The article examines the timetable of the introduction and the sudden abandoning of program budgeting in Greece. The analysis is conducted through the lens of neo-institutional theory, organizational change theory and the resource dependency model. The framework developed is informed by archival data and the views of executives involved with the program as well as politicians. The findings suggest that subsequent institutional pressures deriving from the country’s resource dependency resulted in a re-prioritization of actions and therefore to the abandoning of the program budgeting project. Moreover, the analysis reveals that the cultivated culture inside a bureaucratic central government which gives rise to resistance to change and the poor diffusion of the new accounting philosophy would have hampered the success of the new system even if the plan had not been abandoned.
Points for practitioners
The application of program budgeting is expected to significantly assist public managers and politicians in better assessing the usefulness, the effectiveness and the efficiency of several central government functions. The present article provides insights into the first attempt to introduce program budgeting in Greece and highlights the difficulties faced during the process. The knowledge gained from the unsuccessful attempt to introduce program budgeting in Greece has important implications for understanding the factors that contribute to the failure of accounting change at central government level.
Amborski D (2011) Municipal responses to the fiscal downturn in Canada: Performance budgeting. In: Sedmihradska L, Bobcheva N and Lados M (eds) Local Government Finance in Times of Crisis: An Early Assessment. NISPAcee Press.
2.
AndrewsM (2006) Beyond ‘best practice’ and ‘basics first’ in adopting performance budgeting reform. Public Administration and Development26: 147–161.
3.
BuckhoA (1994) Barriers to strategic transformation. Advances in Strategic Management10: 81–106.
4.
CarpenterVFerozE (2001) Institutional theory and accounting rule choice: An analysis of four US state governments’ decisions to adopt generally accepted accounting principles. Accounting, Organizations and Society26: 565–596.
5.
ChristensenTLægreidP (2002) New Public Management: Puzzles of democracy and the influence of citizens. Journal of Political Philosophy10: 267–295.
6.
CurristineTLontiZJounardI (2007) Improving public sector efficiency: Challenges and opportunities. OECD Journal on Budgeting7(1): 1–41.
7.
Diamond J (2005) Establishing a performance management framework for government. Working Paper 50, International Monetary Fund.
8.
DiMaggioPJPowellW (1983) The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review48: 147–160.
9.
European Commission (2007) Public finances in EMU. European Economy 3.
10.
FernandezSRaineyH (2006) Managing successful organizational change in the public sector. Public Administration Review66(2): 168–176.
11.
GilmourJLewisD (2006) Does performance budgeting work? An examination of the Office of Management and Budget’s PART scores. Public Administration Review66(5): 742–752.
12.
GuthrieJEnglishL (1997) Performance information and programme evaluation in the Australian public sector. International Journal of Public Sector Management10(3): 154–164.
13.
HeckmanJHeinrichCSmithJ (1997) Assessing the performance of performance standards in public bureaucracies. American Economic Review82: 389–395.
14.
International Labour Office (2011) Report on the High Level Mission to Greece. Athens, 19–23 September.
15.
International Monetary Fund (2005a) Greece: A strategy for modernizing budget management. August, Washington, DC: IMF.
16.
International Monetary Fund (2005b) Greece: Report on observance of standards and codes – fiscal transparency module – update. February, Washington, DC: IMF.
17.
International Monetary Fund (2006) Greece: Report on observance of standards and codes – fiscal transparency module. February, Washington, DC: IMF.
18.
International Monetary Fund (2010) Greece: Staff report on request for stand-by arrangement. May, Washington, DC: IMF.
19.
IPSASB (2011) Consultation paper on ‘Reporting service performance information’. October.
20.
JärvinenJ (2006) Institutional pressures for adopting new cost accounting systems in Finnish hospitals: Two longitudinal case studies. Financial Accountability and Management22: 21–46.
21.
JonesR (1992) The development of conceptual frameworks of accounting for the public sector. Financial Accountability and Management8(4): 249–264.
22.
JoyceP (1999) Performance-based budgeting. In: MeyersRT (ed) Handbook of Government Budgeting, San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers, pp. 597–619.
23.
KellyJMRivenbarkWC (2003) Performance Budgeting for State and Local Government, Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe.
24.
