Abstract

Among the major challenges faced by transitional and emerging market economies is the need to adjust institutions to function in an increasingly market-oriented and global environment. Among the reforms that middle-income countries have looked to emulate are the budget reforms that have been introduced in OECD member countries since the 1980s. These reforms have reoriented budgeting from the traditional focus on inputs to a new focus on the results derived from these inputs. This latter focus has often been termed performance or results-based budgeting. However, the resulting budget systems embody more than a change in the process of budgeting. They reflect a fundamental change in budget management, away from traditional, centralized control systems to more decentralized management models.

Among the major challenges faced by transitional and emerging market economies is the need to adjust institutions to function in an increasingly market-oriented and global environment. Among the reforms that middle-income countries have looked to emulate are the budget reforms that have been introduced in OECD member countries since the 1980s. These reforms have reoriented budgeting from the traditional focus on inputs to a new focus on the results derived from these inputs. This latter focus has often been termed performance or results-based budgeting. However, the resulting budget systems embody more than a change in the process of budgeting. They reflect a fundamental change in budget management, away from traditional, centralized control systems to more decentralized management models.

It is argued in Section II that this reform process can be characterized as following three fundamental tracks: first, to allow managers greater flexibility in managing resources; second, to give them greater certainty in resourcing; and third, to introduce a system of rewards and penalties to pressure them to perform, in the sense of achieving the stated objectives of government policy. The pursuit of this three-track reform process in turn has fundamentally altered the accountability relationships within government by replacing detailed central controls with greater flexibility for budget managers operating at “arm’s length.” These new accountability relationships are designed to impose discipline on this new performance management framework, are oriented toward results rather than toward inputs, and can be viewed as the cornerstone of the new performance management model. Not surprisingly, their introduction has generally required considerable effort to restructure the budget system.

Usually, the first step is to improve the definition of government programs and clarify their objectives, to ensure that programs are prioritized according to a strategic policy framework. While the need for a meaningful link between policy and budgeting has long been recognized, it has also consistently proved elusive, as indicated by a brief review of the history of the performance budgeting approach. Officials in most emerging economies accept that the central role of the program structure is to translate broad policies into activities and projects that can be costed, with the identified resource requirements approved as budget appropriations. At the same time, many also appreciate that this cannot be viewed as a one-time annual exercise. Increasing numbers of countries are adopting medium-term budget frameworks (MTBFs) to assist in capturing the full costs of activities and projects over time, and hence to better plan programs, to improve prioritization among them, and to provide some overall discipline over their resource use. However, as discussed in Section III, developing and maintaining an MTBF is not always easy.

The next step in creating the new accountability framework is to link inputs with program outcomes, and then to make performance information relevant to managers by tying this information to resource allocation decisions. As discussed in Section IV, the definition and measurement of program outputs (and, even more so, of program outcomes) is often problematic. Also, there are added requirements, namely to produce such performance information on a consistent basis, to provide incentives for managers to use this information, and to monitor the managers’ performance against these standards. Not surprisingly, it is likely to prove difficult and costly for many emerging economies to implement a full-blown performance management system such as that found, for example, in New Zealand or Australia.

The remainder of this study discusses the type of changes required to facilitate adoption of the new budget management model. Based on OECD country experiences, it argues that, first, certain basic safeguards should be put in place to ensure that public expenditure management (PEM) systems are able to accommodate the new demands. Second, the new accountability framework generally requires complementary changes in the way government operations are institutionally organized. This in turn often requires parallel changes in the legal framework. Third, a considerable investment must be made, both politically and financially, to manage the reform process.

Three aspects of the PEM system that often are weak in emerging countries and require upgrading are discussed in Section V. First, there is the need to strengthen internal controls. Before attempting to give agencies wider responsibilities in resource allocation, it is essential to ensure that they are operating within an effective financial management framework. Good internal control is an important feature of this framework. Without satisfactory controls, management may not detect serious errors and irregularities, and the work of the central oversight agencies, as well as external audit, becomes more difficult. Second, internal audit is a central component of internal financial controls aimed at protecting the government’s financial interests. Third, there is typically a greater need to apply information technology. Against the background of the ever-growing volume and complexity of government financial operations, timely management information reports in a usable form are clearly of critical importance to fiscal managers. Tailoring such reports to management needs through a computerized financial information system has been a general PEM reform undertaken in various parts of the world. This has not been easy, and the new performance information requirements are likely to make this more difficult. Fourth, preparing this new performance information requires that institutions have the capacity to capture the full cost of programs and activities so that these can be related to performance measures to judge program performance. Unfortunately, such cost accounting expertise is often scarce in government.

