Although some studies reported that Performance-based budgeting (PBB) initiatives improved productivity of governmental functions, one issue has remained an open question regarding PBB implementation: the so-called allocative efficiency. A paucity of studies presented the evidence that PBB initiatives enhanced allocative efficiency of governmental programs, but their findings were primarily based on anecdotal stories or self-reported surveys. This study attempted to fill the gap in the literature by analyzing real budget dollars. Empirical findings using budget data for the U. S. Department of Commerce (DOC) during the 8 years of the George W. Bush administration do not show that PBB systems enhanced allocative efficiency. Organizational politics might hurdle successful implementation of PBB systems. Proof of causal links between performance evaluation scores of certain programs and their resource allocations is another huge challenge for PBB initiatives.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
ArellanoM. and BondS. (1991) “Some Tests of Specification for Panel Data: Monte Carlo Evidence and an Application to Employment Equations”, Review of Economic Studies, 58(2)277–297.
2.
ArellanoM. and BoverO. (1995) “Some Tests of Specification for Panel Data: Monte Carlo Evidence and an Application to Employment Equations”, Review of Economic Studies, 68(1)277–297.
3.
BarzelayM. and ThompsonF. (2006) “Responsibility Budgeting at the Air Force Material Command”, Public Administration Review, 66(1)127–138.
4.
BaumgartnerF. R. and JonesB. D. (2009) Agendas and Instability in American Politics. 2nd ed. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
5.
BlundellR. and BondS. (1998) “Initial Conditions and Moment Restrictions in Dynamic Panel Data Models”, Journal of Econometrics, 87(1)115–143.
6.
BoardmanA. E.GreenbergD. H.ViningA. R. and WeimerD. L. (2011) Cost-Benefit Analysis: Concepts and Practice, 4th ed, Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, Inc.
7.
BourdeauxC. (2008) “The Problem with Programs: Multiple Perspectives on Program Structures in Program-Based Performance-Oriented Budgets”, Public Budgeting and Finance, 28(2)20–47.
8.
BrownC. (2002) “Funding Remains Issue for U. S. Patent and Trademark Office: A Push for Less Fee Withholding”, Corporate Legal Times, January 29.
9.
ChartrandSabra (2000) “The Patent Office Is Fighting Once Again to Hold onto Its Own Revenue in the Budget Battle”, The New York Times, June 19.
10.
ChartrandS. (2003) “The Patent Office Gains Ground in Its Quest to Keep More of What It Receives in Fees From Customers”, The New York Times, February 3.
11.
ChartrandS. (2004) “The Patent Office Argues that the Government Should Just Let It Live Off What It Gets From Investors”, The New York Times, February 9.
12.
ElligJ.McTigueM. and WrayH. (2011) Government Performance and Results: an Evaluation of GPRA's First Decade, Boca Raton, FL: Taylor and Francis.
13.
FriscoV. and StalebrinkO. J. (2008) “Congressional Use of the Program Assessment Rating Tool”, Public Budgeting and Finance, 28(2)1–19.
14.
GilmourJ. B. (2006) Implementing OMB's Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART): Meeting the Challenges of Integrating Budget and Performance, Washington, D. C.: IBM Center for The Business of Government.
15.
GreeneW. H. (2008) Econometric Analysis, 6th ed, Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, Inc.
16.
HoA. T. (2011) “PBB in American Local Governments: It's More than a Management Tool”, Public Administration Review, 71(3)391–401.
17.
HouY.LunsfordR. S.SidesK. C. and JonesK. A. (2011) “State Performance-based budgeting in Boom and Bust Years: An Analytical Framework and Survey of the States”, Public Administration Review, 71(3)370–388.
18.
HoxJ. J. (1995) Applied Multilevel Analysis, Amsterdam: TT-Publikaties.
19.
HymanD. N. (1986) Modern Microeconomics: Analysis and Applications, 3rd ed, Homewood, IL: IRWIN.
20.
HymanD. N. (2011) Public Finance: A Contemporary Application of Theory and Policy, 10th ed, Mason, OH: South-Western Cengage Learning.
21.
ImK. S.PesaranM. H. and ShinY. (2003) “Testing for Unit Roots in Heterogeneous Panels”, Journal of Econometrics, 115(1)53–74.
22.
JonesB. D. and BaumgartnerF. R. (2005a) “A Model of Choice for Public Policy”, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory15(3)325–351.
23.