KongD (2005) Performance-based budgeting: The US experience. Public Organizational Review: A Global Journal5: 91–107.
25.
Law 3845/2010, On the policy measures relating to the conditionality criteria of the euro area/IMF financing package, National Gazette 65Α/ 6-5-2010 (in Greek).
26.
MaystonD (1992) Financial reporting in the public sector and the demand for information. Financial Accountability and Management8(4): 317–324.
27.
MelkersJWilloughbyK (2001) Budgeters’ views of state performance budgeting systems: Distinctions across branches. Public Administration Review61(1): 54–64.
28.
MeyerJRowanB (1977) Institutionalized organizations: Formal structure as myth and ceremony. American Journal of Sociology83: 340–363.
29.
Ministry of Finance (2008a) State Budget Report, Athens 2008 (in Greek).
30.
Ministry of Finance (2008b) Program Budgeting: Executive Summary, Athens 2008.
31.
Ministry of Finance (2009) Program Budgeting: Executive Summary, Athens 2009.
32.
Ministry of Finance (2010) Program Budgeting: Executive Summary, Athens 2010.
33.
Ministry of Finance (2011) State Budget Report, Athens 2011 (in Greek).
34.
MizuchiMFeinL (1999) The social construction of organization knowledge: A study of the uses of coercive, mimetic and normative isomorphism. Administrative Science Quarterly44: 653–683.
35.
OECD (2008a) Budgeting in Greece. 29th Annual Meeting of Senior Budget Officials, Vienna, Austria, 2–3 June, Paris: OECD.
OECD (2011) Greece: Review of the Central Administration, OECD Public Governance Reviews. Paris: OECD Publishing.
38.
PhilippidouSSoderquistKEPrastacosG (2004) Towards New Public Management in Greek public organizations: Leadership vs management, and the path to implementation. Public Organization Review: A Global Journal4: 317–337.
39.
PollittC (2001a) Integrating Financial Management and Performance Management, Paris: OECD.
40.
PollittC (2001b) Clarifying convergence. Striking similarities and durable differences in public management reform. Public Management Review3(4): 471–492.
41.
PollittC (2003) Public management reform: Reliable knowledge and international experience. OECD Journal on Budgeting3(3): 121–136.
42.
PollittC (2006) Performance information for democracy: The missing link?Evaluation12(1): 38–55.
43.
PollittCBouckaertG (2000) Public Management Reform: A Comparative Analysis, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
44.
Robinson M and Brumby J (2005) Does performance budgeting work? An analytical review of the empirical literature. Working Paper 210, IMF.
45.
RutherfordB (1992) Developing a conceptual framework for central government financial reporting. Financial Accountability and Management8(4): 265–280.
46.
Schaeffer M and Yilmaz S (2008) Strengthening local government budgeting and accountability. World Bank Policy Research Working Papers Series, WPS 54767.
47.
SchickA (1998) Why most developing countries should not try New Zealand’s reforms. World Bank Research Observer13(1): 123–131.
48.
SchickA (2004) Twenty five years of budgeting reform. OECD Journal on Budgeting4(1): 81–102.
49.
SchickA (2007) Performance budgeting and accrual budgeting: Decision rules or analytic tools?OECD Journal on Budgeting7(2): 109–138.
50.
SterckM (2007) The impact of performance budgeting on the role of the legislature: A four-country study. International Review of Administrative Sciences73(2): 189–203.
51.
ter BogtHJ (2004) Politicians in search of performance information? Survey research on Dutch aldermen’s use of performance information. Financial Accountability & Management20(3): 221–252.
52.
Trader-LeighK (2002) Case study: Identifying resistance in managing change. Journal of Organizational Change Management15(2): 138–155.
53.
van ThielSLeeuwF (2002) The performance paradox in the public sector. Public Performance and Management Review25(3): 267–281.
54.
WilliamsD (2004) Evolution of performance measurement until 1930. Administration and Society36(2): 131–165.
55.
WholeyJ (1999) Performance-based management: Responding to challenges. Public Productivity and Management Review22(3): 288–307.
56.
ZampetakisLMoustakisV (2007) Entrepreneurial behavior in the Greek public sector. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour and Research13(1): 19–38.