Section VI reviews in greater depth one of the most discussed tools for strengthening government performance—upgrading the government accounting system from a cash to an accrual basis. The typical government accounting system, even if conceptually well defined and internally consistent, is a cash-based system or, at most, a modified cash system. The emphasis is on matching approved items of spending with actual cash outlays, the last stage of spending. This may be adequate for the compliance and stabilization objectives of the ministry of finance (MoF) but it is less relevant for budget managers in government departments. It has been argued, therefore, that the move to the next stage of budget system development requires a switch in government accounting toward an accrual-based system. Those countries that have attempted to shift to accrual accounting have found it difficult and costly. An argument can be made that many of the benefits of improved costing derived from accrual accounting can be obtained by other means, and accordingly, that perhaps an intermediary move to accruals is all that should be attempted by emerging economies.

The performance budget management approach requires introducing enhanced accountability with improved transparency, further emphasizing the evaluation of outputs in relation to inputs, and streamlining control mechanisms to balance control needs and new efficiency requirements arising from more decentralized budget management. Moving to this management model has created parallel pressures to reorganize the way that governments do business. This aspect of budget reforms is taken up in Section VII. To provide a framework for discussing the wide range of institutional innovations, these are ordered into five main groups, each characterized as a progressive shift away from the traditional, centralized budget management model. These groups are characterized as the five Ds—deconcentration, decentralization, delegation, devolution, and divestment. The latter three are most closely associated with the new performance management approach.

Two aspects of these new arrangements that have received the most attention internationally are high-lighted—the role of contracting in government and the role of more autonomous devolved management units, the so-called agency model. The study warns that these approaches can be problematic, especially initially if administrative and accountability systems are not sufficiently robust. Full output and performance contracting is very resource-demanding and has been fully realized in only a few fairly advanced countries. Not surprisingly, even more limited movement in this direction is likely to strain the administrative systems in emerging economies. Similarly, the demands on PEM systems are quite heavy, especially with regard to reporting requirements and the skills required of managers. Similar concerns are expressed with regard to various strategies for divesting or sharing government responsibility for providing public services, through such mechanisms as contracting and private-public partnerships (PPPs).

The fact that it is difficult to find emerging economies that have made rapid progress on all three tracks of the reform process indicates that there are important implementation problems. Section VIII suggests that many of these difficulties have arisen from the lack of basic management infrastructure within the budget system. The capacity to successfully link policies with programs through strategic planning mechanisms requires the skills to construct MTBFs with well-defined programs. It requires analytical skills and adequate reporting systems to make clear the relationship between the resources used by a program and its outputs and/or policy results (outcomes). As indicated, the basic work of program design and program costing is unlikely to be straightforward and is likely to demand skills, such as cost accounting, which are often in short supply. At the same time, this new approach to budget management also requires parallel administrative procedures to activate the strategic plans and the program structure for decision making. This move inevitably must reflect the reform capacity of the country and, to be successful, should not be implemented too rapidly and should be carefully sequenced. As argued in Section VIII, the transformation from traditional budgeting procedures is likely to require a substantial effort to manage the change process, a dimension which has often been overlooked. Thus, for many countries, human resource constraints may impede, or at least slow, the move to performance budgeting.

The Challenges and the Reform Agenda
  • Abrahams, M.D., and M.N.Reavely, 1998, “Activity-Based Costing: Illustrations from the State of Iowa,” Government Finance Review, Vol. 14, No. 2, pp. 1520.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Accounting Standards Board (ASB), 2003, “Statement of Principles for Financial Reporting: Proposed Interpretation for Public Benefit Entities(London: ASB). Available at: http://frc.org.uk/asb/publications/documents.cfm?cat=3

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Allen, R.I.G., 1996, “Management Control in Modern Government Administration: An Introduction,” in Management Control in Modern Government Administration: Some Comparative Practices, SIGMA Paper No. 4 (Paris: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Allen, R.I.G., and Daniel Tommasi, eds., 2001, Managing Public Expenditure: A Reference Book for Transition Countries (Paris: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, SIGMA Program).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Allen R., S. Schiavo-Campo, and T.C. Garrity, 2004, Assessing and Reforming Public Management: A New Approach (Washington: World Bank).

  • Anderson, B., 2004, “Performance Budgeting and Performance Information in the United States,” paper presented to International Seminar on Performance Budgeting, Brasilia, Brazil, March (unpublished).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Athukorala, S. Lakshman, and Barry Reid, 2003, Accrual Budgeting and Accounting in Government and Its Relevance for Developing Countries (Manila: Asian Development Bank).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Auerbach, Alan J., Jagadeesh Gokhale, and Laurence J. Kotlikoff, 1991, “Generational Accounts: A Meaningful Alternative to Deficit Accounting,” in Tax Policy and the Economy, Vol. 5 (Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press), pp. 55110.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Auerbach, A.J., L.J., Kotlikoff, and W. Leibfritz, 1999, Generational Accounting around the World (Chicago: Chicago University Press).