JonesB. D. and BaumgartnerF. R. (2005b) The Politics of Attention.Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
24.
JoyceP. G. (2008) “Linking Performance and Budgeting: Opportunities for Federal Executives”, in: RedburnF. S.SheaR. J. and BussT. F. (eds) Performance Management and Budgeting: How Government Can Learn from Experience, pp. 49–66, New York, Armonk: M. E. Sharpe.
25.
JoyceP. G. (2011) “The Obama Administration and PBB: Building on the Legacy of Federal Performance-Informed Budgeting?”, Public Administration Review, 71(3)356–367.
26.
JoyceP. G. and PattisonS. (2010) “Public Budgeting in 2020: Return to Equilibrium, or Continued Mismatch between Demands and Resources”, Public Administration Review, Supplement to Volume 70: S24–S32.
27.
KeyV. OJr.. (1940) “The Lack of a Budgetary Theory”, American Political Science Review, 34(6)1137–1144.
28.
KrimJ. (2004) “Bush Budget Would Let Patent Office Keep Fees: More Examiners Could Reduce Backlog”, The Washington Post, February 3.
29.
LewisV. B. (1952) “Toward a Theory of Budgeting”, Public Administration Review, 12(1)42–54.
30.
MelkersJ. and WilloughbyK. (1998) “The State of the States: Performance-based Budgeting Requirements in 47 out of 50”, Public Administration Review, 58(1)66–73.
31.
MoynihanD. P. (2008) The Dynamics of Performance Management: Constructing Information and Reform, Washington, D. C.: Georgetown University Press.
32.
MoynihanD. P. and LavertuS. (2012) “Does Involvement in Performance Management Routines Encourage Performance Information Use? Evaluating GPRA and PART”, Public Administration Review, 72(4)592–602.
33.
NatchezP. B. and BuppI. C. (1973) “Policy and Priority in the Budgetary Process”, The American Political Science Review, 67(3)951–963.
34.
PosnerP. L. and FantoneD. M. (2008) “Performance Budgeting: Prospects for Sustainability”, in: RedburnF. S.SheaR. J. and BussT. F. (eds) Performance Management and Budgeting: How Government Can Learn from Experience, pp. 92–113, New York, Armonk: M. E. Sharpe.
35.
ReddickC. G. (2003) “Testing Rival Theories of Budgetary Decision-Making in the U. S. States”, Financial Accountability and Management, 19(4)315–339.
36.
RobinsonM. and BrumbyJ. (2005) Does Performance Budgeting Work? An Analytical Review of the Empirical Literature, Washington, D. C.: International Monetary Fund. IMF Working Paper WP/05/210.
37.
RoodmanD. (2008) A Note on the Theme of Too Many Instruments, The Center for Global Development. Working Paper Number 125.
38.
RoodmanD. (2009) “How to do xtabond2: An Introduction to Difference and System GMM in Stata”, The Stata Journal, 9(1)86–136.
39.
SchmidJ. (2011) “Despite Efforts to Improve, U.S. Patents Move Slower”, Deseret Morning News, January 22.
40.
StalebrinkO. J. and FriscoV. (2011) “PART in Retrospect: An Examination of Legislators’ Attitude toward PART”, Public Budgeting and Finance31(2)1–21.
41.
U. S. Department of Commerce. (Various issues) Performance and Accountability Report. Accessed April 4, 2012 (www.ExpectMore.gov)
42.
U. S. General Accounting Office. (1997) Performance Budgeting: Past Initiatives Offer Insights for GPRA Implementation, Washington, D. C.: General Accounting Office. GAO/AIMD-97-46.
43.
WestW. F.LindquistE. and Mosher-HoweK. N. (2009) “NOAA's Resurrection of Program Budgeting: Déjà Vu All over Again?” Public Administration Review, 69(3)435–447.
44.
WhiteJ. (2012) “Playing the Wrong PART: The Program Assessment Rating Tool and the Functions of the President's Budget”, Public Administration Review, 72(1)112–121.
45.
WildavskyA. and CaidenN. (2004) The New Politics of the Budgetary Process, 5th edition, New York: Pearson-Longman.
46.
WindmeijerF. (2005) “A Finite Sample Correction for the Variance of Linear Efficient Two- step GMM Estimators”, Journal of Econometrics, 126(1)25–51.
47.
WyattE. (2011) “House Nearing Completion of Patent Office Overhaul”, The New York Times, June 22.
