Back Matter
Author:
A. Premchand https://isni.org/isni/0000000404811396 International Monetary Fund

Search for other papers by A. Premchand in
Current site
Google Scholar Close
Language:
English
Keywords:
BOOK; government; lending; country; debt; budget
Download PDF (4.7 MB)

Abstract

This book, by A. Premchand, a former Assistant Director of IMF's Fiscal Affairs Department, provides a comprehensive discussion of the expenditure process in public authorities from a management perspective. It covers the various aspects, ranging from budget formulation to the courteous delivery of services to the public. In each, it considers the critical issues faced in industrial and developing countries and formerly centrally planned economies and discusses the efforts necessary to assure the public about the adequacy of public expenditure management machinery.

Appendix I Expenditure Management Process: Modular Presentation

The expenditure management processes in 46 countries in Asia, Africa, Latin America and the Caribbean, and Europe are illustrated in the following tables in terms of seven modules. Module 1 shows the institutions and operational approaches in regard to the macroeconomic framework. Module 2 provides information on budget preparation and planning background. Module 3 illustrates the coverage of the budget. Module 4 delineates the controls exercised in terms of commitments and payments. Module 5 shows the present state of information systems, while Module 6 provides information on the agencies and interdepartmental bodies that have a role in budget administration and related decision making. Module 7 shows the practices in regard to classification of the budget. Modules 3 and 7 provide a basis for broadly assessing the accountability of the expenditure management system.

These modules help in understanding the relative roles of various agencies, the systems in operation, and the operational techniques. A more detailed analysis of these areas would also identify the vulnerable areas and their possible impact on expenditure management, but such an analysis is beyond the scope of this appendix.

The countries illustrated in the modules include those that are considered part of the British Commonwealth (Bangladesh and India); systems of the French type (Morocco and Tunisia); centrally planned economies (China); and Latin American countries. For convenience, African countries are divided into two groups—countries of the British Commonwealth type and of the French type. In each case, X shows that the feature is applicable to that country;—shows that it is inapplicable; and … indicates that data are unavailable.

GROUP I

Module 1.

Macroeconomic Framework

article image
article image
Module 2.

Budget Preparation and Planning Background

article image
article image

a = item-by-item; b = incremental; c = fixed ceiling; d = program and performance; e = priority listing; f = open-ended.

Module 3.

Budget Coverage

article image
Module 4.

Financial Control

article image
Module 5.

Fiscal Reporting

article image
article image
Module 6.

Budget Administration and Decision Making

article image
article image
Module 7.

Budget Classification

article image
article image

GROUP II

Module 1.

Macroeconomic Framework

article image
article image
Module 2.

Budget Preparation and Planning Background

article image
article image

a = item-by-item; b = incremental; c = fixed ceiling; d = program and performance; e = priority listing; f = open-ended.

Module 3.

Budget Coverage

article image
Module 4.

Financial Control

article image
Module 5.

Fiscal Reporting

article image
article image
Module 6.

Budget Administration and Decision Making

article image
Module 7.

Budget Classification

article image

GROUP III

Module 1.

Macroeconomic Framework

article image
article image
Module 2.

Budget Preparation and Planning Background

article image
article image

a = item-by-item; b = incremental; c = fixed ceiling; d = program and performance; e = priority listing; f = open-ended.

Module 3.

Budget Coverage

article image
Module 4.

Financial Control

article image
Module 5.

Fiscal Reporting

article image
article image
Module 6.

Budget Administration and Decision Making

article image
article image
Module 7.

Budget Classification

article image
article image

GROUP IV

Module 1.

Macroeconomic Framework

article image
article image
Module 2.

Budget Preparation and Planning Background

article image
article image

a = item-by-item; b = incremental; c = fixed celling; d = program and performance; e = priority listing; f = open-ended.

Module 3.

Budget Coverage

article image
Module 4.

Financial Control

article image
Module 5.

Fiscal Reporting

article image
article image
Module 6.

Budget Administration and Decision Making

article image
Module 7.

Budget Classification

article image

GROUP V

Module 1.

Macroeconomic Framework

article image
article image
Module 2.

Budget Preparation and Planning Background

article image
article image

a = item-by-item; b = incremental; c = fixed celling; d = program and performance; e = priority listing; f = open-ended.

Module 3.

Budget Coverage

article image
Module 4.

Financial Control

article image
Module 5.

Fiscal Reporting

article image
article image
Module 6.

Budget Administration and Decision Making

article image
Module 7.

Budget Classification

article image

Appendix II Government Accounting: Recent Developments and Future Directions

Government accounting has traditionally been viewed as a system of recording the financial transactions of public authorities and, thus, of their receipts (revenues and proceeds from borrowing) and expenditures. In turn, the system was expected to assure the community and its legislative instruments about the custody of the moneys received and the pattern of their utilization. Consequently, the primary concerns were to ensure the comprehensiveness of the records of public authorities and the adequacy of the process of receiving and paying public moneys. Added to these twin concerns, which dominated government accounting for a number of years, were arrangements in which accounts were also considered important, indeed vital, for formulating and implementing government budgets. Accounting systems were therefore expanded and given additional tasks in preparing the budget of each agency, consolidating the budget for the government as a whole, and assisting the bodies charged with the responsibility for budget approval by providing information on available resources, existing liabilities, costs of operations, and related performance.

These tasks have grown immensely over the years and become more complex, reflecting the growth and complexity of government operations. In experiencing the growth in tasks and responsibilities, attention to the second set of activities has also increased substantially. The first set of activities (the receipt and payment of public moneys) has also undergone massive transformation, not so much in the coverage or the content of records maintained for the purpose, but in the way in which receipts were collected and payments made. These aspects were less transformed by internal organizational factors than by developments outside government accounting: the development of commercial banking and its gradual extension into rural areas and the establishment of a well-organized network of banking centers forged a new and vibrant relationship between governments and the banking system, regardless of its ownership. This relationship in turn brought a change in the operations of the treasury, which was considered the central point of government operations. The treasury became more an accounting agency than an agency for the custody of moneys and their disbursement.

In the last two decades, the growth of computer technology and the introduction of on-line operational systems changed the maintenance of government accounting records immensely. This technological development has provided an easier and quicker electronic trail of all transactions, from their inception to their completion, and thus facilitated a continuous oversight into the activities of public bodies. The steady advances in the technology have enabled the introduction of the electronic transfer of moneys and payments both into and out of the government. These advances are not the subject of this appendix, however; the focus here is on the second area described above.

Evolution

Two parameters have influenced the evolution of the government accounting system over the years: the nature and content of accountability and the agencies or institutions from which accountability was expected. Neither has been or can be considered on its own. It is a case of mutual reinforcement, where developments in one area have opened new vistas in the other.

Accountability has been variously defined, depending on the situation. It has been equated with governance in some cases, while in others its scope has been relatively narrow and restricted to providing information on the status of the appropriations voted by the legislature, amounts spent by the agencies, and, sometimes, the liabilities incurred by the agencies. It was thus essentially a case of financial disclosure. But the content and form of financial disclosure have changed a good deal, as will be illustrated later. Each stage of this change was influenced by two factors—the changes in the financial transactions of the government’, and the experimentation carried out in the commercial sector to improve the extent of financial disclosure for the shareholders of companies. In addition, as a spillover effect of performance budgeting on the one hand and the frequent demands for improved public expenditure management on the other, the scope of accountability has expanded to include not merely responsibility for the prudent management of finances but also responsibility for action and for the delivery of services and results within the constraints of time and the financial resources specified as part of the annual budget.

Accounting was expected to function so as to meet the purposes of three broad types of institutions: the common man (who may not necessarily be a taxpayer but may only be a beneficiary of the public goods provided by the public authorities); the legislature or its proxy; and the internal management within the government itself. As a result of assiduous efforts over the years, greater clarity has been provided about the broad needs of each of these groups. Thus, as will be illustrated below, the common man, who hitherto had been an unspecified abstraction with vague interests seeking to be defined, has been given a form, substance, and stratification. It is now recognized that the common man hitherto represented a conglomeration of different interests. A major advance in recent years has been the formulation of stratified groups of people with different interests. Therefore, information on the financial status of governments had to be provided so as to meet the heterogeneous requirements of these different groups.

The interests of the legislature (including those in the former centrally planned economies) have also become more varied. In addition to the status of the appropriations and year-end status of government finances in general, the legislature has come to demand and obtain regular information on the future financial implications of current policies, as well as on the contingent liabilities of the nation. Also, its desire for more frequent information on the status of government finances had to be accommodated. Indeed, regardless of the actual utilization of the information, its regular provision throughout the fiscal year has acquired an enduring place in the functioning of parliamentary democracies.

Management in government has also become more specific and concrete. It now combines the different but complementary groups of central agencies (primarily responsible for the macroeconomic management of the country) and the numerous spending agencies (responsible for micro-management of the tasks and finances entrusted to them). The central agencies primarily needed accounting information that facilitates the tracking of the calibrated fiscal policies while broadly serving the associated purposes of resource use planning and implementation. In addition, accounting systems have been called upon to provide information on the status of physical and financial assets, data on contingent liabilities and post-employment benefits of civil services, and a comparative assessment of the advantages of contracting out government services. The spending agencies needed improved accounting systems that facilitated budget formulation, cost and related expenditure control, cash management to reduce the overall borrowing costs of governments, asset management, and management of contingent liabilities. In addition, the traditional area of payment controls also had to be properly maintained.

Issues

In all the above areas, awareness had increased—either through self-realization or an improved knowledge of the practices in the commercial sector—of the limitations of the traditional cash-based systems in government. They were proving inadequate to reflect the costs of government operations or the continuing or contingent liabilities, and the important issue became the extent to which the commercial format, particularly accrual-based accounting, should be applied to the government.