  • Australian Department of Finance and Administration, 1999, Commonwealth Accrual Budgeting Guidelines (Canberra).

  • Australian National Audit Office, 1996, Performance Information Reviews (Canberra: Department of Finance).

  • Axelrod, D., 1995, Budgeting for Modern Government (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 2nd ed.).

  • Babunakis, M., 1976, Budgets: An Analytical and Procedural Handbook for Government and Nonprofit Organizations (Westport, Connecticut: Greenwood Press).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Baldacci, E., and A. Corbacho, 2004, “Recent Experiments with Fiscal Responsibility Laws around the World—What Lessons Can Be Learned?FAD Draft Guidance Note (Washington: International Monetary Fund).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Barrett, K., and R. Greene, 2000, “Truth in Measurement,” Governing (July), p. 86.

  • Baumol. William J., 1982, “Contestable Markets: An Uprising in the Theory of Industry Structure,” American Economic Review, Vol. 72, No. 1, pp. 115.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Baumol. William J., J.C. Panzar, and R.D. Willig, 1982, Contestable Markets and the Theory of Industry Structure (New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Bellamy, S., and R. Kluvers, 1995, “Program Budgeting in Australian Local Government: A Study of Implementation and Outcomes,” Financial Accountability and Management, Vol. 11 (February), pp. 3956.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Blondal, J.R., 2003, “Accrual Accounting and Budgeting: Key Issues and Recent Developments,” OECD Journal on Budgeting, Vol. 3., No. 1, pp. 5171.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Boston, J., ed., 1995, The State under Contract (Wellington: Bridget Williams Books, Ltd.).

  • Boyne, G., and J. Law, 1991, “Accountability and Local Authority Annual Reports: The Case of Welsh District Councils,” Financial Accountability and Management, Vol. 7, No. 4, pp. 17994.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Brace, P., R. Elkin, D.D. Robinson, and H.E. Steinberg, 1980, “Reporting of Service Efforts and Accomplishments,” FASB Research Report R09 (Norwalk, Connecticut: Financial Accounting Standards Board).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Brook, P.J., and M. Petries, 2001, “Output-Based Aid: Precedents, Promises, and Challenges,” in Contracting for Public Services: Output-Based Aid and Its Applications, ed. by P.J. Brook and S.M. Smith (Washington: World Bank), pp. 311.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Brook, P.J., and S.M. Smith, eds., 2001, Contracting for Public Services: Output-Based Aid and Its Applications (Washington: World Bank).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Broom, C.A., 1995, “Performance-Based Government Models: Building a Track Record,” Public Budgeting and Finance, Vol. 15 (Winter), pp. 317.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Brumby, J., 1999, “Budgeting Reforms in OECD Member Countries,” in Managing Government Expenditure, ed. by S. Schiavo-Campo and D. Tommasi (Manila: Asian Development Bank), pp. 34962.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Brumby, J., 2005, “Budget Management Reform in China,” in Engaging the New World: Strategic Economic Studies in the Knowledge Economy, Employment, Health Care and Fiscal Governance, ed. by B. Grewal and M. Kumnick (Melbourne: Melbourne University Press, Melbourne).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Brunsson, K., 1995, “Puzzle Pictures: Swedish Budgetary Processes in Principle and Practice,” Financial Accountability and Management, Vol. 11, No. 2, pp. 11125.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Burkhead, J., 1956, Government Budgeting (New York: John Wiley and Sons).

  • Carlin, T., and J. Guthrie, 2000, “A Review of Australian and New Zealand Experiences with Accrual Output-Based Budgeting,” paper presented to a conference of the International Public Management Network, Macquarie Graduate School of Management, Sydney, Australia, March 4–6.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Carter, N., R. Klein, and P. Day, 1992, How Organizations Measure Success (London: Routledge).

  • Caulfield, Janice, 2003, “New Public Management in a Developing Country: Creating Executive Agencies in Tanzania,” in Unbundled Government: A Critical Analysis of the Global Trend to Agencies, Quangos and Contractualisation,” ed. by Christopher Pollitt and Colin Talbot (London: Routledge).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Chan, J.L., 1998, “The Bases of Accounting for Budgeting and Financial Reporting,” in Handbook of Government Budgeting, ed. by R.T. Meyers (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass), pp. 35780.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Chan, J.L., 2003, “Government Accounting: An Assessment of Theory, Purposes and Standards,” Public Money and Management, Vol. 23, No. 1, pp. 1320.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Chow, D., and C. Humphrey, 2003, “Whole of Government Accounting: An Aide to Performance, Management and Accountability?9th Biennial CIGAR (Comparative International Government Accounting Research) Conference, Bodo, Norway, June 13–14.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Clinton, Bill, and Al Gore, 1997, The Blair House Papers: National Performance Review (Washington: Government Printing Office).

