From analyst to negotiator: The OMB's new role

Dramatic changes in the executive and legislative budget processes over the last ten years have elevated the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to a new position of power and importance. Within the executive branch the budget process has become more highly centralized in the president's office; and within the Congress a similar centralization has occurred. In both branches the OMB has become the key institution for coordinating the actions of the budget-making powers. At the same time, the much-discussed “iron triangles” explored by analysts of the budgetary system have lost much of their power to control the process. Although the OMB's active involvement in the congressional budget process diminished in 1983, the institutional relationships necessary for a more centralized budget process remain and can be reactivated to deal with the predicted enormous deficits.     

Gubernatorial Use of the Item Veto for Narrative Deletion

Legislative use of narrative, such as conditions and riders, in appropriations bills has become common and has had negative consequences for the executive budget and veto, as well as for the legislative process. Some governors have used the item veto as a remedy. While they have not necessarily diminished the amount of narrative, they have achieved some protection of the executive budget and veto power. Their success depends greatly on the type of legal authority embodied in this constitutional power.     

Budget Process Reform: Waiting for Godot

The unraveling of the budget process described by Irene Rubin will have extraordinary consequences for the long-term budget outlook facing the nation. The retirement of the baby boom generation will prompt unprecedented and unsustainable structural fiscal imbalances for decades to come. Early policy action on the spending and revenue sides of the budget is critical to avert fiscal and economic crisis and to phase in changes in order to avoid precipitous and politically perilous actions in the future. Yet such actions constitute what amounts to a politically unnatural act, as one generation of political leaders is asked to make sacrifices in current policies benefiting future generations. Budget process reforms can serve to highlight the salience of these issues and help deal with the significant political hurdles faced by decision makers in making these intertemporal budgeting trade-offs. Ironically, the need for budget rules and processes has intensified as policy makers have become more vulnerable to polarized political parties, ever more watchful media, and mobilized interest groups. Budget rules and processes can help policy makers cope by protecting their ability to make the hard choices that will be necessary. The pressures for budget process reform will accelerate as the current financial crisis increases near-term budgetary pressures, promoting greater alignment between near-term and long-term fiscal problems.     

The President's Commission to Study Capital Budgeting: An Interim Review

The President's Commission to Study Capital Budgeting is slated to complete its report by year-end 1998. Even though it would be premature to try to anticipate the Commission's recommendations, it is already clear that the Commission will contribute significantly to the capital budgeting debate by casting the concept of capital budgeting broadly, as a systematic decision process, rather than merely a budget accounting or scoring convention or a government financing alternative to the balanced budget rule. This article summarizes some of the analytical accomplishments of the Commission at the mid-point of its expected life.     

Searching for a Role for Citizens in the Budget Process

Citizen participation in the local budget process is not prevalent, despite encouragement from scholars and professional organizations. This case study of two Kansas cities that have used a variety of input mechanisms in the budget process analyzes the effectiveness of citizen budget participation. Limited effectiveness was found, which may largely be due to the timing of the input, unstated or unclear goals, implementation difficulties, and political and environmental constraints. Citizen input appears to have had little effect on budget decisions, and neither city has institutionalized participation in the process. However, the input mechanisms serve other purposes, such as education and support for specific proposals. Describing the benefits as well as the difficulty of involving citizens in a meaningful way is beneficial to other governments as they wrestle with the issue of defining the citizens' role in the budget process.     

Managerial Necessity and the Art of Creating Surpluses: The Budget-Execution Process in West Virginia Cities

Budget execution traditionally has been defined as a straightforward process of implementing the budget as approved. Research into the process has been limited, particularly with regard to local government budgets. This article examines the rebudgeting process using a case study of 15 West Virginia cities. Rebudgeting displayed a consistent pattern for the various budget categories—personnel, contracts, commodities, capital, and contributions—closely resembling the "increase-then-decrease" pattern seen in the overall budget. Empirical data on budgetary adjustments and structured interviews with city finance officials helped to describe budget changes and explain probable causes and effects of behavior during budget execution for these smaller cities. Budget changes were found to be the result of managerial necessity and the exercise of discretion to generate and distribute surpluses.     

The OMB Budget Examiner and The Congressional Budget Process

This is the second of a two-part retrospective on the evolving role of the OMB budget examiner. The examiner has become more active in negotiations with the legislative branch and tracking the legislative status of various fiscal measures. A new central budget management system was created to monitor appropriation bills. The OMB budget examiner has also been increasingly used to provide information for advocacy purposes before Congress and the public. The institutional effect on OMB of these changing roles is examined and suggestions for organizational reform are made.     

