The apparent failure of the Planning-Programming-Budgeting System (PPBS) to fulfill hopes for it in the federal government is examined in this article from the perspective of arguments surrounding its inception. It is argued that PPBS proponents had a naive conception of the political process, and that PPBS as an overall system has failed for precisely the reasons predicted by early critics. The productive aspects of the system do not require the overall framework to be useful, and, to the extent that improved budgeting is possible, it can be achieved in other ways more consistent with the actual structure of political decision-making in a world characterized by great complexity and disagreement about values.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AnthonyR. (1971) “Closing the loop between planning and performance.”Public Administration Rev. 31 (May/June): 388–398.
2.
ArrowK. (1964) “Review of A Strategy of Decision.”Pol. Sci. Q.79 (December): 584–588.
3.
BotnerS. (1970) “Four years of PPBS: An appraisal.”Public Administration Rev. 30 (July/August): 423–431.
4.
BraybrookeD.LindblomC. E. (1963) A Strategy of Decision. New York: Free Press.
5.
CarlsonJ. W. (1969) “The status and next steps for planning, programming and budgeting,” pp. 613–634 in U.S. Congress, Joint Economic Committee, Subcommittee on Economy in Government, The Analysis and Evaluation of Public Expenditures: The PPB System. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office.
6.
Committee for Economic Development (1966) Budgeting for National Objectives. New York.
7.
DavisO. A.DempsterM.A.H.WildavskyA. (1966) “A theory of the budgetary process.”Amer. PoL Sci. Rev.60 (September): 529–547.
8.
DownsA. (1965) “Comment,” pp. 345–346 in DorfmanR. (ed.) Measuring Benefits of Government Investments. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution.
9.
FennoR. F.Jr. (1966) The Power of the Purse. Boston: Little, Brown.
10.
FisherG. H. (1966) “The world of program budgeting.”Lecture at the University of California at Los Angeles, June 2.(mimeo).
11.
HarperE. L.KramerF. A.RouseA. M. (1969) “Implementation and use of PPB in sixteen federal agencies.”Public Administration Rev. 29 (November/December): 623–632.
12.
HavemanR. H. (1969) “Introduction,” pp. 1–10 in U.S. Congress, Joint Economic Committee, Subcommittee on Economy in Government, The Analysis and Evaluation of Public Expenditures: The PPB System. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office.
13.
HerberB. P. (1971) Modern Public Finance. Homewood, III: Richard D. Irwin.
14.
HoveyH. A. (1968) The Planning-Programming-Budgeting Approach to Government Decision-Making. New York: Frederick A. Praeger.
15.
JernbergJ. E. (1969) “Information change and congressional behavior: A caveat for PPB reformers.”J. of Politics31 (August): 722–740.
16.
LindblomC. E. (1961) “Decision-making in taxation and expenditures,” pp. 295–329 in National Bureau of Economic Research Public Finances: Needs, Sources and Utilization. New York: National Bureau of Economic Research.
17.
MaassA. (1966) “Benefit-cost analysis: Its relevance to public investment decisions.”Q. J. of Economics80 (May): 208–226.
18.
MillwardR. E. (1968) “PPBS: Problems of implementation.”J. of Amer. Institute of Planners34 (March): 88–94.
19.
NovickD. (1965) Program Budgeting. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard Univ. Press.
20.
NovickD. (1954) “Efficiency in government through new budgeting and accounting procedures.” Paper R-254, February 1. Santa Monica: RAND Corporation.
21.
SalomaJ. S.III (1964) The Responsible Use of Power. Washington, D.C.: American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research.
22.
SchickA. (1971) “From analysis to evaluation.”Annals394 (March): 57–71.
23.
SchlesingerJ. R. (1969) “Statement,” pp. 488–491 in U.S. Senate Committee on Governmental Operations, Subcommittee on National Security and International Operations, Planning-Programming-Budgeting Hearings. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office.
24.
SchultzeC. L. (1968) The Politics and Economics of Public Spending. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution.
25.
SmithiesA. (1955) The Budgetary Process in the United States. New York: McGraw-Hill.
26.
StaatsE. B. (1968) “Statement,” pp. 182–183 in U.S. Senate Committee on Governmental Operations, Subcommittee on National Security and International Operations, Planning-Programming-Budgeting Hearings. Washington, D.C.:Government Printing Office.
27.
WeidenbaumM. L. (1966) “Program budgeting: applying economic analysis to government expenditure decisions.” Washington University Department of Economics Paper 6602.
28.
WeidenbaumM. L. (1964) Federal Budgeting. Washington, D.C.: American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research.
29.
WholeyJ. S. (1969) “The absence of program evaluation as an obstacle to effective public expenditure policy: a case study of child health care programs,” pp. 451–471 in U.S. Congress, Joint Economic Committee, Subcommittee on Economy in Government, The Analysis and Evaluation of Public Expenditures: The PPB System. Washington, D.C.:Government Printing Office.
WildavskyA. (1966) “The political economy of efficiency: Cost-benefit analysis, systems analysis, and program budgeting.”Public Administration Rev. 26 (December): 292–310.
32.
WildavskyA. (1964) The Politics of the Budgetary Process. Boston: Little, Brown.
33.
HammannA. (1965) “Comprehensive versus incremental budgeting in the Department of Agriculture.”Administrative Sci. Q.10 (December): 321–346.