  • Cooper, R., and R.S. Kaplan, 1999, Design of Cost Management Systems (Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 2nd ed.).

  • Cullen M., and T. Mallard, 2003, Pre-Introduction: Parliamentary Briefing on Public Finance (State Sector Management) Bill, August (Wellington).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Davenport, L.W., 1996, “Internal Service Fund Functions: Should They Be Required to Compete with Private Vendors?Government Finance Review (October), pp. 1113.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Davis, G., B. Sullivan, and A. Yeatman, eds., 1997, The New Contractualism? (South Melbourne: Macmillan).

  • Dean, P.N., 1989, Government Budgeting in Developing Countries (London: Routledge).

  • Demsetz, Harold, 1968, “The Cost of Transacting,” Quarterly Journal of Economics, Vol. 82, pp. 3353.

  • Diamond, Jack, 1990, “Measuring Efficiency in Government: Techniques and Experience,” Chapter 9 in Government Financial Management: Issues and Country Studies, ed. by A. Premchand (Washington: International Monetary Fund), pp. 14266.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Diamond, Jack, 2001, “Performance Budgeting: Managing the Reform Process,” paper presented at UN Workshop on Financial Management and Accountability, Rome, November.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Diamond, Jack, 2002a, “The Micro Basis of Budget System Reform: The Case of Transitional Economies” (unpublished; Washington: International Monetary Fund).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Diamond, Jack, 2002b, “The Role of Internal Audit in Government Financial Management: An International Perspective,” IMF Working Paper 02/94 (Washington: International Monetary Fund).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Diamond, Jack, 2002c, “Performance Budgeting: Is Accrual Accounting Required?IMF Working Paper 02/240 (Washington: International Monetary Fund).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Diamond, Jack, 2002d, “The New Russian Budget System: A Critical Assessment and Future Reform,” IMF Working Paper 02/21 (Washington: International Monetary Fund).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Diamond, Jack, 2002e, “Budget System Reform in Transitional Economies: The Experience of Russia,” IMF Working Paper 02/22 (Washington: International Monetary Fund).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Diamond, Jack, 2002f, “The Strategy of Budget System Reform in Emerging Countries,” Public Finance and Management, Vol. 2, No. 3.

  • Diamond, Jack, 2003, From Program to Performance Budgeting: The Challenge for Emerging Countries, IMF Working Paper 03/169 (Washington: International Monetary Fund).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Diamond, Jack, 2004, “The Role of Internal Audit in Government Financial Management,” in Accounting and Accountability in Emerging and Transitional Economies 6, ed. by Trevor Hopper and Zahirul Hoque (New York: Elsevier), pp. 5580.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Diamond, Jack, and P. Khemani, 2005, “Introducing Financial Management Information Systems in Developing Countries,” IMF Working Paper 05/196 (Washington: International Monetary Fund).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Diamond, Jack, and B.H. Potter, 2000, Setting Up Treasuries in the Baltics, Russia, and Other Countries of the Former Soviet Union, IMF Occasional Paper No. 198 (Washington: International Monetary Fund).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Dixon, G., 2002, “Thailand’s Hurdle Approach to Budget Reform,” Poverty Reduction and Economic Management (PREM) Note 73 (Washington: World Bank).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Domberger, S., 1998, The Contracting Organization: A Strategic Guide to Outsourcing (New York: Oxford University Press).

  • Domberger, S., and P. Jensen, 1997, “Contracting Out by the Public Sector: Theory, Evidence, Prospects,” Oxford Review of Economic Policy, Vol. 13, pp. 6778.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Domberger, S., and S. Rimmer, 1994, “Competitive Tendering and Contracting Out in the Public Sector: A Survey,” International Journal of Economics and Business, Vol. 1, No. 3, pp. 43953.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Estela, M., 2000, “Strengthening the Integrity of a Tax Collection Agency: The Case of SUNAT in Peru,” paper prepared for a World Bank–Inter-American Development Bank seminar on “Radical Solutions for Fighting Corruption in the Public Sector,” November 2–3, Washington, D.C.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • European Commission, 1996, “Public Procurement in the European Union: Exploring the Way Forward,” Green Paper COM(96) 583 (Brussels).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • European Commission, 2004, “Public Finances in the European Monetary Union 2004” (Brussels).

  • European Federation of Accountants, 2003, “The Adoption of Accrual Accounting and Budgeting by Governments (Central, Federal, Regional and Local),” FEE Discussion Paper (Brussels). See: www.fee.be/.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Fantone, Denise M., 2004, “Performance-Based Budgeting in the U.S.: A Congressional Perspective,” paper presented to Working Party of Senior Budget Officials (SBO), Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, Paris, April 1–2.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • France, Ministère de l’Economie, des Finances et de l’Industrie, 2001, Public Finance Reform, No. 1 (Paris).

