A Budget for all Seasons: Why the Traditional Budget Lasts

Aaron Wildavsky

Chapter 14 in State Audit, 1981, pp 253-268 from Palgrave Macmillan

Abstract: Abstract Almost from the time the caterpillar of budgetary evolution became the butterfly of budgetary reform, the line-item budget has been condemned as a reactionary throwback to its primitive larva. Budgeting, its critics claim, has been metamorphized in reverse, an example of retrogression instead of progress. Over the last century, the traditional annual cash budget has been condemned as mindless, because its lines do not match programs; irrational, because they deal with inputs instead of outputs; shortsighted, because they cover one year instead of many; fragmented, because as a rule only changes are reviewed; conservative, because these changes tend to be small; and worse. Yet despite these faults, real and alleged, the traditional budget reigns supreme virtually everywhere, in practice if not in theory. Why?

Keywords: Public Spending; Economic Management; Budgetary Process; State Audit; Public Money (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 1981
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations:

There are no downloads for this item, see the EconPapers FAQ for hints about obtaining it.

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:pal:palchp:978-1-349-04666-9_14

Ordering information: This item can be ordered from
http://www.palgrave.com/9781349046669

DOI: 10.1007/978-1-349-04666-9_14

Access Statistics for this chapter

More chapters in Palgrave Macmillan Books from Palgrave Macmillan
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Sonal Shukla () and Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing ().