Performance budgeting initiatives are often partly justified as improving accountability to the legislature. However, it is not always clear whether this is the case. In this article we describe and explain the effects of performance budgeting on the role of the legislature in the budget process. We compare performance budgeting initiatives in the Australian Commonwealth government, the central government of the Netherlands, the Swedish central government and the Canadian federal government. The conclusion of this study is that the performance budgeting initiatives that we studied have a dominant focus on changing the budget structure, but do not seem very successful in altering the budget functions.
Auditor General of Canada (2000) Reporting Performance to Parliament: Progress Too Slow. Ottawa: Office of the Auditor General of Canada.
2.
Auditor General of Canada (2003) Parliamentary Committee Review of the Estimates Documents. Ottawa: Office of the Auditor General of Canada.
3.
Blöndal, Jón R. (2001a) 'La Procédure Budgétaire au Canada', OECD Journal on Budgeting1(2): 43—91.
4.
Blöndal, Jón R. (2001b) `Budgeting in Sweden', OECD Journal on Budgeting1(1): 27—57.
5.
Chan, Matthew, Nizette, Mark, La Rance, Lisa, Broughton, Charles and Russell, Derek (2002) `Australia', OECD Journal on Budgeting1(4): 35—69.
6.
Cunningham, Gary M. and Harris, Jean E. (2005) `Toward a Theory of Performance Reporting to Achieve Public Sector Accountability: A Field Study', Public Budgeting and Finance25(2): 15—42.
7.
Department of the Parliamentary Library (2002 ) The Commonwealth Budget: Process and Presentation. Canberra: Department of the Parliamentary Library.
8.
IOFEZ (Interministerial Consultations for Financial and Economic Affairs) (2004) Policy Budgets and Policy Accountability: Evaluation Lessons from Practice. The Hague: Ministry of Finance.
9.
Kelly, Joanne and Wanna, John (2004) `Crashing through with Accrual Output-price Budgeting in Australia. Technical Adjustments or a New Way of Doing Business?', American Review of Public Administration34 (1): 94—111.
10.
Lüder, Klaus (1994) `The Contingency Model Reconsidered: Experiences from Italy, Japan and Spain', in E. Buschor and K. Schedler (eds) Perspectives on Performance Measurement and Public Sector Accounting, pp. 1—15. Bern: Paul Haupt Publishers.
11.
Lüder, Klaus and Jones, Rowan (eds) (2003) Reforming Governmental Accounting and Budgeting in Europe. Frankfurt am Main: Fachverlag Moderne Wirtschaft.
12.
McKinnon, J. (1988) `Reliability and Validity in Field Research: Some Strategies and Tactics', Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal1(1): 34—54.
13.
Mattisson, Ola, Paulsson, Gert and Tagesson, Torbjörn (2003) 'Sweden', in Klaus Lüder and Rowan Jones (eds) Reforming Governmental Accounting and Budgeting in Europe, pp. 755—852. Frankfurt: Fachverlag Moderne Wirtschaft.
14.
OECD and World Bank (2004) OECD/World Bank Budget Practices and Procedures Database. Retrieved 18 August 2004, from http://ocde.dyndns.org/
15.
Pollitt, Christopher and Bouckaert, Geert (2004) Public Management Reform: A Comparative Analysis. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
16.
Posseth, Johan J.A. and van Nispen, Frans K.M. (2006) `Performance Budgeting in The Netherlands: From Policy Budget to Accounting for Policy', paper presented at the 2nd Transatlantic Dialogue Conference: A Performing Public Sector 1—3 June 2006, Leuven , Belgium.
17.
Regeringskansliet (2000) Performance Budgeting in Sweden: Outline of a Reform Program. Stockholm : Regeringskansliet.
18.
Robinson, Marc (2002) `Financial Control in Australian Government Budgeting', Public Budgeting and Finance22(1): 80—93.
19.
Rogers, E. (2003) Diffusion of Innovation (5th edn). New York: Free Press.
20.
Scheers, Bram, Sterck, Miekatrien and Bouckaert, Geert (2005) 'Lessons from Australian and British Reforms in Results-oriented Financial Management', OECD Journal on Budgeting5(2): 133—62.
21.
Schick, Allen (1966) 'The Road to PPB: The Stages of Budget Reform' , Public Administration Review26(4): 234—58.
22.
Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates (2003) Meaningful Scrutiny: Practical Improvements to the Estimates Process. Ottawa: House of Commons.
23.
Sterck, Miekatrien and Scheers, Bram (2006) 'Trends in Performance Budgeting in Seven OECD Countries', Public Performance and Management Review30(1): 47—72.
24.
Van Dooren, Wouter (2005) `What Makes Organizations Measure? Hypotheses on the Causes and Conditions for Performance Measurement', Financial Accountability & Management21(3): 363—83.
25.
Verspaandonk, Rose (2000) Accrual Budgeting — State of Play; http://www.aph.gov.au/library/pubs/rn/1999—2000/2000rn30.htm
26.
Wildavsky, Aaron (1978) 'A Budget for All Seasons: Why the Traditional Budget Lasts', Public Administration Review38(6): 501—9.
27.
Wilson, James Q. (1966) 'Innovation in Organizations: Notes Towards a Theory ', in James D. Thompson (ed.) Approaches to Organizational Design, pp. 193—218. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.