  • Garamfalvi, L., and W. Allan, 1994, “Value for Money Auditing, Evaluation, and Public Expenditure Management: Experience in Selected OECD Countries and Lessons for Italy” (unpublished; Washington: International Monetary Fund, Fiscal Affairs Department).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Gearhart, J., 1999, “Activity-Based Management and Performance Measurement Systems,” Government Finance Review, pp. 1316.

  • Gill, D., 2002, “Signposting the Zoo—From Agencification to a More Principled Choice of Government Organisational Form,” OECD Journal on Budgeting, Vol. 2, No. 1, pp. 2779.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Glyn, D., B. Sullivan, and A. Yeatman, eds., 1997, The New Contractualism (South Melbourne: MacMillan).

  • Gray, A., W.I. Jenkins, and B. Segsworth, 1993, Budgeting, Auditing and Evaluation: Functions and Integration in Seven Governments (New Brunswick, New Jersey: Transaction Publishers).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Grindle, M.S., 1997, “Divergent Cultures? When Public Organizations Perform Well in Developing Countries,” World Development, Vol. 25, No. 4, pp. 48195.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Groszyk, W., 2001, “Outcome-Focused Management in the United States,” OECD Journal on Budgeting, Vol.1, No. 4, pp. 12950.

  • Guthrie, J., 1998, “Application of Accrual Accounting in the Public Sector: Rhetoric or Reality?Financial Accountability and Management, Vol. 14, No. 1, pp. 119.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Guthrie, J., O. Olson, and C. Humphrey, 1999, “Debating Developments in New Public Financial Management: The Limits of Global Theorising and Some New Ways Forward,” Financial Accountability and Management, Vol. 15, No. 3/4, pp. 20928.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Harper, M., J. Arroyo, T. Bhattacharya, and T. Bulman, 2000, Public Services through Private Enterprise: Micro-Privatisation for Improved Delivery (London: Intermediate Technology Publications).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Hatry, H.P., 1999, Performance Measurement (Washington: Urban Institute Press).

  • Heald, D., and A. Dowdall, 1999, “Capital Charging as a VFM Tool in Public Services,” Financial Accountability and Management, Vol. 15, No. 3/4, pp. 20928.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Henderson, Simon, 2004, “The Challenges of Measuring Performance,” paper presented at “Performance Information in the Budget Process,” OECD/PUMA Senior Budget Officials (SBO) meeting, Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, Paris, April 1–2.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Henke, E.O., 1992, Introduction to Nonprofit Organization Accounting (Cincinnati, Ohio: South-Western Publishing Co.)

  • H.M. Treasury, 2004, The U.K. Government’s Public Service Agreement Framework, Better Public Services Team (London).

  • Hill, Alex, 2004, “The U.K. Government’s Public Service Agreement Framework” (unpublished; London: H.M. Treasury, Better Public Services Team).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Hodge, G.A., 2000, Privatization: An International Review of Performance (Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press).

  • Hood, C., 1991, “A Public Management for All Seasons?Public Administration, Vol. 69, No. 1, pp. 319.

  • Hood, C., 1995, “The New Public Management in the 1980s: Variations on a Theme,” Accounting, Organization, and Society, Vol. 20, No. 2/3, pp. 93109.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Hyndman, N.S., and R. Anderson, 1995, “The Use of Performance Information in External Reporting: An Empirical Study of U.K. Executive Agencies,” Financial Accountability and Management, Vol. 11, No. 1, pp. 117.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Institute of Internal Auditors (IIA), 1999, Internal Audit Standards (Altamonte Springs, Florida: IIA).

  • Institute of Internal Auditors (IIA), 2001, “Consulting Implementation Standards,” Standards for the Professional Practice of Internal Auditing (Altamonte Springs, Florida: IIA, Internal Auditing Standards Board).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • International Federation of Accountants (IFAC), 1998, Guidelines for Governmental Financial Reporting (New York: IFAC, Public Sector Committee).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • International Federation of Accountants (IFAC), 2003a, Cash Basis International Public Sector Accounting Standards: Financial Reporting Under the Cash Basis of Accounting (New York: IFAC).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • International Federation of Accountants (IFAC), 2003b, Transition to the Accrual Basis of Accounting: Guidance for Governments and Government Entities, Study 14 (New York: IFAC, 2nd ed.).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • International Monetary Fund, 2001a, Government Finance Statistics Manual 2001 (Washington).

  • International Monetary Fund, 2001b, Manual on Fiscal Transparency (Washington).

  • International Monetary Fund, 2001c, World Economic Outlook, October (Washington).