Congress, the Deficit, and Budget Reconciliation

President Clinton's veto of the 1995 reconciliation bill, the largest and most ambitious such legislation ever passed by Congress, was the first time a reconciliation bill was ever rejected by a president. It was also the first reconciliation bill in two decades to include a tax reduction rather than a tax increase. The fate of this bill, and its scope and contents, suggest the need to assess the evolution of reconciliation within the congressional budget process. In the early 1980s, Congress altered budget reconciliation procedures, putting in place a powerful new capability for deficit reduction. Reconciliation became the primary means within the budget process of restraining entitlement spending and increasing taxes as part of congressional efforts to reduce the deficit. Gramm-Rudman-Hollings magnified certain problems Congress encountered in using reconciliation to control entitlements, producing increased pressure to cut discretionary spending. While the Budget Enforcement Act of 1990 included new authority to use reconciliation to restrain entitlements, congressional spending priorities combined with the Peace Dividend to maintain the relative sanctuary entitlement programs have enjoyed. The limits of reconciliation as a deficit reduction tool, both in terms of increasing revenues and curtailing entitlements, are detailed. The inherent procedural advantages accorded to entitlements are contrasted with the treatment of discretionary programs, explaining in part the widening gulf between these two categories of spending. Congress has attempted, without success, to find alternatives to reconciliation. The failure of the seven-year, deficit-eliminating reconciliation bill of 1995 may indicate that certain Limits on the use of reconciliation may have been reached.     

The President's FY 1990 Budget: The Last Act in a Decade of Change

This article examines the budget requests of Presidents Reagan and Bush for fiscal year 1990, and how the federal budget has changed during the decade of the 1980s. The author concludes that the federal budget has become less controllable, as the priorities and composition of federal expenditures have shifted during the Reagan years. While the Reagan and Bush budgets do not differ significantly, the manner in which they were constructed does. The effort of President Bush to define his budgetary version of a "kinder, gentler" America may be more illusory than real. The author also traces the change in federal assistance to state and local governments, concluding that, apart from transfer payments, the federal role has markedly declined.     

Mutual efforts for mutual trust: Impacts of citizens' knowledge and governmental communication channels on trust in participatory budgeting

Since participatory budgeting (PB) has been advocated by both theorists and practitioners of public administration, its adoption has become a global phenomenon. As of 2017, all local governments in South Korea are legally mandated to operate a PB system as a policy for inviting citizen participation in local budget decision-making. Using an impact assessment tool completed by PB managers in local governments, this research tested two sets of independent variables—citizens' participatory capacity and the diversification of communication in the PB process—that could be associated with the dependent variables “citizens' trust in government (CTG)” and “government officials' trust in citizens (GTC).” The paper presents the three major findings on the common drivers behind CTG and GTC: (1) citizen participants' knowledge on budget and budgeting process; (2) local government's efforts in gathering citizens' inputs for PB; and (3) the mutual efforts to understand the needs and limitations of both citizens and the local government. The paper concludes by exploring the implications for the design and delivery of effective PB implementation.     

Is the U.S. Congress an Insurmountable Obstacle to Any “Far‐Sighted Conception of Budgeting”?

In recent years, Congress has recurrently failed to meet its minimum responsibilities in federal budgeting. This article analyzes whether it is possible to repair this problem, using concepts popularized by Allen Schick in his influential article “The Road to PPB.” His article compared the PPB reform effort to the history of budget process reforms that started with the design of the executive budget. It publicized a logical sequence of budget process improvements that started with control and then advanced through management and planning. The article did not substantially address the role of Congress, but eight years after it was published, Congress reasserted its constitutional role in the budget process. Its record of performance since then has ranged from mixed to dysfunctional. The Congress has been criticized for budgetary delays, micromanagement, myopia, procrastination, indiscipline, and an inability to prioritize intelligently. If these faults are set in stone, then an integrated system of budgeting, as described in “The Road to PPB” and related work, is unattainable. On the other hand, if reform of Congressional budgeting is politically feasible, improvements to that system can utilize the unique contributions that a legislature can make to a good system of budgeting.     

A Decade of Deficits and Debt: Japanese Fiscal Policy and the Rise and Fall of the Fiscal Structural Reform Act of 1997

Japanese budgetary and fiscal policy have experienced dramatic changes during the last several years, marked by the rise and fall of the Fiscal Structural Reform Act of 1997. This act altered the budgetary process with the goal of reducing Japan's rapidly growing deficit and debt. Yet the onset of recession in 1998 led Japan to engage again in large-scale deficit spending to stimulate the economy, and in the process discard its budget reforms.     

