 42 Thomas P. Lauth 4 Nonconventional Budgets: Interpreting Budgets and Budgeting Interpretations 77 Gerald J. Miller 5 A Multiple Rationality Model of Budgeting: Budget Office Orientations and Analysts’ Roles 104 Katherine G. Willoughby 6 The Principal-Agent Model and Budget Theory 123 John Forrester 7 Responsibility Budgeting and Accounting Reform 139 L.R. Jones and Fred Thompson viii Contents 8 Budget Theory for Public Administration...andPublic Administrators 158 Gerasimos A. Gianakis and Clifford P. McCue 9 The Theory of the Public Sector Budget: An Economic Perspective 172 Merl Hackbart and James R. Ramsey 10 Budgets as Portfolios 188 Aman Khan 11 Punctuated Equilibrium: An Agenda-Based Theory of Budgeting 202 Meagan M. Jordan 12 The Impact of Agency Mission on Agency Budget Strategy: A Deductive Theory 216 Marcia Lynn Whicker and Changhwan Mo 13 Budgeting for Outcomes 246 Lawrence L. Martin 14 Philosophy, Public Budgeting, and the Information Age 261 Thomas D. Lynch and Cynthia E. Lynch Selected Bibliography 281 Index 287 About the Contributors 293 Preface Public budgeting, as a field of study, has grown tremendously in recent years both in form and substance. With such growth comes a need to have a coherent theory or body of theories that allows one to understand the field, its essential core that guides its development, and its scope for dealing with real world problems. V.O. Key recognized this need in 1940 when he wrote his now fa- mous piece, “The Lack of a Budgetary Theory.” Key tried to address the issue of public budgeting not having a theory of its own by offering a microeconomic solution to the problem, one that would increase allocative efficiency of gov- ernment. He based his theory on the same rationale that guided the economists to search endlessly for a function that would improve the welfare of society within the broader schemes of Paretian principle. In a similar vein, Verne Lewis (1952) tried to explain how the traditional microeconomic theory, in particular the concept of marginal utility, could be used to determine the relative value of a good or service to justify resource allocation that in the aggregate would improve social welfare. Attempts by other economists, such as Arthur Smithies (1955), were not much different from those offered by the mainstream welfare economists. But, as Wildavsky (1961) re- minds us, budgeting is more than allocating the scarce resources between X and Y activities; it is about meeting the conflicting needs of a society by bringing about compromises in the political marketplace through incremental adjust- ment(s) in budget allocation. Not only that, as Mosher (1954) would point out, it is a measure of bureaucratic behavior and administrative competence. Others would argue that it is not necessary to have a single theory of budgeting but x Preface rather a set of theories, each unique to the problem budgeting is trying to address (Schick, 1988). Ironically, some sixty years since Key’s work, theorists still continue to model behavior in search for explanations of budgeting in city halls, county court houses, school district headquarters, state capitols, and in the halls of power in the capitals of sovereign governments. Perhaps the explanation for this lack of coherence lies in the field itself. Public budgeting is eclectic; it is multidimen- sional. As Albert Hyde puts it: “In their voluminous and complex formats, budg- ets simultaneously record policy outcomes, cite policy priorities and program goals and objectives, delineate a government’s total service effort; and measure its performance, impact, and overall effectiveness” (Hyde, 1992:1). Budgeting, according to Hyde, is partly political, partly economic, partly accounting, and partly administrative. As a political document, it allocates the scarce resources of a society among multiple, conflicting and competing interests. As an eco- nomic and fiscal document, it serves as the primary instrument for evaluating a jurisdiction’s redistribution of income, stimulating its economic growth and de- velopment, promoting full employment, combating inflation, and maintaining economic stability. As an accounting document, it provides a ceiling on gov- ernment spending and makes it legally binding for it to live within the allocated funds. Finally, as a managerial and administrative document, it specifies the ways and means by which public services are provided, and it establishes criteria by which they are monitored, measured, and evaluated. These seemingly diver- gent roles that public budgeting plays further reinforce the general perception as to why it is so difficult to have a single theory that can tie all these elements into a coherent theme. From a practical point of view, however, this lack of inner cohesion may serve both as a weakness and a strength. Not having a single framework always has the danger of the field being overwhelmed by quantity as well as diversity of perspectives that one may find baffling. While the sheer number may over- whelm some, it may also serve as its strength. For it is this competition between quantity, on one hand, and the diversity of inquiries, on the other, that will shape and eventually help develop a comprehensive theory of budgeting, suf- ficient enough to highlight the eclectic nature of the field and competent enough to provide a common ground from which to study it. But until such a point comes, public budgeting will remain an eclectic field, dominated by multiple, at times, competing theories. This book is a reflection of that diversity. In the first of these perspectives, Lance T. LeLoup’s “Budget Theory for a New Century” introduces the field, particularly as it pertains to national budg- eting. He traces the history of budget theory from incrementalism (the 1950s and 1960s characterized by agency and presidential power) through a transition phase (1970s to early 1990s marked by the conflict between legislative and executive branches during tough economic times) and into the current period. This later period, from the mid-1990s forward, is termed the “emerging new paradigm” and is characterized by coequal branches making tactical, dynamic Preface xi decisions in a fiscally surplus environment. LeLoup examines each era in terms of several dimensions of budgeting, including: the political and economic en- vironment of budgeting; the policy focus; the nature and scope of budgeting; budgetary process characteristics; key actors; budget reforms; and legislative- executive relations. As the remaining chapters confirm, these dimensions of budgeting are central to public budget theories. In the next chapter, Julia Beckett returns to V.O. Key’s classic 1940 paper on the lack of a budgetary theory and finds a long-overlooked reference. In the “Early Budget Theory: The Progressive Theory of Expenditures,” she investi- gates Key’s citation of Mabel Walker’s 1930 book, Municipal Expenditures. This is important since Walker’s work predates key budget writers, including Herbert Simon’s performance measurement research in Chicago. Walker’s work contains a search for the norm of distribution, or proportion. This approach for a positive budget theory based on marginal utility leads to comparative output measures, an issue that continues to bedevil us. As such, Walker foreshadows current issues. Moreover, Walker’s work is an early marker for organizational learning via the study of expenditures. Public budgets must traverse the complex nature of executive-legislative re- lationships. Thomas P. Lauth’s “The Separation of Powers Principle and Budget Decision Making” uses six court cases—two from the U.S. Supreme Court and four from state courts—to examine judicial interpretation of executive versus legislative disputes over budgets. Specifically, he cites as examples the essential budget principles of separation of powers. In “Nonconventional Budgets: Interpreting Budgets and Budgeting Interpre- tations,” Gerald J. Miller returns to the core principles of comprehensiveness. He focuses on proposals for a “super budget” as a way to coordinate the in- creasing tendency for policy actors to carve out and define new packages of activity as budgets in order to assert control over that particular arena. Calls for a regulatory budget fit this pattern. He examines budget control criteria, includ- ing not just economic or political factors but also human interpretation. Individuals involved in the budgetary process have roles and orientations that can influence decisions. Katherine G. Willoughby’s “A Multiple Rationality Model of Budgeting: Budget Office Orientations and Analysts’ Roles” focuses on the policy, management, and control perspectives of the role of the executive budget analyst in five southern states.