  • International Organization of Supreme Audit Institutions, 1995, “Auditing Standards,” adopted by Auditing Standards Committee at the XVth INTOSAI Congress, Cairo (Stockholm: INTOSAI). Available at: http://asc.rigsrevisionen.dk/composite-14.htm

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Jackson, P., and B. Palmer, 1989, First Steps in Measuring Performance in the Public Sector (London: Public Finance Foundation).

  • Jones, L.R., and J.L. McCaffery, 1997, “Implementing the Chief Financial Offices Act and the Government Performance and Results Act in the Federal Government,” Public Budgeting & Finance, Vol. 13, No. 1, pp. 3555.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Joyce, P.G., 1993, “Using Performance Measures for Federal Budgeting: Proposals and Prospects,” Public Budgeting & Finance, Vol. 13, No. 4, pp. 115.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Kaplan, R.S., and D.P. Norton, 1996, The Balanced Scorecard: Translating Strategy into Action (Boston: Harvard Business School Press).

  • Kaul, M., 1997, “New Public Administration, The Management Innovations in Government,” Public Administration and Development, Vol. 17, No. 1, pp. 1326.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Kerf, M., R.D. Gary, T. Irwin, C. Levesque, R. Taylor, and M. Klein, 1999, “Concessions for Infrastructure: A Guide to Their Design and Award,” World Bank Technical Paper 399 (Washington: World Bank).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Klein, M., So, J., and Shin, B., 1996, “Transaction Costs in Private Infrastructure Projects—Are They Too High? Viewpoint, No. 95 (Washington: World Bank, Private Sector Development Department).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Kopits, G., 2001, “Fiscal Rules: Useful Policy Framework or Unnecessary Ornament,” IMF Working Paper 01/145 (Washington: International Monetary Fund).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Kopits, G., and J.D. Craig, 1998, Transparency in Government Operations, IMF Occasional Paper No. 158 (Washington: International Monetary Fund).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Kopits, G., and S. Symansky, 1998, Fiscal Policy Rules, IMF Occasional Paper No. 162 (Washington: International Monetary Fund).

  • Kotter, John P., 1995, “Leading Change: Why Transformation Efforts Fail,” Harvard Business Review, Vol. 73, No. 2, pp. 5967.

  • Kotter, John P., 1996, Leading Change (Boston: Harvard Business School Press).

  • Kotter, John P., and J.L. Heskett, 1992, Corporate Culture and Performance (New York: Free Press).

  • Kristensen, J.K., 2002, “Overview of Results Focused Management and Budgeting in OECD Member Countries,” paper presented at an expert meeting held by the Public Management Committee at Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, Paris, February 11–12.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Kristensen, J.K., W. Groszyk, and B. Bühler, 2002, “Outcome-Focused Management and Budgeting,” OECD Journal on Budgeting, Vol. 1, No. 4, pp. 129.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Laking, R., 1996, “Public Management in the OECD: Some Questions for Developing Countries,” paper presented to the World Bank, Washington, D.C., May (unpublished; Victoria: University of Wellington).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Laking, R., 2001, “Governance of the Wider State Sector: Principles for Control and Accountability of Delegated and Devolved Public Bodies,” paper presented at the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, Public Management Service (PUMA) Conference on “Devolving and Delegating Power to More Autonomous Public Bodies and Controlling Them: The Governance of Public Agencies and Authorities,” Bratislava, November. Available at: http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/8/19/2730680.pdf

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Laking, R., 2005, “Agencies: Their Benefits and Risks,” OECD Journal on Budgeting, Vol. 4, No. 4, pp. 725.

  • Lapsley, I., 1999, “Accounting and the New Public Management: Instruments of Substantive Efficiency or a Rationalising Modernity?Financial Accountability and Management, Vol. 15, No. 3/4, pp. 201207.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Larbi, G.A., 1998, “Institutional Constraints and Capacity Issues in Decentralizing Management in Public Services: The Case of Health in Ghana,” Journal of International Development, Vol. 10, No. 3, pp. 37786.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Larsson, K., and J.S. Madsen, 1999, “Protecting the Financial Interests of the State and of the European Union,” Public Management Forum, Vol. 5, No. 6 (Paris: OECD), pp. 417.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Leibenstein, H., 1966, “Allocative Efficiency vs. X-Efficiency,” American Economic Review, Vol. 56 (June), pp. 392415.