This issue, which had been in the forefront for nearly four decades since the incisive analysis of the Crick Committee on the form of accounts in the United Kingdom was published, had continually spurred public debate.1 By 1968, however, it appeared that the debate had been satisfactorily resolved with the acceptance of the recommendations of the President’s Budget Commission in the United States for the introduction of an accrual type of accounting in government. But the recommendation took more than two decades to be implemented, while the modalities of such a system were worked out.

The introduction of the accrual-based commercial accounting system has now become obligatory in the Governments of New Zealand and the United States.2 But the scope of accrual accounting has been extended, and several concepts, such as depreciation, have been clarified and clearly delineated in their applications to government. The current issues are therefore the following: (1) Will the ongoing conversion to accrual and the commercial type of accounting provide adequate accountability to the legislature and the public at large? (2) Will it facilitate macroeconomic management by contributing more effectively to the formulation of appropriately calibrated fiscal policies and their implementation with minimal fiscal slippages? (3) If new accounting standards are to be introduced in governments, who should be responsible for their formulation and periodic monitoring to ensure full compliance?

The various aspects of government accounting in the current context are analyzed below in terms of four modules: financial disclosure; accountability and fiscal reporting; macroeconomic management; and monitoring government accounting.

Financial Disclosure

The form of government accounts is determined primarily by the needs of the users. These users have traditionally been identified as the legislature and management within the government. (The latter is still identified as a single group for most purposes, although the demands or the requirements of central agencies and macroeconomic management tend to be different after a point, not so much in substance as in form.) The needs of the legislature were to know the justification for raising the resources and the purposes for which they were used. But as the operations of government became increasingly complex, it was also evident that the accounting information, compiled on a cash basis and limited to a year, was not adequate to disclose fully the current and probable costs of operating and investment decisions, nor did it fully reflect the efficiency of the management of programs. The twin purposes of government accounting.—accountability and internal management—were therefore both found to be wanting. Also, it was implicitly recognized that the time frame of accounting was not adequate to reflect interperiod or intergenerational equity, which was intended to permit an evaluation of the government’s ability to live within its means—not merely within one year of the term of office—but from one generation to another. The responses to these identified deficiencies were improved accounting that permits full financial disclosure and evaluation of actual performance.

Government accounting broadly has a twofold approach: (1) budgetary or appropriation accounting that keeps track of the budgetary authority, and amounts voted and spent, etc. (in obligational accounting it records the obligations incurred, and correspondingly, in the cash systems, commitments are recorded); and (2) a cash basis of accounting that recognizes a transaction only when cash is received or disbursed.3 While budgetary and appropriation accounting continues even under the new systems, the changes brought about through the introduction of accrual accounting have primarily been in the following areas: (a) the concept of accrual; (b) the agency as the principal focus; and (c) the forms of annual financial statements furnished by each agency.

Accrual accounting was traditionally interpreted in terms of actual receipt of goods and services received by the government and their use in the programs and delivery of services by government or public bodies. Under the specifications in use, the concept has been extended beyond goods and services to include all events—transactions and circumstances with financial effects on government—regardless of when cash is received or paid.4 However, the use of accrued expenses continues, as before, in the computation of program costs.

The pivot of the above type of accrual accounting is the government agency (a department or any other administrative apparatus given the status of an agency), although in accounting it is called an “entity.” The financial disclosure will therefore concentrate on measuring the financial resources and funded liabilities of the entity. The transactions of these entities are expected to be arranged so as to meet the financial disclosure as well as the budgetary requirements.

Each agency is viewed as a separate entity with its own accounts broadly comparable to a commercial firm. The intent is to have accounts in a form that would facilitate the application of a market-value approach in measuring the finances of that entity. Thus, a distinction is made between the financial resources and the funded liabilities of the entity. The former includes the cash resources, accounts receivable, loans receivable, interest receivable, investments, and inventories. The latter includes accounts payable, other funded liabilities, interest payable, other borrowings, and liability for loan guarantee losses. The format envisages the computation of “net financial resources” of the entity, which are defined as total financial resources minus total funded liabilities, the latter being liabilities for which budgetary authority has been received. The net financial resources seek to provide an idea of the balance (or the lack of it and the extent) between funded liabilities and the financial resources of the entity that have accumulated as a result of past policies of the executive and the legislature. This format is complemented by other statements that show the financial position and budgetary appropriations status. In the United States, for example, each agency is required to submit four principal statements: statement of financial position; statement of operations and changes in net position; statement of cash flows; and statement of budget and actual expenses.5 The primary feature of this approach is that it seeks to facilitate a more realistic assessment of government finances through a specific and explicit delineation of pension and debt liabilities, imputed interest subsidy in the lending operations of government, contingent liabilities, inventories, and asset management—all aspects that are generally concealed in a cash-based exercise.

The accounts so prepared tend to be different from the budget. In obligation-based appropriation systems, the fund balances with the treasury would include unspent amounts of the budgetary authority already approved. In other systems with annual lapsability of funds (along with the budget), the statements primarily highlight the continuing financial liabilities for which funds have to be appropriated. They also show the future financial implications of current financial policies, or the draft of the current policies on future resources—a feature that is associated with rolling expenditure planning. To that extent, the accounting statements complement the rolling budget exercise, which is usually done for a period of three years in addition to the next budget year. Moreover, inasmuch as the accounting statements make a distinction between current liabilities and assets, it would be introducing a capital account also. In the United States, this could mean a different practice from the budget, which has no separate presentation of the capital budget.6

Although the above systems are in their infancy, and fully acceptable standards are being developed on the calculation of medium-term liabilities, such as pensions, or the element of subsidy in the loans extended and the rate of interest charged by governments, their ability to highlight the inherent imbalance between resources available and expanding liabilities provide new instruments for those engaged in expenditure management. In contrast to the language of line-item appropriations used previously, the legislatures would now have to look at finances and at their own role as a judicious exercise in the asset and liability management of the nation. The preparation of the four types of statements referred to earlier is also bound to contribute to substantial additional work pressures. Developments in computer technology and the availability of improved software would go a long way toward mitigating these additional work burdens, however.

Accountability and Fiscal Reporting

As noted at the outset, because of the heterogeneous users and their interests, the concept of accountability had to be made more concrete. While the form of the accounts described in the preceding section has certainly been an improvement over previous practices, the effort in recent years to identify and categorize the users has been another notable improvement. The joint study of Canada and the United States (United States, General Accounting Office, 1986) identified six groups of users of government accounts. These were (1) legislators; (2) citizens; (3) media; (4) policy analysts; (5) corporate users and lenders; and (6) security dealers, etc. These six groups were then reorganized into three sets with overlapping interests: (i) legislators and government managers; (ii) citizens and corporations; and (iii) media and analysts. The first group is mainly responsible for the design and flow of information for other users. The second set primarily represents the beneficiaries, including those with investment interests in government securities, while the third set is concerned with analyzing and disseminating information.7 An important feature of this grouping is the explicit recognition of investors and creditors as a major category—a long overdue step, given the steady increase in the overall debt of public authorities.

The second development has been the specification of the broad purposes of fiscal reporting that in turn facilitate the achievement of accountability. As is to be expected, the traditional objective of periodically providing information on the financial results of the legally approved budget continues to be dominant. In addition, it is now explicitly recognized that such information should permit an assessment of the financial condition and results of operations and an evaluation of efficiency and effectiveness. In turn, reports are expected to have six characteristics: (1) understandability—the need to be expressed simply—to make the information more accessible to the common man; (2) reliability—the data presented are to be verifiable; (3) relevance—to have a logical relationship between the purpose and the information provided; (4) timeliness—to be provided with minimum delay after completion of the event; (5) consistency—data are to be consistent over time; and (6) comparability—to facilitate comparisons among governments.

Progress in achieving these objectives is spotty, however. The proposed framework of an accrual-based commercial format would go a long way to meet the requirements of the three sets of users identified. It is presumed that even the common man would have a better appreciation of the status of government through the balance sheet. But the publication of balance sheet formats still has to be implemented, although a few governments are taking steps in this direction. Meanwhile, greater attention is being given to the needs of investors and creditors. In addition to the regular publication of data by international financial institutions on the external debt and their credit rating by private sector firms, governments now routinely publish more information, more frequently than before, on the means of financing budget deficits and securities issued.8

Progress is still needed in compiling accounting information that would permit evaluation or cross-governmental comparison. Evaluation, where practiced, is largely carried out through the value-for-money audits, and the related evaluation of selected programs, by the audit agencies. In some cases, evaluation is undertaken by the agencies themselves, but the results are not generally available to the public. Similarly, except for the data published by international financial institutions, little is available to permit comparison of government at various levels in a country, or in a region, or on an international basis. It is to be hoped that more progress will be made in these areas in the future.

Macroeconomic Management

Accounting, as a system responsible for providing credible information in a timely fashion to those responsible for making decisions and as a catalyst facilitating the formulation of decisions, has become more important in the context of macroeconomic management of countries. Economic management relies considerably on the formulation of precise targets as part of fiscal policies, and any major fiscal slippages from the scheduled targets are likely to have an adverse impact on the country. This scrupulous adherence to objectives and targets has brought accounting to the central stage of government management and endowed it with a dynamic role. Increasingly, this role is performed in three major ways: through improved fiscal reporting; strengthened cash management; and computation and containment of costs of programs and projects.

Fiscal reporting, in addition to providing accountability through widespread dissemination of financial data, serves the equally important purpose of internal management within the executive branch of government. It provides information on the aggregates of revenues and expenditures to the central agencies and more detailed data to the operational agencies for operational purposes. In most countries now, sophisticated computer systems are used to record data, to operate them on-line, and to reconcile them with the data provided by the banking systems. Such on-line systems also provide detailed updated information and the profiles of all important projects to the planning authorities. These systems track events from approval of the budget to the various stages of commitment, delivery of services, and issue of checks and payments. Thus, they provide data not only on the actual cash amounts paid but also on the status of liabilities awaiting eradication. In addition, separate but complementary networks of information on payroll and pensions, debt management, foreign aid, and contingent liabilities alert the expenditure manager to the prospect of fiscal slippages and the extent of policy and administrative maneuverability inherent in the situation to enable him to avoid the slippages. These computerized systems, which are fairly common among countries, have contributed in three important ways to economic management.

