Performance Budgeting

Paper Overview 

Rarely are laws and budgeting mentioned in the same sentence since the concept of budgeting is mainly associated with numbers and figures. Public budgeting is, however, an entirely different concept since the allocation of public funds is mainly predicated of available legislation. The article by Lu, Willoughby, and Arnett (2011) is centered on the relationship between laws in general and specifically how laws act as a bearing factor in the process of budgeting. More particularly, the article is centered on a research that is specific to performance-based budgets and what impact the laws governing them have on the outcomes. This is an important topic because performance-based budgets are all about outcomes. Secondly, it is the specific legislation kindred to budgeting that governs how the budget will be prepared as well as implemented (Lu et al., 2011). The article, therefore, looks at the end to evaluate the means by assessing the outcomes of budget implementation to gauge how laws operate as bearing factors. 

It would be correct to term the article as a primary research study, albeit all its work is mainly based on literature. A major cross-section of this literature, however, are primary material kindred to the actual budget of 39 states in the USA (Lu et al, 2011). It is these 39 states whose laws provide for performance budgeting. These leaves out 11 states whose laws do not provide for the same and are, therefore, omitted. The article does not seek to compare the budgets of these states based on which one is better or more efficient. Instead, it compares each and every budget and the efficacy of its outcomes with the budgeting laws specific to the state for which the budget is developed. The efficacy of the budget is derived from the assessment given by the Government Performance Project (GPP).

Among the indices checked within the efficacy test are strategic planning integration, incidence of measurement, the level of technical oversight and evaluation of measurement, performance reporting and evaluation, and comprehensiveness (Lu et al, 2011, P. 91). What the law provides with regard to these indices is then compared to the outcomes that the GPP has reported with regard to the specific states. Based on the discussion and eventual conclusion of the report, when the laws that govern state budgeting are more comprehensive of the indices included above, then the outcomes are also better. How articulate and comprehensive the laws are is, therefore, among the main bearing factors on the outcome of budget implementation in a performance-based budgeting system. Further, provision for comprehensive and effective evaluation and monitoring measures as well as scrutiny at the implementation stage is crucial (Lu et al, 2011). Finally, a proviso for public participation both at the budgeting and implementation stage is also seen as a positive bearing factor for the success of the budget. 

Key Budgetary Concept/Themes Covered 

Among the key concepts covered are the challenges and problems that face budgeting and its implementation which is based on a literature review. Among the main challenges include lack of sufficient and comprehensive monitoring as well as lack of a sustained support from leadership. Bureaucracy from administration alongside lack of proper commitment from the legislature is also another challenge (Lu et al., 2011). A material disconnect between implementers of the budget and the makers of a budget are also seen as a major challenge. Another important concept covered in the paper is that budgeting is the process that involves practice and not theory. The success or failure of a budget is determined not on what is set down as supposed to be done but what is actually done. It is, therefore, not just enough for a law to state what is supposed to be done (Lu et al., 2011). There should be a further verifiable process to determine what is indicated as supposed to be done is actually done. Finally, there is also the concept of coordination being an integral ingredient for the success of a budget. In this regard, the presence of coordination is critical and should not be taken for granted. Indeed, having the particulars of coordination expressly provided for in budgeting laws is critical.

Strengths

Methodology 

The article is based on a careful and comprehensive review of tens of articles as well as primary literature. The articles cited from are peer-reviewed kindred to several aspects of the subject canvassed. The primary texts canvassed include actual pieces of legislation in all 39 states that fall within the study as well as their budgetary provisions (Lu et al., 2011). The reports made by the Government Performance Project (GPP) is also thoroughly perused and reported upon. The sheer amount of information that has been evaluated in the preparation of the article enhances its reliability and accuracy. 

The Team

The article is prepared by Yi Lu, an associate professor at the City University of New York who has widely published on public budgeting. It also includes Katherine Willoughby, a professor at the Andrew Young School of Policy Studies at Georgia State University, a renowned researcher in government practices and reforms. Finally, there is Sarah Arnett who is a Ph.D. candidate and expert in management and public budgeting. The relevance of their expertise also adds credibility to the article (Lu et al, 2011). 

Concision  

The sheer amount of data that is necessary for the instant article is astronomical in nature yet has been presented in a manner that does not make the article too voluminous. This is inter alia made possible through the concept of data coding. A careful code was developed and implemented in the article making the vast amount of data be presented in a minimized table (Lu et al, 2011). The data becomes available for evaluation by those seeking to study the article, yet does not affect the concise nature of the article. Further, the author has intertwined the body of the article so that data presentation and discussion is done contemporaneously. This has also contributed to the concision of the article without affecting its validity and reliability. 

Weaknesses

There is no direct research undertaken by the researchers premised on the subject matter as it is purely premised on available literature. It is a fact that a lot of the literature relied upon is primary data, but none of the primary data has been developed by the researchers themselves (Lu et al., 2011). It would, therefore, be accurate to say that the accuracy of the research in its entirety is incumbent upon the accuracy of the data that the authors have relied upon. For example, the GPP is created by the Maxwell School's Alan K. Campbell Public Affairs Institute, a renowned think tank. To trust the data, one also has to trust the primary or secondary sources that it has come from. This secondary reliance weakens the reliability of the research. Secondly, the research base used within the research is exponentially wide involving the budgets and laws of thirty-nine states. The sheer expanse of the data minimizes the capacity for precision which also affects the accuracy of the insights developed from the study. 

Could or Should Anything be Added? 

The fact that budgeting is a process and its implementation is also a process have been repeatedly underscored within the article (Lu et al., 2011). Yet, the focus of the article ought to be the law itself and its impact. A focus in the law should have been reflected more in the article and not just the budgeting process itself. The law is also a process and this process could also have featured within the article. A good example would be the effect of the laws existing but not being followed. The fact that legislation has been passed does not automatically mean that it will be adhered to. Having a law is not an elixir for its implementation. Enforceability of the law, therefore, becomes a bearing factor on the outcomes based on the effect of the laws on the budgeting process. The unavailability if this consideration provides a material omission to the entirety of the article. 

Conclusion  

The instant article ably ropes in laws into the process of budget making from the perspective of performance-based budgets. Indeed, the article covers a very wide margin within the budgeting process. The law can be considered as the basis upon which public budgets at the state and local government are made. Laws are, therefore, the genesis of both budget making. A performance-based budget, however, is based on outcome not process the fact that the article is based on a performance-based budget means that it has to evaluate beyond the process of making the budget and into the actual implementation of the budget. Evaluation of implementation is the aftermath of the budget which forms the second extreme of the budgeting divide with the other being the law as aforesaid. The article is able to evaluate these two extremes and how they relate to one another. This relationship is predicated upon the actual process of preparing and implementing the budget. Preparation and implementation become the fulcrum with law and outcome being the two forces being balanced. From the balancing, the article draws its eventual conclusion that the law is a major bearing factor on the outcome. Yet, even with the wide range encompassed by the article, it is still able to venture into the particulars of the procedure of preparation and implementation, based on the law that actively impacts the outcome. All this is done without extreme verbosity and a high level of clarity, making for a great research paper. 

Reference

Lu, Y., Willoughby, K., & Arnett, S. (2011). Performance budgeting in the American States: What's law got to do with it?  State and Local Government Review ,  43 (2), 79-94