7 Servicing Public Debt: Management Aspects
Author:
A. Premchand https://isni.org/isni/0000000404811396 International Monetary Fund

Search for other papers by A. Premchand in
Current site
Google Scholar
Close

Abstract

Many a citizen will never be able to understand

Many a citizen will never be able to understand

fully the problem of the public debt, for it is too

complicated for the average layman.

SEYMOUR E. HARRIS, The National Debt and the

New Economics

Reflecting the growth in the size and variety of government expenditures, interest payments and the repayment of the principal of borrowed funds have also increased substantially.1 The impact of such rising interest payments, while obviously adverse on the government budget because discretionary action on revenues or other expenditures is required if overall budgetary objectives are to be achieved, covers a wide area of decision making; since they are past commitments they reduce the flexibility of future actions. They also have an impact on future borrowing operations as they could be more costly than in the past. New incentives may have to be offered to ensure sustained purchases of public debt issues. These aspects are not covered in this chapter, however. The purpose here is more modest and the intent is to describe the approaches for formulating budget estimates for the debt outstanding and for raising any new debt, and to discuss the adequacy of internal accounting and control procedures in the management of debt. The primary consideration behind such a discussion is that any sizable difference between budgetary estimates and outcome would contribute to an expanded deficit with attendant consequences, if revenues remain the same. An inherent property of durable structures is that they flex and do not break. Since public debt is an activity that has been in existence for thousands of years, the unprecedented magnitudes of the 1980s should in principle be a continuation of that activity, but with the necessary flexibility. How the machinery coped with this complex situation and the strengths and limitations indicated by the experience are discussed below.

Public Debt Budgeting

Public debt budgeting—formulating budget estimates to pay debt service charges and repay principal—has traditionally received scant attention in the literature. Recently, however, as external debt and its related problems have grown, the need for maintaining an integrated system for recording and servicing loans has come to be recognized as urgent. Although this is an effort in the right direction, public debt budgeting itself remains, despite its overwhelming relevance for national fiscal management, an obscure area.

The conventional approach to public debt up to the Second World War was to set apart some of the proceeds of the projects financed by borrowing toward repayment of the principal. This approach was based on the dictum that the creation of debt should generally be accompanied by the means to extinguish it. Projects funded by debt were divided into self-financing (those with the potential to pay interest) and self-liquidating (those with the potential to pay interest and principal), depending on their revenue-earning capacity. Moreover, to facilitate repayments, amortization based on the principle of PAYG (pay-as-you-go) was frequently adopted, and sinking funds that were originally set up to retire war debts were resumed to maintain the proceeds earmarked for repayment. The intent behind the establishment of separate funds to repay debt was to ensure that they were not diverted for general government use. The maintenance of such funds was expected also to enhance governments’ creditworthiness and borrowing capacity. With the gradual growth in governments’ indebtedness, it was realized that government borrowing was not going to be financed by the revenue feedback from the projects in which loan proceeds were originally invested, but from new borrowing. Accordingly, several countries (notably the United Kingdom and other Commonwealth countries) gradually gave up sinking funds. Another factor contributed to their disuse: they often had rigid structures (specified in statutes) governing their investment conduct, forcing governments to borrow from outside while maintaining cash balances in the sinking funds. Many governments still have sinking funds in principle, but annual contributions are no longer related to the amortization schedules of loans. Instead, a token contribution is provided in the budget estimates, while actual repayments and interest payments are provided separately. The nonabolition of sinking funds was largely due to the difficulty of enacting the requisite laws, which led to this token provision.

Systemic Features

The practices relating to the budgetary provision of funds for public debt are primarily influenced by legislation and institutional arrangements. Although some of the features vary among countries, the following general characteristics prevail.

First, some countries (notably the United States) have statutory limits on national debt. In the United States, this limit has changed several times and now includes all debt issued by the Treasury, agency debt in the form of participation certificates, and other debt issued by federal agencies. Although some debt is not included within the specified limits, it is quite small. The statutory debt limit was, until 1979, raised by normal legislative procedures. Now it is enacted as part of the annual congressional budget process. Somewhat less stringent limits are observed in other countries. For example, in Denmark, while no debt ceilings are in force, the extent of annual external borrowing has to be approved by Parliament. In Thailand, there is a statutory limit on foreign borrowing up to 10 percent of annual budget appropriations. In Canada, there is an annual ceiling on borrowing approved by the legislature.