First, the scope of accounting has widened to include the reporting of physical progress in projects. Data merely on payments would serve only a narrow purpose, but the broader requirements of management include information on physical progress to ensure continuing congruence between financial and physical aspects. Such information on the physical progress is now a routine feature of project reporting. Second, the systems have narrowed the traditional gulf between central and spending agencies and have changed the patterns of controls by providing simultaneous access to fiscal data. A common feature of the systems until now has been for the central agencies to demand information from the spending agencies and, thereby, a dependence on the spending agencies also developed. The spending agencies in turn often delayed furnishing the information, or even doctored the data to suit their point of view. The computerized systems avoid these problems by providing even access to the information available in the computer. Third, the introduction of the on-line systems has also made the issue of the choice between centralized and decentralized payment systems somewhat academic. Indeed, more than half of government expenditures are now paid out on a centralized basis (pay, pensions, debt, and subsidies) without any loss of control and related efficiency.

The necessity to adhere to budgetary targets has also contributed to placing more emphasis on cash management. Cash management has come to be used as a shorthand expression for achieving greater congruence between inflows and outflows, while avoiding the immobilization of funds and minimizing costs of borrowing that would otherwise be incurred. Traditionally, most accounting systems were primarily concerned with payments, as there was a prevailing belief that shortages in resources would be routinely funded through overdrafts or the issue of securities by the central bank. But the pursuit of calibrated fiscal policies involves compliance with limits on credit to the government from the banking system. Such limits assume greater importance where the budget deficit is already substantial, requiring every effort to sustain the fragile balance between inflows and outflows. Successful cash management requires a steady monitoring of the flows, while being vigilant about such time bombs as contingent liabilities. This type of improved monitoring and cash management is now an integral part of payment systems and thus of government accounting.

Macroeconomic management in its broader form also requires efficient and economic use of resources. This implies the computation of costs of programs and efforts to contain them at the stipulated levels. Much of the debate in accounting over the last three decades centered on the appropriate choice of the basis for the computation of costs—accrual or cash. While costs should ideally reflect the accrued use of resources and should therefore be on an accrual basis, there can be approximations to those costs in a cash-based system. Thus, for short-term purposes, reliance is placed on the operational or running costs of programs as an instrument of control. Under this approach, the expenditure profiles (excluding capital outlays) of major programs are computed, and ceilings are specified for each program as part of the annual budget. The spending agencies are then obliged to observe those limits, while being responsible for the delivery of services within the specified performance framework. In some cases, the central agencies also specify the extent of monetary savings to be achieved within those ceilings. But in the spirit of organized management, the spending agencies are given administrative flexibility regarding the use of funds appropriated for the program. These practices, which are becoming common among a spectrum of industrial countries, illustrate the use of accounting in the computation and containment of program costs.

Monitoring Accounting Standards

The general responsibility for prescribing the form and content of accounts—the accounting charter—has been (and continues to be in several countries) located in the government itself. Although legislatures were endowed with the task of finally approving the accounting forms and basis, there is no experience of legislatures changing the proposals of the executive or the general accounting offices. But over the years it had been felt that this was contributing to an “inbred” view, uninfluenced by external developments. This feeling, together with the urgent need to make accountability more substantive, had contributed to the formation of autonomous accounting boards. These boards—to be found in Australia, New Zealand, and the United States—include representatives of the accounting profession and those that generate government accounts, as well as those that tend to benefit from the financial data published by governments. The boards, which can only function in an advisory capacity, have been very influential and have proved to be the primary impetus for the recent reforms. While the tasks of the boards have largely been facilitated by the growth of an electronically processed information industry, their endeavors have contributed to applying improved concepts to government operations. It could also be argued that the spread of autonomous, well-represented organizations may have proved useful in checking the traditional proclivity of some organizations within governments to defend the status quo.

The contributions of the autonomous boards have so far been limited to formulating accounting standards. An area that remains to be explored is the monitoring of performance indicators/measurements and the standards of evaluation within the governments. As pointed out earlier, accountability is being interpreted in larger terms and its scope includes accountability for performance. Governments have therefore in recent years tried to formulate and publish performance indicators. But these indicators are largely formulated by those administratively responsible for programs, and the allegation about the use of self-serving indicators cannot therefore be entirely ignored. Also, the evaluation undertaken by the audit agencies has been selective, and their results do not appear to have had a major impact on how governmental organizations think, plan, and act. The formulation and implementation of standards for performance indicators and for program evaluation is a major area in which substantial progress is still awaited.

Bibliography

  • Adanolekun, Ladipo, “Institutional Perspectives on Africa’s Development Crisis,” International Journal of Public Sector Management (1991).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Allison, Graham T., Jr., “Public and Private Management, Are They Fundamentally Alike in All Unimportant Respects?” in Current Issues in Public Administration, ed. by Frederick S. Lane (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1982), pp. 13–33.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Anshen, Melvin, “The Federal Budget as an Instrument for Management and Analysis,” in Program Budgeting: Program Analysis and Federal Budget, ed. by David Novick (Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1965), pp. 3–23.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Anthony, Robert N., Planning and Control Systems: A Framework for Analysis (Boston: Harvard University, Graduate School of Business Administration, 1965).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Anthony, Robert N., The Management Control Function (Boston: Harvard Business School Press, 1988).

  • Arab Organization of Administrative Services, The Unified Government Accounting System for Arab Countries (Cairo, 1980).

  • Arkadie, Brian van, “The Role of Institutions in Development,” in Proceedings of the World Bank Annual Conference on Development Economics (Washington, 1989), pp. 153–91.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Artis, Michael, and Sylvia Ostry, International Economic Policy Coordination, Chatham House Papers No. 30, Royal Institute of International Affairs (London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1986).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Ascher, Kate, The Politics of Privatization: Contracting Out Public Services (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1987).

  • Ball, Ian (1990a), “Financial Management Reform of New Zealand’s Public Sector: The Treasury’s Role” (New Zealand: The Treasury, 1990).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Ball, Ian (1990b), “Financial Management Reform of New Zealand’s Public Sector” (New Zealand: The Treasury, 1990).

  • Behn, Robert D., “Leadership for Cut-Back Management: The Use of Corporate Strategy,” Public Administration Review (November/December 1980).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Bery, K., “Economic Policy Reform in Developing Countries: The Role and Management of Political Factors,” World Development, Vol. 18 (August 1990), pp. 1123–31.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Bhatia, Rattan J., The West African Monetary Union: An Analytical Review, Occasional Paper 35 (Washington: International Monetary Fund, 1985).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Boum, John., “Helping the Nation Spend Wisely,” International journal of Government Auditing (October 1989), pp. 1 and 6.

  • Break, George F., Federal Lending and Economic Stability (Washington: Brookings Institution, 1965).

  • Brewer, John, The Sinews of Power: War, Money and the English State, 1688–1783 (New York: Knopf, 1989).

  • Bryant, Ralph, and others, eds., Macroeconomic Policies in an Interdependent World, Brookings Institution, Center for Economic Policy Research, and International Monetary Fund (Washington: International Monetary Fund, 1989).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Buchanan, James M., Fiscal Theory and Political Economy: Selected Essays (Chapel Hill, North Carolina: University of North Carolina Press, 1960).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Burns, James M., Leadership (New York: Harper & Row, 1979).

  • Campbell, Harrison S., “Procurement and Management of Spares,” in Defense Management, ed. by Stephen Enke (New York: Prentice-Hall, 1967), pp. 187–229.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Canada, Auditor General of Canada, Constraints to Productive Management in the Public Service (Ottawa, 1983).

  • Canada, Auditor General of Canada, Well-Performing Organizations (Ottawa, 1988).

  • Canada, Auditor General of Canada, Values, Service and Performance (Ottawa, 1990).

  • Canada, Auditor General of Canada, The Treasury Board, Guide on the Program Evaluation Function (Ottawa, 1981).

  • Canetti, Elias, Crowds and Power, translated by Carol Stewart (New York: Continuum, 1981).

  • The Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy, Cash Limits in Operation (London, 1982).

  • Chaudhuri, K.N., Asia Before Europe: Economy and Civilization of the Indian Ocean from the Rise of Islam to 1750 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Danziger, James N., and Peter Smith Ring, “Fiscal Limitations: A Selective Review of Recent Research,” Public Administration Review (January/February 1982).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Dean, Peter N., and Cedric Pugh, Government Budgeting in Developing Countries (London: Routledge, 1989).

  • Deming, W. Edwards, Out of the Crisis (Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press, 1986).

  • Devons, Ely, Planning in Practice: Essays in Aircraft Planning in Wartime (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1950).

  • Diamond, Jack, “Measuring Efficiency in Government: Techniques and Experience,” in Government Financial Management, ed. by A. Premchand (Washington: International Monetary Fund, 1990).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Dixit, Avinash K., and Barry Nalebuff, Thinking Strategically: The Competitive Edge in Business, Politics, and Everyday Life (New York: Norton, 1991).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Donahue, John D., The Privatization Decision: Public Ends, Private Means (New York: Basic Books, 1989).

  • Dopson, Sue, and Rosemary Stewart, “Public and Private Sector Management: The Case for a Wider Debate,” Public Money and Management, Vol. 10 (Spring 1990).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Douglas, Patricia P., and Robert N. Anthony, “An Analysis of the Government Accounting Model,” The Government Accountant’s Journal (Summer 1991), pp. 25–34.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Drucker, Peter F., “The Deadly Sins in Public Administration,” in Current Issues in Public Administration, ed. by Frederick S. Lane (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1982).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Drucker, Peter F.,, The New Realities; in Government and Politics, in Economics and Business, in Society and World View (New York: Harper & Row, 1989).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Durham, Paul, ed., Output and Performance Measurement in Central Government: Some Practical Achievements (London: H.M. Treasury, 1987).

