Long-term budgeting: A cautionary tale from U.S. experience

Joseph White

OECD Journal on Budgeting, 2018, vol. 17, issue 3, 129-178

Abstract: There is a growing tendency, among central budget-makers and commentators, to argue budgets should be made for the long-term, rather than the traditional annual budget. This tendency is especially strong in the United States, where it has become virtually a conventional wisdom. This article explains, first, why that approach fits very poorly with most of the goals of budgeting. It then evaluates U.S. experience with approximations of long-term budgeting of three types: i) medium-term limits on discretionary spending, ii) the Social Security programme, and the iii) Medicare programme. That experience illustrates the reasons why long-term budgeting would not be a positive reform. They include the fantastical nature of many long-term forecasts, strong incentives for both deception and self-deception about the effects of planned budget totals, and ignoring the basic task of budgeting, which is to reconcile preferences about policy details to preferences about budget totals in a way that considers each.

Keywords: Accountability; Efficiency; Forecasting; Health; Long-term; Pensions; Representation; United States (search for similar items in EconPapers)
JEL-codes: H11 H41 H50 H68 (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2018
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
https://doi.org/10.1787/budget-17-5j8mxqlpl98n (text/html)
Full text available to READ online. PDF download available to OECD iLibrary subscribers.

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:oec:govkaa:5j8mxqlpl98n

Access Statistics for this article

More articles in OECD Journal on Budgeting from OECD Publishing Contact information at EDIRC.
Bibliographic data for series maintained by ().