This article focuses on the impact of both incrementalism and exogenous factors in budgeting. The authors present a double-distinction-based proposal combining incrementalism and exogenous factors and then apply this model to the case of Spain. This approach enables the authors to avoid some of the shortcomings of the earlier Davis, Dempster, and Wildavsky’s econometric method and its extensions, to examine both within-budget incrementalism (WBI) and budget-total incrementalism (BTI), and to use exogenous variables in order to explain the dynamic of marginal change and nonincremental budget variations. Results for Spain not only confirm the relevance of incrementalism but also indicate the need for additional variables to explain the dynamic of marginal change in the budget total and nonincremental changes within the budget.
AndersonSarahHarbridgeLaurel. 2010. “Incrementalism in Appropriations: Small Aggregation, Big Changes.”Public Administration Review70:464–74.
2.
BallartXavierZapicoEduardo. 2010. “Budget Reforms in Spain: Anything Else Beyond Budget Discipline?” In The Reality of Budgetary Reform in OECD Nations: Trajectories and Consequences, edited by WannaJohnJensenLottede VriesJouke, 240–59. Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar.
3.
BaumgartnerFrank R.FoucaultMartialFrançoisAbel. 2006. “Punctuated Equilibrium in French Budgeting Processes.”Journal of European Public Policy13:1086–103.
4.
BaumgartnerFrank R.JonesBryan D.1993. Agendas and Instability in American Politics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
5.
BerryWilliam D.1990. “The Confusing Case of Budgetary Incrementalism: Too Many Meanings for a Single Concept.”The Journal of Politics52:167–96.
6.
BerryWilliam D.LoweryDavid. 1990. “An Alternative Approach to Understanding Budgetary Tradeoffs.”American Journal of Political Science34:671–705.
7.
BoyneGeorgeAshworthRachelPowellMartin. 2000. “Testing the Limits of Incrementalism: An Empirical Analysis of Expenditure Decisions by English Local Authorities, 1981-1996.”Public Administration78:51–73.
8.
BozemanBarry. 1977. “The Effect of Economic and Partisan Change on Federal Appropriations.”The Western Political Quarterly. 30:112–24.
9.
DanzigerJames N.1976. “Assessing Incrementalism in British Municipal Budgeting.”British Journal of Political Science6:335–50.
10.
DavisOtto A.DempsterM. A. H.WildavskyAaron. 1966. “A Theory of the Budgetary Process.”The American Political Science Review60:529–47.
11.
DavisOtto A.DempsterM.WildavskyAaron. 1971. “On the Process of Budgeting II: An Empirical Study of Congressional Appropriations.” In Studies in Budgeting, edited by ByrneR. F., 292–373. London: North Holland.
12.
DavisOtto A.DempsterM. A. H.WildavskyAaron. 1974. “Towards a Predictive Theory of Government Expenditure: US Domestic Appropriations.”British Journal of Political Science4:419–52.
13.
DempsterM. A. H.WildavskyAaron. 1979. “On Change: Or, There is No Magic Size for an Increment.”Political Studies27:371–89.
14.
DezhbakhshHashemTohamySoumaya M.AransonPeter H.2003. “A New Approach for Testing Budgetary Incrementalism.”The Journal of Politics65:532–58.
15.
Dirección General de Coordinación Financiera con las Comunidades Autónomas y con las Entidades Locales (DGCF).2009. Datos de los Presupuestos de las Comunidades Autónomas. Regional Governments' budgetary statistics downloaded from the Spanish MEH’s website: http://serviciosweb.meh.es/apps/CCAApresupuestos. (accessed on March 29, 2009).
16.
González-PáramoJosé Manuel. 2001. Costes y Beneficios de la Disciplina Fiscal: la Ley de Estabilidad Presupuestaria en perspectiva. Madrid: Instituto de Estudios Fiscales.
HagenJürgen von.1992. Budgeting Procedures and Fiscal Performance in the European Communities. EEC Commission Economic Paper, Brussels.
19.
HagenJürgen vonHardenI. J.1994. “National Budget Processes and Fiscal Performance.”European Economy, Reports and Studies3:311–418.
20.
HallerbergMarkStrauchRolf R.HagenJürgen von. 2007. “The Design of Fiscal Rules and Forms of Governance in European Union Countries.”European Journal of Political Economy23:338–59.
21.
Instituto de Estudios Fiscales (IEF)1991. Presupuestos de las Administraciones Públicas: Evolución en el período 1986-1990. Madrid: MEH.
22.
JohnPeterMargettsHelen. 2003. “Policy Punctuations in the UK: Fluctuations and Equilibria in Central Government Expenditure since 1951.”Public Administration81:411–32.
23.
JonesBryan D.SulkinTracyLarsenHeather A.2003. “Policy Punctuations in American Political Institutions.”TheAmerican Political Science Review97:151–69.
24.
JonesBryan D.TrueJames L.BaumgartnerFrank R.1997. “Does Incrementalism Stem from Political Consensus or from Institutional Gridlock?”American Journal of Political Science41:1319–39.
25.
KanterArnold. 1972. “Congress and the Defense Budget: 1960-1970.”The American Political Science Review66:129–43.
26.
Le MauxBenoît. 2006. “Local Public Choice in Representative Democracy: Which Theory Best Explains the Data?”, PhD thesis, University of Rennes1.
27.
Le MauxBenoît. 2009. “How Policy-Makers really Solve Problems? Evidence from the French Local Public Sector.”Economics and Politics21:201–31.
28.
LindblomCharles E.1959. “The Science of Muddling Through.”Public Administration Review19:79–88.
29.
Ministerio de Economía y Hacienda (MEH)1985a. El presupuesto para 1985. Madrid: MEH.
30.
Ministerio de Economíca y Hacienda (MEH). 1985b. Presupuestos Generales delEstado año 1985. Presupuesto de gastos. Madrid: MEH.
MortensenPeter B.2005. “Policy Punctuations in Danish Local Budgeting.”Public Administration83:931–50.
33.
OnrubiaJorge. 1996. “La necesaria reforma de la gestión económico-financiera del gasto público.”Presupuesto y Gasto Público20:29–38.
34.
OnrubiaJorge. 1999. La organización eficiente delsector público: un estudio desde la economía de la información y una aplicación al caso español. Doctoral dissertation.
35.
OnrubiaJorge. 2003. “Modernización de la institución presupuestaria española.” In Los Presupuestos del Estado: Transparencia y Democracia, edited by Fundación Modernización de España, 101–80. Madrid: Fundación Modernización de España.
36.
Pons NovellJordiSolé-OlléAlbert. 2001. Racionalidad de las previsiones presupuestarias y comportamiento estratégico. El caso español. Hacienda Pública Española157:197–231.
37.
ReddickChristopher G.2002. “Testing Rival Decision-Making Theories on Budget Outputs: Theories and Comparative Evidence.”Public Budgeting and Finance22:1–25.
38.
ReddickChristopher G.2003a. “Budgetary Decision Making in the Twentieth Century: Theories and Evidence.”Journal of Public Budgeting, Accounting and Financial Management15:251–74.
39.
ReddickChristopher G.2003b. “Testing Rival Theories of Budgetary Decision-Making in the U.S. States.”Financial Accountability and Management19:315–39.
40.
RobinsonScott E.2003. “Bureaucrats and Public Schools: Does Bureaucratization Promote Incrementalism in Program Budgeting for TexasSchool?”The University of Texas at Dallas Political Economy Working Paper, Richardson, Texas.
41.
RobinsonScott E.2006. “Punctuated Equilibrium Models in Organizational Decision Making.” In Handbook of Decision Making, edited by MorçölGöktuğ, 133–49. New York: CRC Press.
42.
Ruiz-HuertaJesúsGiménez-MonteroAntonio. 1994. “Public Expenditure Policies in Spainfor the 1990s: Structural Changes, Social Demands and the Budgetary Process.”Public Budgeting and Financial Management6:256–84.
43.
Ruiz-HuertaJesúsZapicoEduardoLoscosJavierTakahashiTamón. 2007. “Three Decades of Reforms in Spain.” In Performance Budgeting: Linking Funding and Results, edited by , 312–29. Houndmills, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
44.
Salinas-SánchezF. Javier. 1998. “The Constitutional Political Economy of Public Deficits: The Spanish Case.”Constitutional Political Economy9:235–49.
45.
Salinas-SánchezF. Javier. 1999. “Disciplina fiscal y normativa presupuestaria. El caso español.”Hacienda Pública Española150:191–205.
46.
Sánchez-RevengaJaime. 1989. “La Implantación del Presupuesto por Programas en la Administración Pública Española.”PhD diss.
47.
SimonHerbert A.1955. “A Behavioral Model of Rational Choice.”Quarterly Journal of Economics69:99–118.
48.
SwainJohn W.HartleyJeff C., Jr. 2001. “Incrementalism: Old but Good?” In Evolving Theories of Public Budgeting, edited by JohnR. , 11–27. Amsterdam: JAI imprint-Elsevier Science.
49.
TohamySoumaya M.DezhbakhshHashemAransonPeter H.2006. “A New Theory of the Budgetary Process.”Economics and Politics18:47–68.
50.
TrueJames L.2000. “Avalanches and Incrementalism: Making Policy and Budgets in the United States.”American Review of Public Administration30:3–18.
51.
TrueJames L.JonesBryan D.BaumgartnerFrank R.1999. “Punctuated Equilibrium Theory: Explaining Stability and Change in American Policymaking.” In Theories of the Policy Process, edited by SabbatierPaul A., 97–115. Boulder, CO: Westview.
52.
WildavskyAaron D.1964. The Politics of the Budgetary Process. Boston: Little, Brown.
53.
WoodB. Dan. 2000. “The Federal Balanced Budget Force: Modeling Variations from 1904 to 1996.”The Journal of Politics62:817–45.
54.
ZapicoEduardo. 1989. La modernización simbólica del presupuesto público (análisis de la reforma presupuestaria del gobierno socialista).
55.
ZapicoEduardo. 1992. “Financial Management Development in Spain: Who is Playing Sancho Panza?”Public Budgeting and Finance12:47–69.
56.
ZapicoEduardo. 1993. “Many Reforms, Little Learning: Budgeting, Auditing, and Evaluation in Spain.” In Budgeting, Auditing, and Evaluation: Functions and Integration in Seven Governments, edited by , 115–38. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.
57.
ZapicoEduardo. 2003. Budget for Results in Spain: Lessons Learned After Two Decades of Reform. Paris: OECD Case Study.