  • Dye, Kenneth M., “Value for Money: Toward Improved Organizational Functioning,” in Government Financial Management, ed. by A. Premchand (Washington: International Monetary Fund, 1990).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Eden, Colin, and Chris. Huxham, “Action-Oriented Strategic Management,” Journal of Operational Research Society, Vol. 39, No. 10 (1988), pp. 889–99.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Enke, Stephen, Defense Management (Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 1967).

  • Fisher, Stanley, and Alan Gelb, “Issues in the Reform of Socialist Economies,” in Reforming Central and Eastern European Economies, ed. by Vittorio Corbo, Fabrizio Coricelli, and Jan Bossak (Washington: World Bank, 1991), pp. 65–83.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Fox, Ronald J., and James L. Field, The Defense Management Challenge: Weapons Acquisition (Boston: Harvard Business School, 1988).

  • Fukuyama, Francis, The End of History and the Last Man (New York: The Free Press, 1992).

  • Germany, Federal Ministry of Finance, Federal German Budget Legislation (Bonn, 1988).

  • Goode, Richard, Government Finance in Developing Countries (Washington: The Brookings Institution, 1984).

  • Grace, Peter J. (Chairman), War on Waste, President’s Private Sector Survey on Cost Control (New York: Macmillan, 1984).

  • Granick, David, Chinese State Enterprise: A Regional Property Rights Analysis (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1990).

  • Gunn, L., “Public Management: A Third Approach?” Public Money and Management, Vol. 8 (Spring/Summer 1988), pp. 21–25.

  • Hage, Jerald, and Kurt Finsterbusch, Organizational Change as a Development Strategy: Models and Tactics for Improving Third World Organizations (Boulder, Colorado: Lynne Rienner, 1987).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Hage, Jerald, and Kurt Finsterbusch, “Three Strategies of Organizational Development, Organizational Theory and Organizational Design,” International Review of Administrative Sciences, Vol. 55 (1989), pp. 29–57.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Hartle, Douglas G., The Expenditure Budget Process of the Government of Canada: A Public Choice—Rent-Seeking Perspective (Toronto: Canadian Tax Foundation, 1988).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Hayek, Friedrich A. von, The Constitution of Liberty (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1960).

  • Heald, David, “The Political Implications of Redefining Public Expenditure in the United Kingdom,” Political Studies (1991), pp. 75–99.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Healey, Denis, The Time of My Life (London: Michael Joseph, 1989).

  • Heymann, David B., “Input Controls in the Public Sector: What Does Economic Theory Offer?” IMF Working Paper No. 59 (Washington: International Monetary Fund, 1988).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Hiromoto, Toshiro, “Another Hidden Edge—Japanese Management Accounting,” Harvard Business Review, Vol. 66 (July-August 1988), pp. 22–26.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Home, Jocelyn, and Paul R. Masson, “Scope and Limits of International Economic Cooperation and Policy Coordination,” Staff Papers, International Monetary Fund, Vol. 35 (June 1988), pp. 259–84.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Hyde, Albert C., ed., Government Budgeting, Theory, Process, Politics (Pacific Grove, California: Brooks/Cole, 1992).

  • International Monetary Fund, World Economic Outlook, May 1992 (Washington: International Monetary Fund, 1992).

  • International Monetary Fund, The World Bank, Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, and European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, The Economy of the U.S.S.R. (Washington: World Bank, 1990).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • International Monetary Fund, A Study of the Soviet Economy, 3 vols. (Washington: International Monetary Fund, 1991).

  • Jackson, P.M., “Economics of Public Services: Public Choice and Public Sector Management,” Public Money and Management, Vol. 10 (Winter 1990), pp. 13–20.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Jackson, Peter, and Bob Palmer, First Steps in Measuring Performance in the Public Sector: A Management Guide (London: Public Finance Foundation, 1989).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Kapur, Ishan, Michael T. Hadjimichael, Paul Hilbers, Jerald Schiff, and Philippe Szymczak, Ghana: Adjustment and Growth, 1983–91, Occasional Paper 86 (Washington: International Monetary Fund, 1991).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Keating, Michael, and David Rosalky, “Rolling Expenditure Plans: Australian Experience and Prognosis,” in Government Financial Management, ed. by A. Premchand (Washington: International Monetary Fund, 1990).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Keeling, Desmond, Management in Government (London: Allen & Unwin, 1972).

  • Kelman, Steven, Procurement and Public Management (Washington: American Enterprise Institute Press, 1990).

  • Kline, Bennett E., and Norman H. Martin, “Freedom, Authority and Decentralization,” Harvard Business Review, Vol. 36 (May-June 1958), pp. 69–75.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Korff, Hans Clausen, “Planning and Budgeting in the Federal Republic of Germany,” in Comparative International Budgeting and Finance, ed. by A. Premchand and Jesse Burkhead (New Brunswick, New Jersey: Transaction Books, 1984), pp. 39–53.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Kraqan, D.J., “Towards More Flexibility of Government Expenditure: Some Recent Developments in the Netherlands,” Policy Sciences, No. 17 (1984), pp. 413–27.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Leonard, David K., “The Political Realities of African Management,” World Development, Vol. 15 (July 1987), pp. 899–910.

  • Levine, Charles H., “Organizational Decline and Cutback Management,” Public Administration Review (July/August 1978), pp. 33316–325.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Lewis, Verne B., “Reflections on Budget Systems,” Public Budgeting and Finance, Vol. 8 (Spring 1988), pp. 4–19.

  • Lewis, W. Arthur, The Theory of Economic Growth (London: Allen & Unwin, 1955).

  • Likierman, Andrew, “Government Accounting in the United Kingdom,” in Government Financial Management, ed. by A. Premchand (Washington: International Monetary Fund, 1990), pp. 307–325.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Likierman, Andrew, and Alison Taylor, Government’s New Departmental Reports: Challenges and Potential Problems (London: Certified Accountants Publications Ltd., 1990).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Lindblom, Charles E., “Decision-Making in Taxation and Expenditures,” in Public Finances; Needs, Sources and Utilization, ed. by James M. Buchanan (Princeton, New Jersey: National Bureau of Economic Research, 1961), pp. 295–336.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Lynn, Jonathan, and Anthony Jay, ed., The Complete Yes Minister (London: British Broadcasting Corporation, 1984).

  • McCaffery, Jerry, “Canada’s Envelope Budget: A Strategic Management System,” Public Administration Review (July/August 1984), pp. 316–23.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Mack, Ruth P., Planning in Uncertainty—Decision Making in Business and Government Administration (Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 1970).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Macmullen, Ramsay, Corruption and the Decline of Rome (New Haven, Connecticut: Yale University Press, 1988).

  • Math, Paul, “Acquisition Reform: Three Guiding Principles,” The G.A.O. Journal, No. 7 (Fall 1989).

  • Mautz, R.K., “Generally Accepted Principles,” Public Budgeting and Finance (Winter 1991), pp. 3–11.

  • Metcalfe, Les, and Sue Richards, Improving Public Management (London: Sage Publications, 1987).

  • Miah, Nuruz Zaman, “Attempts at Developing a Conceptual Framework for Public Sector Accounting in New Zealand,” Financial Accountability and Management, Vol. 7 (Summer 1991), pp. 83–97.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Montgomery, John D., “Probing Managerial Behavior: Image and Reality in Southern Africa,” World Development, Vol. 15, No. 7 (1987), pp. 911–29.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Mosley, Paul, Jane Harrigan, and John Toye, Aid and Power: The World Bank and Policy-Based Lending, 2 vols. (London; New York: Routledge, 1991).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Mowl, Colin, and Philippa Todd, Central Government Funds and Accounts and the Central Government Borrowing Requirement (London: H.M. Treasury, 1990).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Nader, Ralph, “Run the Government Like the Best American Corporations,” Harvard Business Review, Vol. 66 (November-December 1988), pp. 81–86.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • New Zealand, The Public Finance Act (Wellington: Government Printing Works, 1989).

  • New Zealand, Putting It Simply—An Explanatory Guide to Financial Management Reform (Wellington: The Treasury, 1990).

  • Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, The Control and Management of Government Expenditure (Paris, 1987).

  • Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, Public Management Developments, Survey 1990 (Paris, 1990).

  • Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, Accounting Reform in Central and Eastern Europe (Paris, 1991).

  • Paul, Samuel, Institutional Development in World Bank Projects: A Cross-Sectoral Review, Working Paper 392 (Washington: World Bank, 1990).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Paul, Samuel, Accountability in Public Services: Exit, Voice, and Capture, Working Paper 614 (Washington: World Bank, 1991).

  • Polanyi, Michael, The Logic of Liberty (London: Allen & Unwin, 1951).

  • Porter, Michael E., The Competitive Advantage of Nations (New York: Free Press, 1990).

  • Premchand, A., Performance Budgeting (Bombay: Academic Books, 1969).

  • Premchand, A., “Budgetary Reforms in Developing Countries: Need for Renewal,” Finance & Development (1973).

  • Premchand, A., “Government Lending Programs in OECD and Selected Developing Countries,” IMF Survey, Vol. 11 (Washington: International Monetary Fund, August 2, 1982).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Premchand, A., Government Budgeting and Expenditure Controls (Washington: International Monetary Fund, 1983).

  • Premchand, A., “Government Budgeting and Productivity,” Public Productivity Review, No. 41 (1987) (reprinted in Government Budgeting, Theory, Process, Politics, ed. by Albert C. Hyde (Pacific Grove, California: Brooks/Cole, 1992)).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Premchand, A., “Financial Management in Government: Are We Really Serious?” Public Fund Digest, Vol. 11, No. 2 (1988), pp. 67–70.

  • Premchand, A., “Coordination of Expenditure Policies in GCC Member States,” paper presented at a roundtable organized by the Arab Monetary Fund (Abu Dhabi, September 1991).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Premchand, A., ed., Government Financial Management (Washington: International Monetary Fund, 1990).

  • Premchand, A., and Jesse Burkhead, ed., Comparative International Budgeting and Finance (New Brunswick, New Jersey: Transaction Books, 1984).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Premchand, A., and A. L. Antonaya, ed., Aspectos del presupuesto publico (Washington: International Monetary Fund, 1988).

  • Premchand, A., and A. L. Antonaya, Premchand, A., and L. Garamfalvt, “Government Budget and Accounting Systems,” in Fiscal Policies in Economies in Transition, ed. by Vito Tanzi (Washington: International Monetary Fund, 1992).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Quinn, J.B., Strategies for Change: Logical Incrementalism (Romewood, Illinois: Irwin, 1980).

  • Rainey, Hal G., Robert W. Backoff, and Charles H. Levine, “Comparing Public and Private Organizations,” Public Administration Review (March/April 1976).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Rehfuss, John A., Contracting Out in Government: A Guide to Working with Outside Contractors to Supply Public Services (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1989).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Richardson, Eliot L., “The Value of Evaluation,” The G.A.O, Journal, No. 12 (Spring 1991), pp. 37–42.

  • Rist, Ray C, ed., Program Evaluation and the Management of Government (New Brunswick, New Jersey: Transaction Publishers, 1990).

  • Robinson, Ann, and Bengt-Christer Ysander, “Re-establishing Budgetary Flexibility,” Public Budgeting and Finance, Vol. 2 (Autumn 1982), pp. 21–34.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Robinson, David J., and Peter Stella, “Amalgamating Central Bank and Fiscal Deficits,” in Measurement of Fiscal Impact: Methodological Issues, ed. by Mario I. Blejer and Ke-Young Chu, Occasional Paper 59 (Washington: International Monetary Fund, 1988), pp. 20–31.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Roe, Emery M., “The Ceiling as Base: National Budgeting in Kenya,” Public Budgeting and Finance, Vol. 6 (Summer 1986), pp. 87–103.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Rogers, H.G., M.A. Ulrich, and K.L. Traversy, “Evaluation in Practice: The State of the Art in Canadian Governments,” Canadian Public Administration, Vol. 24 (Fall 1981), pp. 371–86.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Samuels, Warren J., ed., Institutional Economics, 3 vols. (London: Edward Elgar, 1988).

  • Sappington, David E.M., “Incentives in Principal-Agent Relationships,” Journal of Economic Perspectives, Vol. 5 (Spring 1991), pp. 45–66.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Schick, Allen, “The Road to PPB: The Stages of Budget Reform,” Public Administration Review (December 1966), pp. 243–58.

  • Schick, Allen, “Incremental Budgeting in a Decremental Age,” Policy Sciences, No. 16 (1983), pp. 1–25.

  • Schick, Allen, “Macro-Budgeting Adaptations to Fiscal Stress in Industrialized Democracies,” Public Administration Review (March/April 1986), pp. 124–34.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Schick, Allen, “Why the Deficit Persists as a Budget Problem: Role of Political Institutions,” in Government Financial Management: Issues and Country Studies, ed. by A. Premchand (Washington: International Monetary Fund, 1990), pp. 38–52.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Schultze, Charles L., “Of Wolves, Termites, and Pussycats: Or, Why We Should Worry About the Budget Deficit,” The Brookings Review, Vol. 7 (Summer 1989), pp. 26–33.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Scott, Graham, Peter Bushnell, and Nikitin Sallee, “Reform of the Core Public Sector: The New Zealand Experience,” Public Sector, Vol. 13, No. 3 (1990), pp. 11–24.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Sensenbrenner, Joseph, “Quality Comes to City Hall,” Harvard Business Review, Vol. 69 (March-April 1991), pp. 64–75.

  • Shanghai University of Finance and Economics and Center for International Accounting Development, Accounting and Auditing in the People’s Republic of China: A Review of its Practices, Systems, Education, and Developments (Dallas: University of Texas, 1987).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Simon, Herbert A., “Organizations and Markets,” Journal of Economic Perspectives, Vol. 5 (Spring 1991), pp. 25–44.

  • Staats, Elmer B., “Government Accounting: Promise and Performance,” in Government Financial Management: Issues and Country Studies, ed. by A. Premchand (Washington: International Monetary Fund, 1990), pp. 128–34.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Stiglitz, Joseph E., and others, The Economic Role of the State, ed. by Arnold Heertje (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1989).

  • Stockman, David, “The Crisis in Federal Budgeting,” in Crisis in the Budget Process: Exercising Political Choice, by Allen Schick with papers by David Stockman, Rudolph Penner, Trent Lott, Leon Panetta, and Norman Orstein (Washington: American Enterprise Institute, 1986), pp. 57–66.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Tanzi, Vito, “Fiscal Issues in Economies in Transition,” in Reforming Central and Eastern European Economies, ed. by Vittorio Corbo, Fabrizio Coricelli, and Jan Bossack (Washington: World Bank, 1991), pp. 221–28.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Tarschys, Daniel, “Curbing Public Expenditure: Current Trends,” Journal of Public Policy, Vol. 5 (February 1985), pp. 23–67.

  • Tarschys, Daniel, “From Expansion to Restraint: Recent Developments in Budgeting,” Public Budgeting and Finance, Vol. 6 (Autumn 1986), pp. 25–37.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Thomas, John W., and Merilee S. Grindle, “After the Decision: Implementing Policy Reforms in Developing Countries,” World Development, Vol. 18 (August 1990), pp. 1163–81.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Uchiteile, Louis, “But Just Who Is That Fairy Godmother?” New York Times, September 29, 1991, Sec. 4, p. 1.

  • United Kingdom, Financial Management in Government Departments, Cmnd. 9058 (London: H.M. Stationery Office, 1983).

  • United Kingdom, The Financing and Accountability of Next Steps Agencies, CM 914 (London: H.M. Treasury, 1989).

  • United Kingdom (1991a), Competing for Quality, CM 1730 (London: H.M. Treasury, 1991).

  • United Kingdom (1991b), Improving Management in Government: The Next Steps Agencies, Review 1991, CM 1760 (London: H.M. Treasury, 1991).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • United Kingdom, National Audit Office (1991a), Annual Report (London, 1991).

  • United Kingdom (1991b), A Framework for Value for Money Audits (London, 1991).

  • United Kingdom (1991c), NHS Outpatient Services (London, 1991).

  • United Kingdom (1991d), Presenting Data Reports (London, 1991).

  • United Kingdom (1991e), Promoting Value for Money from Grants (London, 1991).

  • United Kingdom, Privy Council, Efficiency in the Civil Service, Cmnd. 8293 (London: H.M. Stationery Office, 1981).

  • United States, Congress, Management Theories in the Private and Public Sectors, 98th Cong., 2nd Sess., September 1984 (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1984).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • United States, Congress, Congressional Budget Office, Trends in Public Investment (Washington, 1987).

  • United States, Congress, Congressional Budget Office, Executive Office of the President, Office of Management and Budget, Management of the United States Government, Fiscal Year 1989 (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1989).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • United States, Congress, Congressional Budget Office, Executive Office of the President, Office of Management and Budget (1992a), Budget of the United States Government, Fiscal Year 1993 (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1992).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • United States, Congress, Congressional Budget Office, Executive Office of the President, Office of Management and Budget (1992b), Form and Content of Agency Financial Statements, Bulletin No, 93–02 (Washington: Government Printing Office, October 22, 1992).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • United States, Congress, Congressional Budget Office, Executive Office of the President, Office of Management and Budget, Federal Accounting Standards Advisory Board, Financial Resources, Funded Liabilities, and Net Financial Resources of Funded Entities (Exposure Draft) (Washington, November 1991).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • United States, Congress, Congressional Budget Office, Executive Office of the President, Office of Management and Budget, General Accounting Office, Designing Evaluation, Methodology Transfer Paper 4 (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1984).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • United States, Congress, Congressional Budget Office, Executive Office of the President, Office of Management and Budget, Managing the Cost of Government; Building an Effective Financial Management Structure, 2 vols. (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1985).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • United States, Congress, Congressional Budget Office, Executive Office of the President, Office of Management and Budget, Federal Government Reporting System (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1986).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • United States, Congress, Congressional Budget Office, Executive Office of the President, Office of Management and Budget, Managing the Cost of Government (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1989).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • United States, Congress, Congressional Budget Office, Executive Office of the President, Office of Management and Budget, Public Debt: Management Actions Needed to Ensure More Accurate Accounting (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1990).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • United States, Congress, Congressional Budget Office, Executive Office of the President, Office of Management and Budget, Federal Credit and Insurance Programs: Actions That Could Minimize a Growing Risk (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1991).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • United States, Congress, Congressional Budget Office, Executive Office of the President, Office of Management and Budget, Comptroller General’s 1991 Annual Report (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1992).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • United States, Congress, Congressional Budget Office, Executive Office of the President, Office of Management and Budget, Governmental Accounting Standards Board, Objectives of Financial Reporting (Washington, 1987).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Visscher, Christian De, “The Modernization of Budgetary Techniques and Financial Control,” International Review of Administrative Sciences, Vol. 55 (September 1989), pp. 321–64.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Wattle worth, Michael, “Credit Subsidies in Budgetary Lending: Computation, Effects, and Fiscal Implications,” in Measurement of Fiscal Impact: Methodological Issues, ed. by Mario I. Blejer and Ke-Young Chu, Occasional Paper 59 (Washington: International Monetary Fund, 1988), pp. 57–69.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Weber, Max, Economy and Society, ed. by Guenther Roth and Claus Wittich, 2 vols. (Berkeley, California: University of California Press, 1978). (See, in particular, Chapter XI on “Bureaucracy,” pp. 956–1005.)

