本文摘要：本 EI英文期刊論文 主要內容是討論性能測量在世界各地被廣發運用的主要原因和具體方法的介紹�！� 電子科學技術與應用 》(ISSN刊號：2251-2608)衷心邀請來自世界各地的學者們投稿，來稿會進行同行評審。本刊屬開放獲取刊，可以即時查看或訪問研究結果，同時允
本EI英文期刊論文主要內容是討論性能測量在世界各地被廣發運用的主要原因和具體方法的介紹�！�電子科學技術與應用》(ISSN刊號：2251-2608)衷心邀請來自世界各地的學者們投稿，來稿會進行同行評審。本刊屬開放獲取刊，可以即時查看或訪問研究結果，同時允許免費使用學者的研究成果。本刊致力于出版電子和電子工程領域全面和最新發展的高質量學術論文。我們為電子和電子工程領域廣泛的研究人員和專業人士提供了一個交流和信息交換平臺。
標題：討論的論點，作為性能測量已成為世界許多地區的資源利用和被越來越多地用于保持部門考慮其性能分項預算過多集中在運送過程中，應該由PPBS系統側重于輸出取代。在討論考慮為什么，因為英國已經在新公共管理改革的前列20多年為什么分項預算仍然是用在英國的公共部門預算的主要方法。
線項目預算已使用多年，并提供簡單，但有限的信息超出了特定類別的支出或撥款的成本，以確保準確性和控制。另一方面，一個規劃，規劃和預算系統(PPBS)是一種合理的方式對預算應作為決策和資源分配的一個重要組成部分的典范。盡管如此，線項目預算，盡管它的批評，仍然是主要的預算方法在英國公共部門使用。本文將探討為什么分項預算仍然被用來作為預算的主要來源，為什么PPBS的未充分利用，盡管他們可能是非常有益的。
新公共管理(NPM)技術在很大程度上增加了多年，這導致在更有效地管理他們的產品和有效的公共部門的需要。新公共管理方法的使用已被證明在某些情況下是有益的如：“節約成本在公路養護”，如公共圖書館管理的情況下也被證明是有益的：“新公共管理的結果包括責任、節約成本，與公民使用/滿意。”其他機構受到NPM還包括“監獄，心理健康，社會關懷，年輕人、軍隊和移民拘留中心”等等。事實上，成本節約在NPM技術說明預算是至關重要的，因此使用正確的預算方法的重點，即項目預算或預算。
Title: Discuss the contention that as performance measurement has become increasingly linked to resource utilisation in many parts of the world and is increasingly used to hold departments to account for their performance that line item budgeting focuses too much on the process of delivery and that it should be replaced by a PPBS system focussing on the output. In your discussion consider why, given that the UK has been at the forefront of NPM reforms for over 20 years why line item budgeting is still a major method of budgeting used in the UK public sector.
Line-item budgeting has been used for many years and provides simple, but limited information beyond the cost of specific categories of expenditures or appropriations in order to ensure accuracy and control. On the other hand, a planning, programming and budgeting system (PPBS) is a prime example of a reasonable approach to budgeting which ought to be a crucial part of decision making and resource allocation. Nonetheless, line-item budgeting, despite its critique, is still the major method of budgeting used in the UK public sector. This essay will examine why line-item budgeting is still being used as the main source of budgeting and why PPBS’s are underused even though they are potentially extremely beneficial.
New Public Management (NPM) techniques have largely increased over the years, which have resulted in the need for the public sector to manage their products more efficiently and effectively. The use of NPM methods has proven to be beneficial in some cases, such as: “cost savings in road maintenance” (Larbi 1999), and as demonstrated by Ward (2007), cases such as public library management have also proven to be beneficial: “the outcomes of NPM included accountability, cost savings, and citizen’s use/satisfaction.” Other bodies which come under the NPM also include “prisons, mental health, social care, young persons, military and immigration detention centres” (Murray, Evans, Steinerte and De Wolf 2008) to name a few. The fact that cost savings are the main focus on NPM techniques illustrates how budgeting is crucial for public management and thus it is important to use the correct budgeting method, namely line-item budgeting or PPBS.
Line-item budgeting (also known as “traditional” budgeting) has been widely used for many years to assign different amounts to each line of the budget. It has been said that line item budgeting will “reduce spending” (Holtz-Eakin 1988) and that “the major benefit is that the budget is viewed as a sum of its parts and that each part is considered separately in terms of some measure of perceived need” (Thompson, Wood and Crampton, 2008: 142). It has further been stated that “the most prevalent modern form of expenditure budgeting is line-item budgeting and it is the form par excellence of the hierarchy” (Rabin 1992:55). Arguably, line-item budgeting has been used for many years because of its mere simplicity and control orientation. This has resulted in its continued use despite the availability of newer budgeting implements.
On the other hand however, despite its popularity, line-item budgeting still possesses problems. It has been suggested by Bergmann (2008) that “traditional line-item budgets should be replaced by product budgets allocating a lump sum to each of the products and controlling the institutions through performance indicators rather than individual line-items.” Moreover, it has been argued that “it is impossible to determine what justification underlies adopted levels of expenditure and that such a method of allocating money allows secretiveness in budgets, vests power in only a few select persons, and does not encourage accountability” (Thompson, Wood and Crampton, 2008: 143). Thus, it seems that although line-item budgeting is far more commonly used than it should be, it’s use has in fact lessened and it does evidently have drawbacks. Moreover, it is obvious that this form of budgeting does not provide a sound basis for decision making.
Some argue that a planning, programming and budgeting system (PPBS) is the best method of budgeting in that it “contributes to accountability, both by its focus on programs and by its potential to use object-function codes to include productivity analysis. And that organisations are more likely to reach their stated goals and objectives” (Thompson, Wood and Crampton, 2008: 143). PPBS was developed because of the deficiencies in the traditional approach to budgeting and it was stated that “Programme budgeting is primarily a system associated with corporate management which identifies alternative policies, presents the implications of their adoption and provides for the efficient control of those policies chosen” (Jones and Pendlebury 2000: 79). It was further stated by Jones and Pendlebury (2000: 70) that “the principle features of programme budgeting are that it relates to outputs, emphasises the future and emphasises choice.” Arguably, PPBS was seen as a solution to the problems and deficiencies caused by the traditional approach to budgeting.
Nevertheless, although there was a lot of enthusiasm surrounding PPBS’s initially, by the 1970’s it has been abandoned by many organisations that had introduced it. There are however examples of PPBS remaining, yet not as many as formerly anticipated. Wildavsky (1970) submits that “the planning-programming-budgeting system has brought great damage to effective policy analysis,” and that “PPBS has failed everywhere and at all times” (Jones and Pendlebury 2000: 79). Hofstede (1981) further argues that “attempts to implement a system of PPBS would represent a fundamental error in the choice of management control models.” Possibly the finest form of budgeting system is programme budgeting and yet it appears to be discarded.
Still, it is argued that line item budgeting is about means and PPBS is about ends, yet it is questionable how accurate this view is. Jones and Pendlebury (2000: 60) say that “the way in which the annual revenue budget is prepared depends upon whether the emphasis is on the nature of the income and expenditure (line-item budgeting) or on the purpose of expenditure (PPBS).” It does appear that line-item budgeting is about the means since the emphasis is mainly on the income and altho
轉載請注明來自發表學術論文網：http://www.cnzjbx.cn/ywlw/12394.html
