본문 바로가기
KERD
논문KCI 등재

The Relationship between Budgetary Institutions and Efficiencies: Changes after the Implementation of the Top-Down Budgeting System

0

조회

0

다운로드

4

인용

0

참고문헌

키워드

주제분류정책학

초록

This paper provides an empirical analysis of the relationship between the top-down budgeting system and allocative efficiencies (budgetary outcomes) in the case of the Korean central government. From the perspective of New Institutionalism, a comparative analysis between the bottom-up budgeting system and the top-down budgeting system was carried out. The results of the analysis confirm the relationships between budgeting institutions, action situations, budgeting participants’ interactions, and allocative efficiencies. The changes in budgeting rules, and thus in action situations, due to the implementation of the top-down budgeting system led to changes in budgeting participants’ behaviors and thus in budgetary outcomes. Two behavior patterns—excessive budget requests by departments and huge budget cuts by the central budget office—were both greatly reduced. The resulting budgetary outcomes (allocative efficiencies) were changed. These changes were assessed to be reasonably beneficial in the context of the Korean budgeting situation.

Abstract

This paper provides an empirical analysis of the relationship between the top-down budgeting system and allocative efficiencies (budgetary outcomes) in the case of the Korean central government. From the perspective of New Institutionalism, a comparative analysis between the bottom-up budgeting system and the top-down budgeting system was carried out. The results of the analysis confirm the relationships between budgeting institutions, action situations, budgeting participants’ interactions, and allocative efficiencies. The changes in budgeting rules, and thus in action situations, due to the implementation of the top-down budgeting system led to changes in budgeting participants’ behaviors and thus in budgetary outcomes. Two behavior patterns—excessive budget requests by departments and huge budget cuts by the central budget office—were both greatly reduced. The resulting budgetary outcomes (allocative efficiencies) were changed. These changes were assessed to be reasonably beneficial in the context of the Korean budgeting situation.

참고문헌 (64)

  1. Abney, G, "The executive budget in the states: Normative idea and empirical observation", Policy Studies Journal, 17(4), pp.829~840 (1989)
  2. Auster,R, "Some economic determinants of the characteristics of public workers" (1975), New York: Cycero Press
  3. 배득종, "공유재 이론의 적용 대상 확대", 한국행정학보, 38(4), pp.147~157 (2004), 한국행정학회
  4. Bartle, J. R, "Applying transaction cost theory to public budgeting and finance" (2001), Oxford: Elsevier Science
  5. Bendor, J, "An adaptive model of bureaucratic politics", The American Political Science Review, 79(3), pp.755~744 (1985)
  6. Bloendal,J.R, "Budget reforms in OECD member countries: Common trend", Journal on Budgeting, 2(4), pp.7~25 (2003)
  7. Byeon,Y.K, "Three essays on the sustainability of government finances and improving efficiency in resource allocation in Korea", pp.2002
  8. Calvert, R. L, "A theory of political control and agency discretion", American Journal of Political Science, 33(3), pp.588~611 (1989)
  9. Coase,R.H, "The problem of social cost", Journal of Law Economics, 3 (1960)
  10. Davis, O. A, "A theory of political control and agency discretion", The American Political Science Review, 60(3) (1966)
  11. "May. Budget processes: Theory and experimental evidence"[URL]
  12. Forrester,J.P, "Public choice theory and public budgeting: Implications for the greedy bureaucrat", pp.101~124 (2001), UK: Elsevier Science Ltd
  13. Gang,Y, "Bureaucrats’ motivations and budget-maximizing behaviors in Korean local governmental budgeting", Korean Public Administration Review, 33(4), pp.189~210 (1999)
  14. Hardin,G, "Political requirements for preserving our common heritage" (1978), Washington, DC: Council on Environmental Quality
  15. Hsu,J-H, "Institutions and bureaucratic behavior in budgeting: The case of Taiwan", pp.1994
  16. Kelman,M, "On democracy bashing: A skeptical look at the theoretical and empirical practice of the public choice movement", Virginia Law Review, 74 (1988)
  17. Kim,G.L, "An analysis on the budgeting process in Korea", pp.1999
  18. Kim,I.S, "Top-down budget: Economic issues", Korean Journal of Public Policy, 6 (2004)
  19. Kim, J, "An analysis on the budgetary institution in informational asymmetry", Korean Association for Public Finance and Economics fall seminar papers (2005)
  20. Kim,S.H, "Microeconomic analysis of informational asymmetry in budgeting", Korean Public Administration Review, 32 (1998)
  21. Kraan,D-J, "Budgetary decision: A public choice approach" (1996), New York: Cambridge University Press
  22. Lee,K, "The change in decision-makers’ behavior and performance as a result of the new top-down budget system in Korea", pp.2006
  23. Leloup,L.T, "Appropriations politics in Congress: The House Appropriations Committee and the executive agencies", Public Budgeting and Finance, 4(4), pp.78~98 (1984)
  24. Leloup,L.T, "From microbudgeting to macrobudgeting: Evolution in theory and practice In New directions in theory", pp.19~38 (1988), SUNY Press
  25. Leloup, L. T, "Agency strategy and executive review: The hidden politics of budgeting", Public Administration Review, 38(3), pp.232~239 (1978)
  26. Margolis, "Comment on Niskanen bureaucrats and politicians", Journal of Law and Economics, 18, pp.645~659 (1975)
  27. Markris,M, "Political authority, expertise and government bureaucracies", Public Choice, 127(3), pp.275~292 (2006)
  28. Migue, J, "Toward a general theory of managerial discretion", Public Choice, 17, pp.24~43 (1974)
  29. Ministry of Planning and Budget, "Basic plan for national resource allocation improvement", ~ (2004)
  30. Ministry of Planning and Budget, "FY 2006 detailed guidelines for budgeting", ~ (2005)
  31. Ministry of Planning and Budget, "Budgetary work manual", ~ (2005)
  32. Ministry of Planning and Budget, "Internal documents", ~ (2005)
  33. Ministry of Planning and Budget, "Summary of budget for fiscal year 2007", ~ (2007)
  34. Moe,T.M, "The politics of structural choice: Toward a theory of public bureaucracy", pp.116~153 (1990), York: Oxford University Press
  35. Musgrave,R.A, "Leviathan cometh-or does he?", pp.77~120 (1981), Washington, DC: The Urban Institute
  36. Niskanen,W.A, "Bureaucracy and representative government" (1971), Chicago: Aldine Atherton
  37. North,D.C, "Institutions, institutional changes and economic performance" (1990), Cambridge University Press
  38. Ophuls,W, "Leviathan or oblivion" (1973), San Francisco: Freeman
  39. Ostrom,E, "An agenda for the study of institutions", Public Choice, 48, pp.3~25 (1986)
  40. Ostrom,E, "Governing the commons" (1990), Cambridge University Press
  41. Ostrom,E, "Understanding institutional diversity" (2005), Princeton University Press
  42. Peacock,A.T, "Public x-inefficiency: Informational and institutional constraints" (1983), Berlin: Springer
  43. Perry, J. L, "The motivational bases of public service", Public Administration Review, 370 (1990)
  44. Peters,G, "The politics of bureaucracy: A comparative perspective" (1978), New York: Longman
  45. Presidential Committee on Government Innovation and Decentralization, "Innovations in finance and taxation in participatory government", ~ (2005)
  46. Rainey,H.G, "Pubic agencies and private firms: Incentive structure, goals, and individual roles", Administration and Society, 15, pp.207~242 (1983)
  47. Rubin,I.S, "The politics of public budgeting: Getting and spending, borrowing and balancing" (2006), Washington, DC: CQ Press
  48. Ryu,K.J, "A study on the introduction of top-down budgeting", pp.2004
  49. Ryu, J. E, "Effects of administrators’ aspirations, political principals’ priorities, and interest groups’ influence on state agency budget requests", Public Budgeting and Finance, 22~49 (2007)
  50. Schick,A, "Does budgeting have a future?", OECD Journal on Budgeting, 2(2), pp.7~48 (2002)
  51. Shand,D, "Budgetary reforms in OECD member countries", Journal of Public Budgeting, Accounting, and Financial Management, 10(1), pp.63~88 (1998)
  52. Shepsle, K. A, "Legislative politics and budget outcomes", pp.343~367 (1984), Washington, DC: The Urban Institute Press
  53. Shin,M.S, "Public financial administration" (2007), Seoul: Daeyoung Press
  54. Sigelman,L, "The bureaucrat as a budget maximizer: An assumption examined", Public Budgeting and Finance, 6(1), pp.50~59 (1986)
  55. Smith,R.J, "Resolving the tragedy of the commons by creating private property rights in wildlife", CATO Journal, 1, pp.467~ (1981)
  56. Tullock,G, "The politics of bureaucracy" (1965), Washington, DC: The Public Affairs Press
  57. Von Hargen,J, "Budgeting institutions for better fiscal performance", Washington, DC: The World Bank, 27~51 (2007)
  58. Budget process and commitment to fiscal discipline, "Von Hargen, J", ~, pp.IMF Working Paper WP96 (1966), 78
  59. Welch,W.P, "The political feasibility of full ownership property rights: The case of pollution and fisheries", Policy Sciences, 16, pp.717~ (1983)
  60. Wildavsky,A, "The new politics of the budgetary process" (1988), Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman and Company
  61. Wildavsky, A, "The new politics of the budgetary process" (2004), New York: Pearson Longman
  62. Wilson,J.Q, "Bureaucracy: What government agencies do and why they do it" (1989), New York: Basic Books
  63. Yun,S.S, "Budgeting theory" (2003), Seoul: Nanam Press
  64. Yun,Y.J, "New public financial administration" (2007), Seoul: Daeyoung Press

관련 논문AI추천

이 간행물의 다른 논문 (10건)