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Wesberry, James P., Jr., “Government Accounting and Financial Management in Latin American Countries,” in Government Financial Management: Issues and Country Studies, ed. by A. Premchand (Washington: International Monetary Fund, 1990), pp. 345–74.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Wholey, Joseph S., Kathryn E. Newcomer, and Associates, Improving Government Performance: Evaluation Strategies for Strengthening Public Agencies and Programs (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1989).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Wilson, James Q., Bureaucracy: What Government Agencies Do and Why They Do It (New York: Basic Books, 1989).

  • World Bank, Toward Sustained Development in Sub-Saharan Africa: A Joint Program of Action (Washington: World Bank, 1984).

  • World Bank (1988a), Adjustment Lending: An Evaluation of Ten Years of Experience (Washington: World Bank, 1988).

  • World Bank (1988b), World Development Report (Washington: World Bank, 1988).

  • World Bank, World Development Report: The Challenge of Development, 1991 (Washington: World Bank, 1991).

  • Yates, Douglas, Bureaucratic Democracy (Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1982).

  • Ysander, Bengt-Christer, and Ann Robinson, “The Inflexibility of Contemporary Budgets,” Public Budgeting and Finance, Vol. 2 (Autumn 1982), pp. 7–20.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Zussman, David, and Jak Jabes, The Vertical Solitude: Managing in the Public Sector (Halifax, Nova Scotia: Institute for Research on Public Policy, 1989).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
1

For a more recent presentation of the point-counterpoint approaches in this regard, see Mautz (1991) and Douglas and Anthony (1991).

2

Interest payments and the accounts of enterprises or commercial types of activities were recorded on an accrual basis even in cash-based systems, however.

3

Even in a cash-based system there may be large noncash transactions, particularly those stemming from receipts of foreign aid.

4

See United States, Federal Accounting Standards Advisory Board (1991). This expanded coverage is partly implemented in the United States. Also, see United States, Executive Office of the President (1992b).

5

Similar statements also have to be furnished by departments in New Zealand, which has introduced commercial-type accrual systems for the Government as a whole. However, in contrast to the practice in the United States, the structure of the budget has also been changed in New Zealand to that of a balance sheet, thus facilitating full congruence between the budgetary and accounting systems. In Chile both budget and accounting systems follow a balance sheet approach.

6

This difference now exists in the practices of the Federal Government in the United States: Outlays of more than $5,000 on assets that have an average life span of two years are considered capital expenditures. No such distinctions are maintained in the budget. However, for information purposes, the outlays on capital are separately computed and shown in one of the analytical documents of the budget.

7

The U.S. Governmental Accounting Standards Board, which is mainly concerned with specifying standards for state and local governments, followed a variation of this approach. It divided the users into three groups: citizenry, legislative oversight bodies, and investors and creditors. See United States, Governmental Accounting Standards Board (1987), p. 1.

8

For example, the Monthly Treasury Statement issued by the U.S. Treasury contains detailed information on the means of financing budget deficits, the analysis of changes in liabilities, the financing of federal agency borrowing, and related aspects. Similar details are available in the publications of other industrial countries. In developing countries, data on debt are usually published by the central banks. (These data may not always reconcile with the budgetary data.) Many countries routinely publish data about their receipts and outflows, but these data may not always permit an assessment of the trends as information on the previous periods or the relationship of the actual to target (if any) is not provided.

  • Collapse
  • Expand
Cover Public Expenditure Management
Public Expenditure Management
Author:
A. Premchand
ISBN:
9781557753236
Publication Date:
15 Mar 1993
Publisher:
International Monetary Fund
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.5089/9781557753236.071
Pages:
297

  • Adanolekun, Ladipo, “Institutional Perspectives on Africa’s Development Crisis,” International Journal of Public Sector Management (1991).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Allison, Graham T., Jr., “Public and Private Management, Are They Fundamentally Alike in All Unimportant Respects?” in Current Issues in Public Administration, ed. by Frederick S. Lane (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1982), pp. 13–33.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Anshen, Melvin, “The Federal Budget as an Instrument for Management and Analysis,” in Program Budgeting: Program Analysis and Federal Budget, ed. by David Novick (Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1965), pp. 3–23.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Anthony, Robert N., Planning and Control Systems: A Framework for Analysis (Boston: Harvard University, Graduate School of Business Administration, 1965).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Anthony, Robert N., The Management Control Function (Boston: Harvard Business School Press, 1988).

  • Arab Organization of Administrative Services, The Unified Government Accounting System for Arab Countries (Cairo, 1980).

  • Arkadie, Brian van, “The Role of Institutions in Development,” in Proceedings of the World Bank Annual Conference on Development Economics (Washington, 1989), pp. 153–91.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Artis, Michael, and Sylvia Ostry, International Economic Policy Coordination, Chatham House Papers No. 30, Royal Institute of International Affairs (London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1986).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Ascher, Kate, The Politics of Privatization: Contracting Out Public Services (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1987).

  • Ball, Ian (1990a), “Financial Management Reform of New Zealand’s Public Sector: The Treasury’s Role” (New Zealand: The Treasury, 1990).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Ball, Ian (1990b), “Financial Management Reform of New Zealand’s Public Sector” (New Zealand: The Treasury, 1990).

  • Behn, Robert D., “Leadership for Cut-Back Management: The Use of Corporate Strategy,” Public Administration Review (November/December 1980).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Bery, K., “Economic Policy Reform in Developing Countries: The Role and Management of Political Factors,” World Development, Vol. 18 (August 1990), pp. 1123–31.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Bhatia, Rattan J., The West African Monetary Union: An Analytical Review, Occasional Paper 35 (Washington: International Monetary Fund, 1985).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Boum, John., “Helping the Nation Spend Wisely,” International journal of Government Auditing (October 1989), pp. 1 and 6.

  • Break, George F., Federal Lending and Economic Stability (Washington: Brookings Institution, 1965).

  • Brewer, John, The Sinews of Power: War, Money and the English State, 1688–1783 (New York: Knopf, 1989).

  • Bryant, Ralph, and others, eds., Macroeconomic Policies in an Interdependent World, Brookings Institution, Center for Economic Policy Research, and International Monetary Fund (Washington: International Monetary Fund, 1989).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Buchanan, James M., Fiscal Theory and Political Economy: Selected Essays (Chapel Hill, North Carolina: University of North Carolina Press, 1960).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Burns, James M., Leadership (New York: Harper & Row, 1979).

  • Campbell, Harrison S., “Procurement and Management of Spares,” in Defense Management, ed. by Stephen Enke (New York: Prentice-Hall, 1967), pp. 187–229.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Canada, Auditor General of Canada, Constraints to Productive Management in the Public Service (Ottawa, 1983).

  • Canada, Auditor General of Canada, Well-Performing Organizations (Ottawa, 1988).

  • Canada, Auditor General of Canada, Values, Service and Performance (Ottawa, 1990).

  • Canada, Auditor General of Canada, The Treasury Board, Guide on the Program Evaluation Function (Ottawa, 1981).

  • Canetti, Elias, Crowds and Power, translated by Carol Stewart (New York: Continuum, 1981).

  • The Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy, Cash Limits in Operation (London, 1982).

  • Chaudhuri, K.N., Asia Before Europe: Economy and Civilization of the Indian Ocean from the Rise of Islam to 1750 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Danziger, James N., and Peter Smith Ring, “Fiscal Limitations: A Selective Review of Recent Research,” Public Administration Review (January/February 1982).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Dean, Peter N., and Cedric Pugh, Government Budgeting in Developing Countries (London: Routledge, 1989).

  • Deming, W. Edwards, Out of the Crisis (Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press, 1986).

  • Devons, Ely, Planning in Practice: Essays in Aircraft Planning in Wartime (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1950).

  • Diamond, Jack, “Measuring Efficiency in Government: Techniques and Experience,” in Government Financial Management, ed. by A. Premchand (Washington: International Monetary Fund, 1990).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Dixit, Avinash K., and Barry Nalebuff, Thinking Strategically: The Competitive Edge in Business, Politics, and Everyday Life (New York: Norton, 1991).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Donahue, John D., The Privatization Decision: Public Ends, Private Means (New York: Basic Books, 1989).

  • Dopson, Sue, and Rosemary Stewart, “Public and Private Sector Management: The Case for a Wider Debate,” Public Money and Management, Vol. 10 (Spring 1990).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Douglas, Patricia P., and Robert N. Anthony, “An Analysis of the Government Accounting Model,” The Government Accountant’s Journal (Summer 1991), pp. 25–34.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Drucker, Peter F., “The Deadly Sins in Public Administration,” in Current Issues in Public Administration, ed. by Frederick S. Lane (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1982).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Drucker, Peter F.,, The New Realities; in Government and Politics, in Economics and Business, in Society and World View (New York: Harper & Row, 1989).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Durham, Paul, ed., Output and Performance Measurement in Central Government: Some Practical Achievements (London: H.M. Treasury, 1987).

  • Dye, Kenneth M., “Value for Money: Toward Improved Organizational Functioning,” in Government Financial Management, ed. by A. Premchand (Washington: International Monetary Fund, 1990).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Eden, Colin, and Chris. Huxham, “Action-Oriented Strategic Management,” Journal of Operational Research Society, Vol. 39, No. 10 (1988), pp. 889–99.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Enke, Stephen, Defense Management (Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 1967).

  • Fisher, Stanley, and Alan Gelb, “Issues in the Reform of Socialist Economies,” in Reforming Central and Eastern European Economies, ed. by Vittorio Corbo, Fabrizio Coricelli, and Jan Bossak (Washington: World Bank, 1991), pp. 65–83.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Fox, Ronald J., and James L. Field, The Defense Management Challenge: Weapons Acquisition (Boston: Harvard Business School, 1988).

  • Fukuyama, Francis, The End of History and the Last Man (New York: The Free Press, 1992).

  • Germany, Federal Ministry of Finance, Federal German Budget Legislation (Bonn, 1988).

  • Goode, Richard, Government Finance in Developing Countries (Washington: The Brookings Institution, 1984).