  • Lienert, Ian, and Moo-Kyung Jung, 2005, “The Legal Framework for Budget Systems, and International comparison,” OECD Journal on Budgeting, Special Issue, Vol. 4, No. 3.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Likierman, A., 2000, “Changes to Managerial Decision-Taking in UK Central Government,” Management Accounting Research, Vol. 11, No. 2, pp. 25361.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Maholland, L., and P. Muetz, 2002, “A Balanced Scorecard Approach to Performance Measurement,” Government Finance Review (April), pp. 1215.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Martinez-Vazquez, J., and R. McNab, 2000, “The Tax Reform Experiment in Transitional Countries,” National Tax Journal, Vol. 53, No. 2 (June), pp. 27398.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Mellor, T., 1996, “Why Governments Should Produce Better Balance Sheets,” Australian Journal of Public Administration, Vol. 55, No. 1, pp. 7881.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Mikesell, J., 2003, Fiscal Administration: Analysis and Applications for the Public Sector (Belmont, California: Thomson/Wadsworth, 6th ed.).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), 1994, “Performance Management in Government: Performance Measurement and Results-Oriented Management,” Public Management Service (PUMA) Occasional Paper No. 3 (Paris).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), 1995, Budgeting for Results: Perspectives on Public Expenditure Management (Paris).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), 1996, “Managing Structural Deficit Reduction,” Public Management Service (PUMA) Occasional Paper No. 11 (Paris).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), 1997a, “Benchmarking, Evaluation and Strategic Management in the Public Sector,” paper presented at the 1996 Meeting of the Performance Management Network of the OECD’s Public Management Service (PUMA) (Paris).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), 1997b, “Best Practice Guidelines for Contracting out Government Services,” Public Management Service (PUMA) Occasional Paper No. 20 (Paris).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), 1999a, Performance Contracting: Lessons from Performance Contracting Case Studies (Paris).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), 1999b, “Managing Accountability in Intergovernmental Relationships,” Public Management Service, PUMA/RD (99) 4 (Paris).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), 2000, The OECD Outputs Manual, PUMA/SBO (2000)7 (Paris).

  • Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), 2001, “Financial Management and Control of Public Agencies,” SIGMA Paper No. 32 (Paris).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), 2002a, “Accrual Accounting and Budgeting: Key Issues and Recent Developments, Twenty-Third Annual Meetings of OECD Senior Budget Officials, Washington, D.C., June 3–4,” Public Management Service, PUMA/SBO(2002)10 (Paris).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), 2002b, Distributed Public Governance: Agencies, Authorities, and Other Government Bodies (Paris).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), 2002c, Governing for Performance in the Public Sector, OECD/Germany High-Level Symposium, March 13–14, Berlin (Paris). Country reports available at: http://www.oecd.org/document/43/0,2340,en_2649_37457_1813355_1_1_1_37457,00.html

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), 2003, OECD/World Bank Budget Practices and Procedures Survey (Paris).

  • Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), 2004, “Public Sector Modernisation: Governing for Performance,” Policy Brief (Paris). Available at: http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/52/44/33873341.pdf

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Osborne, D., and T. Gaebler, 1992, Reinventing Government (Reading, Massachusetts: Addison-Wesley).

  • Osborne, S.P., T. Bovaird, S. Martin, M. Tricker, and P. Waterston, 1995, “Performance Management and Accountability in Complex Public Programmes,” Financial Accountability and Management, Vol. 11, No. 1, pp. 1937.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Pendlebury, M.R., R. Jones, and Y. Karbhari, 1994, “Developments in the Accountability and Financial Reporting Practices of Executive Agencies,” Financial Accountability and Management, Vol. 10, No. 1, pp. 3346.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Perrin, B., 1998, “Effective Use and Misuse of Performance Measurement,” American Journal of Evaluation, Vol. 19, No. 3, pp. 36779.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Petrie, M., 2002, A Framework for Public Sector Performance Contracting (Paris: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development).

  • Pollitt, C., 1986, “Beyond the Managerial Model: The Case for Broadening Performance Assessment in Government with the Public Service,” Financial Accountability and Management, Vol. 2, pp. 15570.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Pollitt, C., 1993, Managerialism and the Public Services (Cambridge, Massachusetts: Basil Blackwell, 2nd ed.).

  • Pollitt, C., K. Bathgate, J. Caulfield, A. Smullen, and C. Talbot, 2001, “Agency Fever? Analysis of an International Policy Fashion,” Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis, Vol. 3, No. 3, pp. 27190.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Premchand, A., 1969, Performance Budgeting (Bombay: Academic Books).

  • Premchand, A., 1977, “Restructuring Budgetary Systems in Developing Countries: Relevance of PPB Systems,” IMF Working Paper (Washington: International Monetary Fund).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Premchand, A., and J. Burkhead, eds., 1984, Comparative International Budgeting and Finance (New Brunswick, New Jersey: Transaction Books).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Public Expenditure and Financial Accountability (PEFA) Program, 2005, Public Financial Management Performance (Washington: PEFA Secretariat, World Bank).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Reid, G.J., 1999, “Performance-Oriented Public Sector Modernization in Developing Countries,” in Research in Public Administration, Vol. 5, ed. by J.C.N. Raadschelders and J.L. Perry (Greenwich, Connecticut: JAI Press).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Robinson, M., 1998, “Capital Charges and Capital Expenditure Decisions in Core Government,” Journal of Public Budgeting, Accounting and Financial Management, Vol. 10, No. 3, pp. 35474.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Robinson, M., 2000, “Contract Budgeting,” Public Administration, Vol. 78, No. 1, pp. 7590.