Second, in many countries annual provisions for interest and payment of principal, although included in the budget, are not subject to a vote. For example, in the United Kingdom and other Commonwealth countries, outlays on interest and related debt charges are included in the budget and treated as charged expenditure (consolidated fund standing services) and are not subject to the annual supply procedure of a parliamentary vote. In France, public debt payments are included in the estimates for treasury operations. Although included in the budget law, these appropriations are considered crédits évaluatifs; amounts provided in the budget are considered indicative, and any payments required to be made over and above the budgeted amounts can be paid by the Treasury without any additional authorization by the legislature. In the United States, interest on the public debt is automatically provided under a permanent appropriation enacted in 1847. Neither repayments nor the proceeds of borrowing are included in the budget as they are not considered expenditures or receipts. During the year and at year-end, the Office of Management and Budget furnishes reports to the Congress on the trends in budget implementation and the variations caused by changes in policy factors, in the macroeconomic assumptions on which the budget was formulated, in the technical assumptions of the estimates, and in the public debt charges. In some Latin American countries (for example, Argentina), debt charges are explicitly provided for and included in the annual appropriation procedures. There are other minor variations in these approaches; basically, however, public debt charges provided in the budget are flexible enough for the government to exceed the amounts provided, if so warranted, to fulfill contractual obligations.

Third, public debt is managed in some countries through separate (autonomous) organizations and special accounts. Variations of this practice can be illustrated from the experiences of Côte d’Ivoire, Senegal, Sweden, and the United Kingdom. In Côte d’Ivoire, public debt is managed by the Caisse Autonome d’Amortissement (CAA—Autonomous Amortization Fund), which operates under the supervision of the Ministry of Finance. CAA receipts comprise earmarked tax receipts, transfers from the Treasury and from funds such as coffee and cocoa, and interest on on-lent funds. In Senegal, there is a special account, also called Caisse Autonome d’Amortissement, which is not autonomous. Sweden has a separate National Debt Office (Riksqaldkontoret), which is responsible for all state borrowing in both domestic and foreign markets. It is also a member of an advisory group (in addition to the Central Bank and the Ministry of Economic Affairs), which provides policy guidance on the flotation of new loans. In the United Kingdom, all moneys raised through the creation of debt are payable into the National Loans Fund (NLF). The NLF is essentially a channel through which all government borrowing and domestic lending transactions pass. These include, in addition to the debt offered to the public, the proceeds of national savings, treasury bills, and ways and means advances from the Bank of England and others. Debt repayments and interest payments that are appropriated through the budget are conducted through the NLF.

Fourth, in several countries, the day-to-day management of public debt is carried out by the central banks. In performing these tasks, the central bank functions as a fiscal agent responsible for the issue of securities and the collection of related moneys as well as for debt payments. In some countries, particularly in Latin America, some central banks maintain quasi-fiscal accounts and directly assume the additional burden between budgeted funds and the amounts needed for debt services. These transactions are reflected in the balance sheets of the central banks and may not always be reimbursed through budgetary transfers; they may instead be adjusted in the profits transferred to the government. In some cases, central banks may even incur losses.

Budget Estimate Formulation

The formulation of budget estimates for public debt charges is traditionally made on an accrual basis even in cash-based budgetary and accounting systems. Such estimates take into account the cumulative debt at the beginning of the fiscal year. In addition, estimates are made of the new debt that will be raised during the year. In formulating these estimates, due attention is paid to the level of the deficit expected and the amounts of foreign and domestic debt that will be raised for both the financing of the government budget deficit and for meeting the requirements of on-lent funds. In estimating external debt charges, countries with relatively stable exchange rates base their budget estimates on the year-end level of exchange and interest rates. In countries envisaging changes in these rates, the average expected rates for the next fiscal year are taken into account. The expected rates are internal calculations, however, and generally these calculations are not explicitly stated in the explanatory notes on budgetary estimates. Also, any publicity about these calculations could have an adverse impact on the markets.

In recent years, with widening fiscal deficits and growing external and domestic debts, two improvements have been made in budgeting public debt. These improvements are not uniform or universal, however, and practices continue to vary from one country to another. The first occurred when, in recognition of the linkages between debt, fiscal policy, and balance of payments, several countries began to prepare different scenarios to analyze the implications of external debt. As an integral part of this exercise, the borrowing scenarios for both current and future years are examined and their implications for such factors as government expenditure, the ratio of debt/GDP, and exports are analyzed. Although the analysis of domestic debt is less sophisticated than that of external debt, it is also examined as part of scenarios dealing with the financing of development plans.

The second improvement relates to the introduction of margins in formulating budget estimates for public debt charges. Given the uncertainty in the movement of exchange and interest rates, the estimates provide an extra margin so that additional requirements can be met without resorting to supplementary budgets. This practice was particularly discernible in Latin American countries with high inflation. Such margins may prove, and have indeed already proved, inadequate when fluctuations in the rates are higher than estimated. On the contrary, in the United Kingdom and the United States, which have the practice of providing for “reserves” and “allowances” to meet additional requirements stemming from unforeseen situations and higher rates of inflation, public debt charges are not included in these estimates, perhaps because public debt payments can be made without any explicit legislation in both countries. Different budgetary outcomes have, in turn, necessitated resort to other practices.