  • Grace, Peter J. (Chairman), War on Waste, President’s Private Sector Survey on Cost Control (New York: Macmillan, 1984).

  • Granick, David, Chinese State Enterprise: A Regional Property Rights Analysis (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1990).

  • Gunn, L., “Public Management: A Third Approach?” Public Money and Management, Vol. 8 (Spring/Summer 1988), pp. 21–25.

  • Hage, Jerald, and Kurt Finsterbusch, Organizational Change as a Development Strategy: Models and Tactics for Improving Third World Organizations (Boulder, Colorado: Lynne Rienner, 1987).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Hage, Jerald, and Kurt Finsterbusch, “Three Strategies of Organizational Development, Organizational Theory and Organizational Design,” International Review of Administrative Sciences, Vol. 55 (1989), pp. 29–57.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Hartle, Douglas G., The Expenditure Budget Process of the Government of Canada: A Public Choice—Rent-Seeking Perspective (Toronto: Canadian Tax Foundation, 1988).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Hayek, Friedrich A. von, The Constitution of Liberty (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1960).

  • Heald, David, “The Political Implications of Redefining Public Expenditure in the United Kingdom,” Political Studies (1991), pp. 75–99.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Healey, Denis, The Time of My Life (London: Michael Joseph, 1989).

  • Heymann, David B., “Input Controls in the Public Sector: What Does Economic Theory Offer?” IMF Working Paper No. 59 (Washington: International Monetary Fund, 1988).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Hiromoto, Toshiro, “Another Hidden Edge—Japanese Management Accounting,” Harvard Business Review, Vol. 66 (July-August 1988), pp. 22–26.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Home, Jocelyn, and Paul R. Masson, “Scope and Limits of International Economic Cooperation and Policy Coordination,” Staff Papers, International Monetary Fund, Vol. 35 (June 1988), pp. 259–84.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Hyde, Albert C., ed., Government Budgeting, Theory, Process, Politics (Pacific Grove, California: Brooks/Cole, 1992).

  • International Monetary Fund, World Economic Outlook, May 1992 (Washington: International Monetary Fund, 1992).

  • International Monetary Fund, The World Bank, Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, and European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, The Economy of the U.S.S.R. (Washington: World Bank, 1990).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • International Monetary Fund, A Study of the Soviet Economy, 3 vols. (Washington: International Monetary Fund, 1991).

  • Jackson, P.M., “Economics of Public Services: Public Choice and Public Sector Management,” Public Money and Management, Vol. 10 (Winter 1990), pp. 13–20.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Jackson, Peter, and Bob Palmer, First Steps in Measuring Performance in the Public Sector: A Management Guide (London: Public Finance Foundation, 1989).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Kapur, Ishan, Michael T. Hadjimichael, Paul Hilbers, Jerald Schiff, and Philippe Szymczak, Ghana: Adjustment and Growth, 1983–91, Occasional Paper 86 (Washington: International Monetary Fund, 1991).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Keating, Michael, and David Rosalky, “Rolling Expenditure Plans: Australian Experience and Prognosis,” in Government Financial Management, ed. by A. Premchand (Washington: International Monetary Fund, 1990).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Keeling, Desmond, Management in Government (London: Allen & Unwin, 1972).

  • Kelman, Steven, Procurement and Public Management (Washington: American Enterprise Institute Press, 1990).

  • Kline, Bennett E., and Norman H. Martin, “Freedom, Authority and Decentralization,” Harvard Business Review, Vol. 36 (May-June 1958), pp. 69–75.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Korff, Hans Clausen, “Planning and Budgeting in the Federal Republic of Germany,” in Comparative International Budgeting and Finance, ed. by A. Premchand and Jesse Burkhead (New Brunswick, New Jersey: Transaction Books, 1984), pp. 39–53.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Kraqan, D.J., “Towards More Flexibility of Government Expenditure: Some Recent Developments in the Netherlands,” Policy Sciences, No. 17 (1984), pp. 413–27.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Leonard, David K., “The Political Realities of African Management,” World Development, Vol. 15 (July 1987), pp. 899–910.

  • Levine, Charles H., “Organizational Decline and Cutback Management,” Public Administration Review (July/August 1978), pp. 33316–325.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Lewis, Verne B., “Reflections on Budget Systems,” Public Budgeting and Finance, Vol. 8 (Spring 1988), pp. 4–19.

  • Lewis, W. Arthur, The Theory of Economic Growth (London: Allen & Unwin, 1955).

  • Likierman, Andrew, “Government Accounting in the United Kingdom,” in Government Financial Management, ed. by A. Premchand (Washington: International Monetary Fund, 1990), pp. 307–325.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Likierman, Andrew, and Alison Taylor, Government’s New Departmental Reports: Challenges and Potential Problems (London: Certified Accountants Publications Ltd., 1990).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Lindblom, Charles E., “Decision-Making in Taxation and Expenditures,” in Public Finances; Needs, Sources and Utilization, ed. by James M. Buchanan (Princeton, New Jersey: National Bureau of Economic Research, 1961), pp. 295–336.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Lynn, Jonathan, and Anthony Jay, ed., The Complete Yes Minister (London: British Broadcasting Corporation, 1984).

  • McCaffery, Jerry, “Canada’s Envelope Budget: A Strategic Management System,” Public Administration Review (July/August 1984), pp. 316–23.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Mack, Ruth P., Planning in Uncertainty—Decision Making in Business and Government Administration (Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 1970).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Macmullen, Ramsay, Corruption and the Decline of Rome (New Haven, Connecticut: Yale University Press, 1988).

  • Math, Paul, “Acquisition Reform: Three Guiding Principles,” The G.A.O. Journal, No. 7 (Fall 1989).

  • Mautz, R.K., “Generally Accepted Principles,” Public Budgeting and Finance (Winter 1991), pp. 3–11.

  • Metcalfe, Les, and Sue Richards, Improving Public Management (London: Sage Publications, 1987).

  • Miah, Nuruz Zaman, “Attempts at Developing a Conceptual Framework for Public Sector Accounting in New Zealand,” Financial Accountability and Management, Vol. 7 (Summer 1991), pp. 83–97.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Montgomery, John D., “Probing Managerial Behavior: Image and Reality in Southern Africa,” World Development, Vol. 15, No. 7 (1987), pp. 911–29.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Mosley, Paul, Jane Harrigan, and John Toye, Aid and Power: The World Bank and Policy-Based Lending, 2 vols. (London; New York: Routledge, 1991).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Mowl, Colin, and Philippa Todd, Central Government Funds and Accounts and the Central Government Borrowing Requirement (London: H.M. Treasury, 1990).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Nader, Ralph, “Run the Government Like the Best American Corporations,” Harvard Business Review, Vol. 66 (November-December 1988), pp. 81–86.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • New Zealand, The Public Finance Act (Wellington: Government Printing Works, 1989).

  • New Zealand, Putting It Simply—An Explanatory Guide to Financial Management Reform (Wellington: The Treasury, 1990).

  • Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, The Control and Management of Government Expenditure (Paris, 1987).

  • Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, Public Management Developments, Survey 1990 (Paris, 1990).

  • Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, Accounting Reform in Central and Eastern Europe (Paris, 1991).

  • Paul, Samuel, Institutional Development in World Bank Projects: A Cross-Sectoral Review, Working Paper 392 (Washington: World Bank, 1990).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Paul, Samuel, Accountability in Public Services: Exit, Voice, and Capture, Working Paper 614 (Washington: World Bank, 1991).

  • Polanyi, Michael, The Logic of Liberty (London: Allen & Unwin, 1951).

  • Porter, Michael E., The Competitive Advantage of Nations (New York: Free Press, 1990).

  • Premchand, A., Performance Budgeting (Bombay: Academic Books, 1969).

  • Premchand, A., “Budgetary Reforms in Developing Countries: Need for Renewal,” Finance & Development (1973).

  • Premchand, A., “Government Lending Programs in OECD and Selected Developing Countries,” IMF Survey, Vol. 11 (Washington: International Monetary Fund, August 2, 1982).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Premchand, A., Government Budgeting and Expenditure Controls (Washington: International Monetary Fund, 1983).

  • Premchand, A., “Government Budgeting and Productivity,” Public Productivity Review, No. 41 (1987) (reprinted in Government Budgeting, Theory, Process, Politics, ed. by Albert C. Hyde (Pacific Grove, California: Brooks/Cole, 1992)).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Premchand, A., “Financial Management in Government: Are We Really Serious?” Public Fund Digest, Vol. 11, No. 2 (1988), pp. 67–70.

  • Premchand, A., “Coordination of Expenditure Policies in GCC Member States,” paper presented at a roundtable organized by the Arab Monetary Fund (Abu Dhabi, September 1991).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Premchand, A., ed., Government Financial Management (Washington: International Monetary Fund, 1990).

  • Premchand, A., and Jesse Burkhead, ed., Comparative International Budgeting and Finance (New Brunswick, New Jersey: Transaction Books, 1984).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Premchand, A., and A. L. Antonaya, ed., Aspectos del presupuesto publico (Washington: International Monetary Fund, 1988).

  • Premchand, A., and A. L. Antonaya, Premchand, A., and L. Garamfalvt, “Government Budget and Accounting Systems,” in Fiscal Policies in Economies in Transition, ed. by Vito Tanzi (Washington: International Monetary Fund, 1992).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Quinn, J.B., Strategies for Change: Logical Incrementalism (Romewood, Illinois: Irwin, 1980).

  • Rainey, Hal G., Robert W. Backoff, and Charles H. Levine, “Comparing Public and Private Organizations,” Public Administration Review (March/April 1976).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Rehfuss, John A., Contracting Out in Government: A Guide to Working with Outside Contractors to Supply Public Services (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1989).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Richardson, Eliot L., “The Value of Evaluation,” The G.A.O, Journal, No. 12 (Spring 1991), pp. 37–42.

  • Rist, Ray C, ed., Program Evaluation and the Management of Government (New Brunswick, New Jersey: Transaction Publishers, 1990).