  • Schiavo-Campo, S., and D. Tommasi, 1999, Managing Government Expenditure (Manila: Asian Development Bank).

  • Schick, Allen, 1966, “The Road to PPB: The Stages of Budget Reform,” Public Administration Review, Vol. 26, pp. 24358. Also published in Perspectives on Budgeting, ed. by A. Schick (Washington: ASPA, 1980).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Schick, Allen, 1971, Budget Innovation in the States (Washington: Brookings Institution).

  • Schick, Allen, 1996, The Spirit of Reform: Managing the New Zealand State Sector in a Time of Change (Wellington: State Services Commission).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Schick, Allen, 1998, “Why Most Developing Countries Should Not Try New Zealand’s Reforms,” World Bank Research Observer, Vol. 13, No. 1, pp. 12331.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Schick, Allen, 2001, “The Changing Role of the Central Budget Office,” OECD Journal on Budgeting, Vol. 1, No. 1, pp. 926.

  • Schick, Allen, 2002, “Agencies in Search of Principles,” in Distributed Public Governance: Agencies, Authorities, and Other Government Bodies (Paris: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development), pp. 3352.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Schultze, C., 1968, The Politics and Economics of Public Spending (Washington: Brookings Institution).

  • Schultze, C., 1996, Government Reform in New Zealand, IMF Occasional Paper No. 140 (Washington: International Monetary Fund).

  • Schultze, C., 2001a, “Managing Governments for Better Performance and Results: Some Lessons of Experience,” Workshop on Financial Management and Accountability, Rome, November 28–30.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Schultze, C., 2001b, Public Management in New Zealand: Lessons and Challenges (Wellington: New Zealand Business Roundtable). Available at: http://www.nzbr.org.nz/documents/publications/publications-2001/public_management.pdf

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Scott, C.D., 1996, “The Nature of Public Policy,” in New Zealand Politics, ed. by R. Miller (Auckland: Oxford University Press), pp. 24755.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Shand, D., 1997, “International Developments in Public Sector Financial Management,” paper presented to Australasian Officers’ Conference, Perth, Australia, November 19–21.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Sharp, T., 2001, “Linking Performance Measurement to Budgeting,” Government Finance Review, Vol. 17, Part 2, pp. 1518.

  • Smith, W., 2001, “Designing Output-Based Aid Schemes: A Checklist,” in Contracting for Public Services: Output-Based Aid and Its Applications, ed. by P.J. Brook and S.M. Smith (Washington: World Bank), pp. 91117.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Stanton, P., and J. Stanton, 1998, “The Questionable Economics of Governmental Accounting,” Accounting, Vol. 11, No. 2, pp. 191203.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Strauch, R., 2000, Managerial Flexibility and Fiscal Performance (Paris: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development).

  • Tanzi, V., and H.H. Zee, 2000, “Tax Policy for Emerging Markets: Developing Countries,” IMF Working Paper 00/35 (Washington: International Monetary Fund).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Thompson, F., 1998, “Cost Measurement and Analysis,” Chapter 15 in Handbook of Government Budgeting, ed. by R.T. Meyers (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • United Nations, 1965, A Manual for Programme and Performance Budgeting (New York).

  • United States Commission on Organization of the Executive Branch of the Government, 1949, Budgeting and Accounting: A Report to Congress by the Commission on Organization of the Executive Branch of the Government (Washington: Government Printing Office).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • United States, 1949, Task Force Report, Fiscal, Budgeting and Accounting Activities (Washington: Government Printing Office).

  • U.S. Congressional Budget Office (CBO), 1993, Using Performance Measures in the Federal Budget Process (Washington).

  • U.S. Federal Accounting Standards Advisory Board (FASAB), 1993, Statement of Federal Financial Accounting Concepts 1, Objectives of Federal Financial Reporting (Washington).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • U.S. General Accountability Office, 2004, “Performance Budgeting: Current Developments and Future Prospects,” GAO-04-174, April (Washington).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • U.S. Office of Management and Budget (OMB), 1993, “Statement of Federal Financial Accounting Concepts 1: Objectives of Federal Financial Reporting” (Washington).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Wanna, J., J. Kelly, and J. Forster, 2001, Managing Public Expenditure in Australia (St. Leonards, NSW: Allen & Unwin).

    • Search Google Scholar