Implementing PBB: Conflicting Views of Success

Abstract

A modern budget reform, performance-based budgeting (PBB) emphasizes the measurement of government performance by agencies and public servants. In this article we define PBB as requiring strategic planning regarding agency mission, goals and objectives, and a process that requests quantifiable data that provide meaningful information about program outcomes. Performance-based budgeting requirements are now pervasive in the states. Of forty-seven states with PBB requirements, thirty-one have legislated the process to be conducted, while sixteen have initiated the reform through budget guidelines or instructions. 1 What remains unknown, yet of vital interest to state administrators, their staff, legislators, and citizens, regards implementation status of PBB systems. How many states are utilizing a PBB process as prescribed by law or administrative directive? And if PBB has been implemented, has it been successful regarding improvement of agency effectiveness and decision making about spending? Perhaps most importantly, has PBB influenced appropriation decisions?This research is based on responses to a mail survey of executive and legislative budgeters regarding the PBB system established in their state. Results discussed in this article consider budgeters' response about PBB implementation status and effectiveness as conducted. We find that there are differing perceptions across the branches of government regarding both the extent of PBB implementation as well as its success. Results show that states with better-known PBB systems have not necessarily realized greater success in terms of effectiveness from this budget reform than states with less popularly known systems, at least as perceived by the budgeters included in this article.A modern budget reform, performance-based budgeting (PBB) emphasizes the measurement of government performance by agencies and public servants. For purposes of study, we have defined PBB as requiring strategic planning regarding agency mission and goals, and a process that requests quantifiable data that provide meaningful information about program outcomes. At the state level, all but three states have performance-based budgeting requirements, and most have established these requirements within the last few years. Of these forty-seven states, thirty-one have legislated PBB to be conducted, while sixteen have initiated the reform through budget guidelines or instructions. Only three states, Arkansas,Massachusetts,and New York do not have either type of mandate to conduct PBB. 2 Interest in and the catalyst for budget reform arises from public discontent with the results of budgeting. That is, as long as the public remains dissatisfied with both the size and the make-up of the budget pie, there will be efforts to fix, improve, and/or innovate public budgeting process to make it more "rational," more objective, or less political. We consider the current emphasis on measuring results of state spending or on the more entrepreneurial approach to budgeting to have arisen out of such public ...

Performance Budgeting in American States: A Framework of Integrating Performance with Budgeting

“…state's performance measurement system. For example, there is growing recognition that implementing any kind of performance measurement system necessitates the engagement by multiple participants (Joyce, 2003;Lu, 2011;Willoughby & Melkers, 2000), especially those involved in leadership, managerial, and/or budgetary positions throughout state government. In this research, we focus on the facilitative role taken by the executive budget office of each state in coordinating statewide performance measurement and use.…”

“…Regarding performance budgeting, in particular, by 2012, most state legislatures have passed laws requiring some mix of measurement development, presentation, reporting, and/or evaluation applied to one, some, or all phases of the budgetary process. Increasingly, the limits associated with these institutional patterns have attracted attention, and scholars have called for a shared institutional engagement by both branches (Bourdeaux, 2006;Joyce, 2003;Lu, 2008;Willoughby & Melkers, 2000;Yang & Hsieh, 2007). It may be a result of the end of executive dominance in state appropriations (Abney & Lauth, 1998), and/or just the realization that budgeting for performance cannot happen if those with the power of the purse, the appropriators, are not in the loop.…”

What Drives Performance Budgeting to Perform? A Survey Examination in Taiwan

“…These survey respondents, i.e. budgeters at legislative and executive branch, are highly utilized as survey targets by several researchers (Berman & Wang, 2000;Melkers & Willoughby, 1998;Melkers & Willoughby, 2001;Melkers & Willoughby, 2005;Willoughby & Melkers, 2000). We particularly interested in the respondents from executive and legislative branch as previous studies have attempted to explore the impacts brought about by performance budgeting on executive as well as legislative staffs (Gilmour & Lewis, 2006;Sterck, 2007).…”

“…Willoughby and Melkers (2000) argued that modern budget reform should facilitate communication between the government and citizens. Lee (1997) also contended that greater communication among the executive and legislative branch www.ccsenet.org/par members and the citizens is useful for the development of such performance measurements.…”

Taking Stock: Assessing and Improving Performance Budgeting Theory and Practice

“…However, there has been a growing interest in how performance information is used in other phases of budgeting in recent years, even though this focus has fluctuated over time (see Table 1). In the mid-2000s, more attention was paid to the impact of performance budgeting Among the 27 studies that examine the impact of performance budgeting on the executive budget preparation process, 81 percent find some impact of performance budgeting, and these impacts are wide-ranging, from changing the presentation of budgetary information, modifying the budgetary structure and process, and changing the amount of budget requests, to enhancing the communication among departments and between the executive and legislative branches of the government (Willoughby and Melkers, 2000;U.S. GAO, 2003).…”