پویایی شناسی افراد به سمت بودجه بندی مبتنی بر عملکرد
Abstract
1- Introduction
2- Insights into performance-based budgeting
3- Actors’ dynamics in the practice of PBB: a theoretical backdrop
4- Research setting and method
5- Actors’ dynamics in PBB
6- Discussion
7- Conclusions
References
Abstract
Purpose
This article analyzes the under-investigated role played by different key organizational actors engaged in the practice of performance-based budgeting (PBB) (e.g., Ministry of Finance, National Audit Office, Sectoral Agencies) to explore how they influence the practice of PBB, contributing to lead the change or create resistance towards it.
Design
The empirical evidence has been collected through a multiple case study based on semi-structured interviews and document analysis in Sweden and Finland, which have long traditions with PBB, and has been interpreted through the lens of institutional and organizational change theory.
Findings
The results show that, despite the lengthy experiences with PBB, the lack of sound dynamics across key actors makes the budgetary use of performance information limited and partial, placing the reform in a “grey area” between the complete implementation of the practice and the total resistance towards it.
Originality/Value
The knowledge obtained from the exploratory analysis has relevant implications for understanding differences and similarities across key organizational actors and underlining their crucial role in making a change feasible. Indeed, PBB may represent a radical change even in presence of embedded performance management systems.
Introduction
Performance-oriented reforms, including performance-based budgeting (hereafter PBB), have been proposed as potential solutions to the problems of efficiency, effectiveness, and/or accountability in the public sector. The rationale of PBB is to produce and use performance information in the budgeting process to improve allocation of resources (Budding et al., 2015; Jordan and Hackbart, 2005; Robinson and Brumby, 2005). Specifically, the practice of PBB refers to the practice of integrating performance measurement information into the budgetary process (Lu et al., 2015), where this integration can take different forms ranging from the reporting of performance information in budgeting documents to their use to allocate resources among different programs. The practice of PBB is thus in line with the performance management movement in the public sector. However, while this latter movement refers more broadly to the production of performance measures and information and their use to monitor, assess and report performance influencing organizational decision-making, PBB is characterized by the ambition of influencing the budgetary decision-making. It has been thought as a practice suitable for paying more attention to how available resources are used and which results should be achieved compared to traditional public budgets, which have been focused on cost control and adopted an input-based rather than outputs and outcomes- based approach (Macnab and Mitchell, 2014).