Estimates and Outcomes

The budgetary outcomes can and often do differ from estimates, primarily owing to changes in the exchange rate, interest rate, indexed borrowing, additional borrowing undertaken to finance an expanded deficit, assumption of debt by the government previously privately held, and acceptance of payment responsibility for defaults on guaranteed debt. These changes may occur simultaneously or separately. The budgetary impact in the form of a higher budget deficit can be substantial in all cases. The budgetary approaches to meet these contingencies differ among countries; broadly, however, five approaches are prevalent. First, separate and autonomous funds and margins in the estimates provide a cushion against any excessive adverse impact on the budget balance. The funds are frequently so organized that when funds are re-lent to other public organizations and enterprises, they are lent with shorter amortization periods. The funds are generally liquid (on the assumption that public organizations are regular in their payments to the treasury), and are in a position to finance the additional burdens arising from major changes in the principal economic indicators. A similar purpose is served by the provision of a margin for contingencies in the estimates. Here, again, the margin should be adequate in theory to accommodate moderate changes.

The second approach shows an essential trust in the working of the invisible hand or the working of self-balancing ingredients of the budget. Thus, in principle, increases in the interest or exchange rates may not necessarily lead to higher aggregate expenditures, as major shortfalls could occur in some categories of expenditure. They could also be balanced through debt rescheduling in the form of capitalization of interest or deferral of payment.

The third approach allows central banks to cover the difference between estimates and actual payments needed. In most countries, central banks meet these requirements initially from their own resources and are later extended to governments in the form of overdrafts or ways and means advances. It is expected, however, that they will either be reimbursed by the government or the transactions will be formalized through the issue of relevant debt instruments. In some Latin American countries (such as Argentina and Ecuador), these differences are financed by the central banks and are adjusted through either reduced transfers to governments or registering losses. Even this approach may not prove a viable alternative, and, in some cases, supplementary appropriations may have to be approved to finance the additional requirements (Brazil). The main feature of this approach is an effective shift of financing responsibility from the government budget to the central bank. Although in a larger sense this transaction will become evident in the context of integrated accounts of the budget and the fiscal transactions of the central bank, in the immediate short term the government budget may not show it.

The fourth approach consists in resort to the build-up of arrears. As the impact of the changes may be heavy, governments may choose, and have in fact frequently chosen, to defer payments for both technical (legal) and the more substantive reason of a severe squeeze on financial resources.

Finally, in some countries the additional requirements are financed routinely as these payments are not subject to budgetary appropriations. This built-in flexibility, which was primarily intended to maintain governments’ credit ratings, also brings with it a benign neglect of the public debt transactions.

Problem Areas

Budgeting for public debt reveals a number of problem areas that are almost all process oriented. Because debt and related interest charges have grown considerably, and because the unexpected changes in rates may affect the pursuit of specific fiscal targets such as expenditure as a ratio of GDP, it is important that efforts are made to identify the specific problems and solutions. Both the problems and their severity would obviously differ among countries. A comprehensive list of all the problems in all the systems is not intended here, but the following problems merit more detailed consideration.

The budgetary and accounting systems of governments (both industrial and developing) do not promote a financial consciousness, in particular of the costs of interest charges, among those who are primarily responsible for the growth of public debt—the spending departments, including those responsible for development projects financed through borrowing. Since the systems do not permit explicit identification and presentation of the costs of borrowing money, spending agencies do not have to recognize the cost aspects of interest payment and thus no effort is made to minimize those costs.2 This practice can be attributed to the separation of financial responsibility from policy and administrative responsibility, as well as to excessive fragmentation of government tasks. Stronger financial planning (either as part of rolling expenditure budgets or as an independent exercise) and cash management are required.

In countries that have annual legal limits on the government’s borrowing authority, experience suggests that an element of uncertainty is thereby introduced into the budget process. It also appears to have adversely affected the government’s capacity to plan and carry out an orderly debt program. Postponement of borrowing may force governments to resort to new issues of debt when the market is less inclined, forcing the sale at rates of return above the prevailing market rate. These issues, in turn, add to the costs of borrowing, which is far from the original intent. These problems are needlessly compounded when the borrowing limits have to be amended in contingencies such as changes in exchange and interest rates. Several alternatives exist for avoiding this situation: (1) legislatures may have to aim at controlling the underlying fiscal factors contributing to increased debt rather than nominal limits of debt; (2) the borrowing authority could be based on a built-in margin or a formula-based increase, thus providing an element of flexibility; and (3) payments over and above the approved budget estimates could be approved as supplementary budgets as with other expenditures.