  • Robinson, Ann, and Bengt-Christer Ysander, “Re-establishing Budgetary Flexibility,” Public Budgeting and Finance, Vol. 2 (Autumn 1982), pp. 21–34.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Robinson, David J., and Peter Stella, “Amalgamating Central Bank and Fiscal Deficits,” in Measurement of Fiscal Impact: Methodological Issues, ed. by Mario I. Blejer and Ke-Young Chu, Occasional Paper 59 (Washington: International Monetary Fund, 1988), pp. 20–31.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Roe, Emery M., “The Ceiling as Base: National Budgeting in Kenya,” Public Budgeting and Finance, Vol. 6 (Summer 1986), pp. 87–103.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Rogers, H.G., M.A. Ulrich, and K.L. Traversy, “Evaluation in Practice: The State of the Art in Canadian Governments,” Canadian Public Administration, Vol. 24 (Fall 1981), pp. 371–86.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Samuels, Warren J., ed., Institutional Economics, 3 vols. (London: Edward Elgar, 1988).

  • Sappington, David E.M., “Incentives in Principal-Agent Relationships,” Journal of Economic Perspectives, Vol. 5 (Spring 1991), pp. 45–66.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Schick, Allen, “The Road to PPB: The Stages of Budget Reform,” Public Administration Review (December 1966), pp. 243–58.

  • Schick, Allen, “Incremental Budgeting in a Decremental Age,” Policy Sciences, No. 16 (1983), pp. 1–25.

  • Schick, Allen, “Macro-Budgeting Adaptations to Fiscal Stress in Industrialized Democracies,” Public Administration Review (March/April 1986), pp. 124–34.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Schick, Allen, “Why the Deficit Persists as a Budget Problem: Role of Political Institutions,” in Government Financial Management: Issues and Country Studies, ed. by A. Premchand (Washington: International Monetary Fund, 1990), pp. 38–52.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Schultze, Charles L., “Of Wolves, Termites, and Pussycats: Or, Why We Should Worry About the Budget Deficit,” The Brookings Review, Vol. 7 (Summer 1989), pp. 26–33.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Scott, Graham, Peter Bushnell, and Nikitin Sallee, “Reform of the Core Public Sector: The New Zealand Experience,” Public Sector, Vol. 13, No. 3 (1990), pp. 11–24.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Sensenbrenner, Joseph, “Quality Comes to City Hall,” Harvard Business Review, Vol. 69 (March-April 1991), pp. 64–75.

  • Shanghai University of Finance and Economics and Center for International Accounting Development, Accounting and Auditing in the People’s Republic of China: A Review of its Practices, Systems, Education, and Developments (Dallas: University of Texas, 1987).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Simon, Herbert A., “Organizations and Markets,” Journal of Economic Perspectives, Vol. 5 (Spring 1991), pp. 25–44.

  • Staats, Elmer B., “Government Accounting: Promise and Performance,” in Government Financial Management: Issues and Country Studies, ed. by A. Premchand (Washington: International Monetary Fund, 1990), pp. 128–34.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Stiglitz, Joseph E., and others, The Economic Role of the State, ed. by Arnold Heertje (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1989).

  • Stockman, David, “The Crisis in Federal Budgeting,” in Crisis in the Budget Process: Exercising Political Choice, by Allen Schick with papers by David Stockman, Rudolph Penner, Trent Lott, Leon Panetta, and Norman Orstein (Washington: American Enterprise Institute, 1986), pp. 57–66.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Tanzi, Vito, “Fiscal Issues in Economies in Transition,” in Reforming Central and Eastern European Economies, ed. by Vittorio Corbo, Fabrizio Coricelli, and Jan Bossack (Washington: World Bank, 1991), pp. 221–28.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Tarschys, Daniel, “Curbing Public Expenditure: Current Trends,” Journal of Public Policy, Vol. 5 (February 1985), pp. 23–67.

  • Tarschys, Daniel, “From Expansion to Restraint: Recent Developments in Budgeting,” Public Budgeting and Finance, Vol. 6 (Autumn 1986), pp. 25–37.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Thomas, John W., and Merilee S. Grindle, “After the Decision: Implementing Policy Reforms in Developing Countries,” World Development, Vol. 18 (August 1990), pp. 1163–81.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Uchiteile, Louis, “But Just Who Is That Fairy Godmother?” New York Times, September 29, 1991, Sec. 4, p. 1.

  • United Kingdom, Financial Management in Government Departments, Cmnd. 9058 (London: H.M. Stationery Office, 1983).

  • United Kingdom, The Financing and Accountability of Next Steps Agencies, CM 914 (London: H.M. Treasury, 1989).

  • United Kingdom (1991a), Competing for Quality, CM 1730 (London: H.M. Treasury, 1991).

  • United Kingdom (1991b), Improving Management in Government: The Next Steps Agencies, Review 1991, CM 1760 (London: H.M. Treasury, 1991).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • United Kingdom, National Audit Office (1991a), Annual Report (London, 1991).

  • United Kingdom (1991b), A Framework for Value for Money Audits (London, 1991).

  • United Kingdom (1991c), NHS Outpatient Services (London, 1991).

  • United Kingdom (1991d), Presenting Data Reports (London, 1991).

  • United Kingdom (1991e), Promoting Value for Money from Grants (London, 1991).

  • United Kingdom, Privy Council, Efficiency in the Civil Service, Cmnd. 8293 (London: H.M. Stationery Office, 1981).

  • United States, Congress, Management Theories in the Private and Public Sectors, 98th Cong., 2nd Sess., September 1984 (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1984).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • United States, Congress, Congressional Budget Office, Trends in Public Investment (Washington, 1987).

  • United States, Congress, Congressional Budget Office, Executive Office of the President, Office of Management and Budget, Management of the United States Government, Fiscal Year 1989 (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1989).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • United States, Congress, Congressional Budget Office, Executive Office of the President, Office of Management and Budget (1992a), Budget of the United States Government, Fiscal Year 1993 (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1992).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • United States, Congress, Congressional Budget Office, Executive Office of the President, Office of Management and Budget (1992b), Form and Content of Agency Financial Statements, Bulletin No, 93–02 (Washington: Government Printing Office, October 22, 1992).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • United States, Congress, Congressional Budget Office, Executive Office of the President, Office of Management and Budget, Federal Accounting Standards Advisory Board, Financial Resources, Funded Liabilities, and Net Financial Resources of Funded Entities (Exposure Draft) (Washington, November 1991).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • United States, Congress, Congressional Budget Office, Executive Office of the President, Office of Management and Budget, General Accounting Office, Designing Evaluation, Methodology Transfer Paper 4 (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1984).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • United States, Congress, Congressional Budget Office, Executive Office of the President, Office of Management and Budget, Managing the Cost of Government; Building an Effective Financial Management Structure, 2 vols. (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1985).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • United States, Congress, Congressional Budget Office, Executive Office of the President, Office of Management and Budget, Federal Government Reporting System (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1986).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • United States, Congress, Congressional Budget Office, Executive Office of the President, Office of Management and Budget, Managing the Cost of Government (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1989).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • United States, Congress, Congressional Budget Office, Executive Office of the President, Office of Management and Budget, Public Debt: Management Actions Needed to Ensure More Accurate Accounting (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1990).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • United States, Congress, Congressional Budget Office, Executive Office of the President, Office of Management and Budget, Federal Credit and Insurance Programs: Actions That Could Minimize a Growing Risk (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1991).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • United States, Congress, Congressional Budget Office, Executive Office of the President, Office of Management and Budget, Comptroller General’s 1991 Annual Report (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1992).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • United States, Congress, Congressional Budget Office, Executive Office of the President, Office of Management and Budget, Governmental Accounting Standards Board, Objectives of Financial Reporting (Washington, 1987).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Visscher, Christian De, “The Modernization of Budgetary Techniques and Financial Control,” International Review of Administrative Sciences, Vol. 55 (September 1989), pp. 321–64.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Wattle worth, Michael, “Credit Subsidies in Budgetary Lending: Computation, Effects, and Fiscal Implications,” in Measurement of Fiscal Impact: Methodological Issues, ed. by Mario I. Blejer and Ke-Young Chu, Occasional Paper 59 (Washington: International Monetary Fund, 1988), pp. 57–69.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Weber, Max, Economy and Society, ed. by Guenther Roth and Claus Wittich, 2 vols. (Berkeley, California: University of California Press, 1978). (See, in particular, Chapter XI on “Bureaucracy,” pp. 956–1005.)

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Wesberry, James P., Jr., “Government Accounting and Financial Management in Latin American Countries,” in Government Financial Management: Issues and Country Studies, ed. by A. Premchand (Washington: International Monetary Fund, 1990), pp. 345–74.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Wholey, Joseph S., Kathryn E. Newcomer, and Associates, Improving Government Performance: Evaluation Strategies for Strengthening Public Agencies and Programs (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1989).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Wilson, James Q., Bureaucracy: What Government Agencies Do and Why They Do It (New York: Basic Books, 1989).

  • World Bank, Toward Sustained Development in Sub-Saharan Africa: A Joint Program of Action (Washington: World Bank, 1984).

  • World Bank (1988a), Adjustment Lending: An Evaluation of Ten Years of Experience (Washington: World Bank, 1988).

  • World Bank (1988b), World Development Report (Washington: World Bank, 1988).

  • World Bank, World Development Report: The Challenge of Development, 1991 (Washington: World Bank, 1991).

  • Yates, Douglas, Bureaucratic Democracy (Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1982).

  • Ysander, Bengt-Christer, and Ann Robinson, “The Inflexibility of Contemporary Budgets,” Public Budgeting and Finance, Vol. 2 (Autumn 1982), pp. 7–20.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Zussman, David, and Jak Jabes, The Vertical Solitude: Managing in the Public Sector (Halifax, Nova Scotia: Institute for Research on Public Policy, 1989).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation