Premium
What Not to Ask of Budget Processes: Lessons from George W. Bush’s Years
Author(s) -
White Joseph
Publication year - 2009
Publication title -
public administration review
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 2.721
H-Index - 139
eISSN - 1540-6210
pISSN - 0033-3352
DOI - 10.1111/j.1540-6210.2008.01968.x
Subject(s) - balance (ability) , government (linguistics) , ask price , economics , federal budget , public economics , core (optical fiber) , george (robot) , public policy , government budget , public administration , political science , public finance , macroeconomics , finance , economic growth , computer science , medicine , telecommunications , philosophy , linguistics , artificial intelligence , fiscal year , physical medicine and rehabilitation
Budget reform requires goals that are both good public policy and achievable. The core purpose of budgeting is to consider and relate details and totals. Common demands for reform are dubious because they slight consideration of details. For this reason, too strict a definition of “balance” would be bad policy; the demand for balance over many decades is neither good policy nor realistic; and multiyear discretionary spending caps can be both bad policy and impractical. Concern about passing annual budget resolutions ignores the fact that the major reason for annual totals is no longer endorsed by policy makers and economists. Scorekeeping should be honest and accurate and often can be improved, but possible achievements are limited. Budget reforms will not make government accountable if the governing coalition is united in seeking to avoid that, and if neither the public nor elites demand it.