Experience also shows, however, that a permanent appropriation or related enabling authority to make the necessary payments may have induced some neglect of these problems. While maintenance of the credit rating of governments is clearly important, it is equally essential that governments undertake comprehensive financial planning to compile an inventory of debt and to provide for debt charges. Such planning should include, as noted in Chapter 6, the anticipation of possible defaults in guaranteed debt. Although it could be argued that such anticipation could be self-fulfilling, nonanticipation could also have an enduring adverse impact. Without financial planning it is likely that government cash management will be severely affected and will send wrong signals to the market. In public debt management, signals have as much impact as does substance and therefore they need to be addressed.

Debt Management: Internal Accounting and Controls

Debt management irrespective of where it is administratively located (ministry of finance, central bank, or autonomous agency or fund) should have at least three features. First, it should operate on a double-entry basis that permits the credit and debit sides of the transactions to be recorded in equal amounts. Second, it should be on an accrual basis so that transactions are recorded as and when they occur rather than when cash changes hands. Supplementing this, there should be a cash-based principal subsystem and a cash-based interest subsystem. The two types of accounts need to be reconciled at regular intervals. Third, the system should be designed to incorporate audit trails to ensure the adequacy of documents supporting the accounting entries. Supplementing this, and if the systems are on a computerized basis, there should be a security apparatus to prevent tampering with records. Although these features may appear self-evident, the difficulty in maintaining the systems in practice has contributed to many wrong signals on the status of government finances as well as on the pursuit of appropriate policies. Frequently, the data are incomplete, are not reconciled regularly, and take too long to compile. The strengths of the systems turn out to be the weaknesses in the process. Instead of lightening the tasks of the managers, the lack of attention and the inadequate systems could obscure them.

1

For example, in 1991, interest payments in the U.S. budget amounted to $286 billion. In addition to being the largest single category of federal expenditures, it was equivalent at that level to about 17 times the amount spent on education, and 15 times that spent on natural resources and the environment. See United States, General Accounting Office (1992).

2

Chi1e has tried to improve the situation by showing debt as part of the receipts of each agency. The budget is organized, following commercial practice, into incomes and expenditures. The incomes of the agencies include the amounts of loans whose proceeds are allocated to that agency.

  • Collapse
  • Expand
Author:
  • 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. 1333.

    • 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. 323.

    • 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. 15391.

    • 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. 112331.

    • 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. 187229.

    • 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. 2534.

    • 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. 88999.

    • 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. 6583.

    • 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. 2125.

  • 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. 2957.

    • 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. 7599.

    • 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. 2226.

    • 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. 25984.

    • 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. 1320.

    • 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. 6975.

    • 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. 3953.

    • 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. 41327.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Leonard, David K., “The Political Realities of African Management,” World Development, Vol. 15 (July 1987), pp. 899910.

  • Levine, Charles H., “Organizational Decline and Cutback Management,” Public Administration Review (July/August 1978), pp. 33316325.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Lewis, Verne B., “Reflections on Budget Systems,” Public Budgeting and Finance, Vol. 8 (Spring 1988), pp. 419.

  • 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. 307325.

    • 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. 295336.

    • 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. 31623.

    • 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. 311.

  • 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. 8397.

    • 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. 91129.

    • 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. 8186.

    • 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. 6770.

  • 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. 3742.

  • 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. 2134.

    • 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. 2031.

    • 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. 87103.

    • 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. 37186.

    • 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. 4566.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Schick, Allen, “The Road to PPB: The Stages of Budget Reform,” Public Administration Review (December 1966), pp. 24358.

  • Schick, Allen, “Incremental Budgeting in a Decremental Age,” Policy Sciences, No. 16 (1983), pp. 125.

  • Schick, Allen, “Macro-Budgeting Adaptations to Fiscal Stress in Industrialized Democracies,” Public Administration Review (March/April 1986), pp. 12434.

    • 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. 3852.

    • 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. 2633.

    • 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. 1124.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Sensenbrenner, Joseph, “Quality Comes to City Hall,” Harvard Business Review, Vol. 69 (March-April 1991), pp. 6475.

  • 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. 2544.

  • 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. 12834.

    • 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. 5766.

    • 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. 22128.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Tarschys, Daniel, “Curbing Public Expenditure: Current Trends,” Journal of Public Policy, Vol. 5 (February 1985), pp. 2367.

  • Tarschys, Daniel, “From Expansion to Restraint: Recent Developments in Budgeting,” Public Budgeting and Finance, Vol. 6 (Autumn 1986), pp. 2537.

    • 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. 116381.

    • 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. 32164.

    • 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. 5769.