A century of budget reform reflects a century of changing public support for the role of government in American society. When Americans trusted the private sector more than the public sector, budget reform was centered on cost control and improved efficiency. When Americans turned to government to solve problems the private sector could not, budget reform was centered on programmatic effectiveness. We have an answer to V. O. Key’s question about a theory of budgeting. History provides it. A theory of budgeting is a theory of political cycles driven by changing public opinion about the proper role of government. There are two enduring features of budgeting practice that emerged in the past century. Incremental budgeting reflects Americans’ preference for incremental policy change. The traditional or line-item format promotes financial accountability.
Appleby, P. (1957). The role of the division office. Public Administration Review, 17, 156-158.
2.
Behn, R. D. (1985). Cutback budgeting. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 4, 155-177.
3.
Dahlberg, J. (1966). The New York Bureau of Municipal Research. New York: New York University Press.
4.
Drucker, P. F. (1954). The practice of management. New York: Harper.
5.
Gelfand, M. D. (1979). Seeking local government financial integrity through debt ceilings, tax limitations and expenditure limits: The New York fiscal crises, the taxpayers revolt and beyond. Minnesota Law Review, 63, 545-608.
6.
General Accounting Office, Accounting and Information Management Division. (1998). Managing for results: The statutory framework for performance-based management and accountability (GAO/GGD/AIMD-98-52). Washington, DC: General Accounting Office.
7.
General Accounting Office, Accounting and Information Management Division. (1999, July 30). Memorandum 239-R Performance Budgeting (from Paul Posner to the Honorable Fred Thompson). Washington, DC: General Accounting Office.
8.
General Accounting Office. (2002, September 30). Testimony before the Government Reform Subcommittee on Government Efficiency, Financial Management and Intergovernmental Relations, Rules Subcommittee on Legislative and Budget Process, House of Representatives107th Cong., (testimony of David M. Walker, Comptroller General, GAO-02-1106T).
9.
Gulick, L., & Urwick, L. (1937). Papers on the science of administration. New York: Institute of Public Administration.
10.
Harper, E. O., Kramer, F. A., &. Rouse, A. M. (1980). Implementation and use of PPB in sixteen federal agencies. In A. Schick (Ed.), Perspectives on budgeting (pp. 91-102). Washington, DC: American Society for Public Administration.
11.
Hirschman, A. O. (1982). Shifting involvements: Private interest and public action. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
12.
Kelman, S. (1985). The Grace Commission: How much waste in government?Public Interest, 78, 62-82.
13.
Key, V. O., Jr. (1940). The lack of a budgetary theory. American Political Science Review, 34, 1137-1144.
14.
Koven, S. G. (1999). Public budgeting in the United States. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
15.
Lauth, T. P. (1980). Zero-base budgeting in Georgia: Myth and reality. In A. Schick (Ed.), Perspectives on budgeting (pp. 114-132). Washington, DC: American Society for Public Administration.
16.
LeLoup, L. T. (1978). The myth of incrementalism: Analytical choices in budgetary theory. Polity, 10, 488-509.
17.
Lewis, V. B. (1952). Toward a theory of budgeting. Public Administration Review, 12, 42-54.
18.
Lindblom, C. E. (1959). The science of muddling through. Public Administration Review, 19, 79-88.
19.
Lindblom, C. E. (1979). Still muddling, not yet through. Public Administration Review, 39, 517-526.
20.
McCloskey, H., & Zaller, J. (1984). The American ethos: Public attitudes toward capitalism and democracy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
21.
Mosher, F. C. (1976). Basic documents of American public administration, 1776-1950. New York: Holmes and Meier.
22.
National Performance Review. (1993). Creating a government that works better and costs less. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
23.
Nice, D. (2002). Public budgeting. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
24.
Osborne, D., & Gaebler, T. (1992). Reinventing government: How the entrepreneurial spirit is transforming the public sector. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
25.
Pangle, T. L. (1988). The spirit of modern republicanism: The moral vision of the American founders and the philosophy of Locke. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
26.
Roberts, A. (1997). Why the Brownlow Committee failed: Neutrality and partisanship in the early years of public administration. Administration & Society, 28, 3-39.
27.
Rose, R. (1980). Implementation and evaporation: The record of MBO. In A. Schick (Ed.), Perspectives on budgeting (pp. 103-113). Washington, DC: American Society for Public Administration.
28.
Rubin, I. S. (1990). Budget theory and budget practice: How good the fit?Public Administration Review, 50, 179-189.
29.
Rubin, I. S. (2000). The politics of budgeting (4th ed.). New York: Chatham House.
30.
Schick, A. (1966). Planning-programming-budgeting system: A symposium. Public Administration Review, 26, 243-258.
31.
Schick, A. (1973). A death in the bureaucracy: The demise of federal PPB. Public Administration Review, 33, 146-156.
32.
Schick, A. (1990). Capacity to budget. Washington, DC: Urban Institute Press.
33.
Schlesinger, A. M., Jr. (1986). The cycles of American history. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
34.
Stockman, D. A. (1986). The triumph of politics. New York: Harper & Row.
35.
Taylor, F. (1911). The principles of scientific management. New York: Norton.
36.
Thompson, J. R. (2000). Reinvention as reform: Assessing the National Performance Review. Public Administration Review, 60, 508-521.
37.
Waldo, D. (1975). Education for public administration in the seventies. In F. C. Mosher (Ed.), American public administration: Past, present, future (pp. 181-232), University: University of Alabama Press.
38.
White, J. (1994). (Almost) nothing new under the sun: Why the work of budgeting remains incremental. Public Budgeting and Finance, 14, 113-134.
39.
Wildavsky, A. (1961). Political implications of budgetary reform. Public Administration Review, 21, 183-190.
40.
Wildavsky, A. (1969). Rescuing policy analysis from PPBS. Public Administration Review, 29, 189-202.
