Actors’ dynamics toward performance-based budgeting: a mix of change and stability?

Abstract

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to analyze the under-investigated role played by different key organizational actors engaged in the practice of performance-based budgeting (PBB) (e.g. Ministry of Finance, National Audit Office, Sectoral Agencies) to explore how they influence the practice of PBB, contributing to lead the change or create resistance toward it. Design/methodology/approach The empirical evidence has been collected through a multiple case study based on semi-structured interviews and document analysis in Sweden and Finland, which have long traditions with PBB, and has been interpreted through the lens of institutional and organizational change theory. Findings The results show that, despite the lengthy experiences with PBB, the lack of sound dynamics across key actors makes the budgetary use of performance information limited and partial, placing the reform in a “gray area” between the complete implementation of the practice and the total resistance toward it. Originality/value The knowledge obtained from the exploratory analysis has relevant implications for understanding differences and similarities across key organizational actors and underlining their crucial role in making a change feasible. Indeed, PBB may represent a radical change even in presence of embedded performance management systems.

Institutional work and the interplay of stability and change in public budgeting reform: the case of public universities in Iran

“…Thus, powerful institutions enjoy greater support from relevant social actors, while weaker institutions are easier to change or replace (Barley and Tolbert, 1997). For example, Mauro et al (2019) examine the role played by regulatory bodies in Finland in introducing PBB. They note that introducing institutional change (e.g.…”

“…the success of the reforms). These themes have been the focus of studies examining PBB in the USA (Lu et al, 2015), Canada (Townley et al, 2003), UK (Townley, 1997), Italy (Mauro et al, 2018) and Sweden and Finland (Mauro et al, 2019). The limited research examining management accounting systems in developing countries (Hopper et al, 2009) has also adopted a similar direction with researchers examining institutional drivers of accounting (and budgetary) reforms in Jordan (Alsharari and Abougamos, 2017;Alsharari, 2020), Indonesia (Harun et al, 2020) and Malta (Ellul and Hodges, 2019).…”

Accounting for unstable environments in the public sector: managing post-COVID-19 times

“…Performance budgeting has for decade been promoted and diffused in many contexts and guises, in the attempt to link resource allocation not only to output but also to outcomes (Ho, 2018). However, linking resource allocation in budgetary decision-making in order to create public value is still under-researched and/or unclear (Bracci et al, 2019;Mauro et al, 2019;Douglas and Overmans, 2020). Of course, selecting and linking performance indicators to resources is not straightforward as it requires skills, competences and willingness to do so (Budding et al, 2022).…”

The diffusion of accounting reform in Sri Lanka: an analysis of two layers of diffusion among three levels of government

“…The insights provided by these participants are highly beneficial because they play a dual role as diffusers and adopters of accrual accounting, acquiring extensive knowledge on the policies and diffusion of SLPSAS. The data are analysed using Rogers (1995) diffusion of innovations theory because of its ability to shed light on distinctive dissemination traits in a complex environment characterised by multiple layers as well as formal and informal internal and external channels of communication (Bruno and Lapsley, 2018;Christensen and Parker, 2010;Broadbent and Guthrie, 2008;Mauro et al, 2019).…”