Effects of the IMF and World Bank on public expenditure accountability in Jamaica

This article analyses the positive and negative effects of IMF stabilization programmes and World Bank structural adjustment programmes on the accountability of public expenditure management in Jamaica in the period 1980–1992. Particular attention is given to the negative accountability effects of IMF budget deficit reduction targets imposed on a Government uncommitted to meeting such targets. Many of the arguments presented in this article relate to expenditure accountability problems more generally and it cannot be proved that IMF conditionality was the sole cause of these problems. It is argued, however, that IMF conditionality contributed. This argument is based on a large number of semi-structured interviews conducted in 1993 with Jamaican bureaucrats, politicians, donors, academics and private sector representatives, many of whom were involved in Jamaica's budget formulation process, and on analysis of the existing literature and data. The conclusion reached is that donor-guided reform programmes have complex and often conflicting impacts on the accountability of the Government's budgetary practices. A major question that arises is the relative importance that donors such as the IMF place on budget conditionality as against accountability. The conclusion based on the Jamaican experience is that the IMF placed greater emphasis on the former. © 1998 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Deficits, Soft Budget Constraints and Bailouts: Budgeting after the Norwegian Hospital Reform

In the 1990s, the Norwegian hospital sector was characterized by soft budgetary constraints and increasing budget deficits. This was one of the main antecedents of the 2002 hospital reform, where the central state took over ownership of the hospitals from the counties. Arguably, the centralization of ownership, financing and production would harden the budget constraints and increase the budgetary discipline. This analysis shows that this has not been accomplished. Instead, the production has been far above what was planned, and the deficits higher than ever. Two stages of the post-reform budget processes are analyzed: first, the stage where the central state set the budgets and sends signals of budgetary rules (whether the state sends signals of soft or hard budget constraints), and second, how the central state handled deficits in the hospital sector as they emerged (whether the hospitals was bailed out or not). The conclusion is that the central state neither set a hard budget constraint nor managed to stay firm as deficits turned up. It is argued that three mechanisms explain the prevailing problems of managing the hospital sector: uncertainty of the hospitals' financial situation during the transition phase; minority governments; and specific features related to the organization of the budgetary process in parliament.     

OMB and the Budget Examiner: Changes in the Reagan Era

This is the first of a two-part retrospective on the role of the OMB budget examiner during the Reagan administration. Changes in the federal budget process, historical federal deficits and the inability of Congress to meet appropriation deadlines have significantly altered the role of OMB and its budget examiners, undermining the examiner's traditional role as program analyst and controler. This part focuses on the preparation of the president's budget and budget execution, and the compressed time in which OMB must respond to "top-down" budget requirements. The summer of 1987 is presented as a case study of the demands now placed on OMB.
Part Two, in the next issue, will focus on the budget examiner in the congressional budget process and in advocacy roles for the president.     

Budgetary constraints and municipal revenue forecasting

Conclusion The objective of this research has been to determine whether key budget participants see forecasting as making significant contributions to the budgetary process. The issue is important for at least two reasons. Budgetary tools will be used to the degree budget players perceive them as providing net budgettary benefits. Moreover, the continuing trend toward technological sophistication gives governments opportunities, red herrings or not, to incorporate the technology into the budget process. The issue is also very timely; with the demise of packaged budget reforms but not the values of budget reforms, there may be new opportunities for improving budgeting on a less grandiose, more piecemeal basis, such as using forecasts to analyze budgetary options. The findings here provide some insight into two questions concerning governmental forecasting. First, why do governments use complex methods? In support of previous research, since cities most dependent on intergovernmental aid tend to use complex forecasting, such methods may indeed be seen as a way to help cope with fiscal stress. Also, reflecting the ambiguity of current research, since cities tend to use relatively simple techniques regardless of the revenue source being forecasted, the source is at best a partial determinant of complexity. The most important predictor of complexity, however, was budget format; cities that emphasize reform methods, especially planning, tend to use the most complex forecast methods. The forecasting process was not as important as expected.Second, so what? Does forecasting influence budgetary choices? The evidence from the second part of the study suggest that it can, but within definable limits. Budget directors are more likely than councils to value outyear estimates, but both actors are much less likely to value long-term estimates. The survey results also indicate that revenue forecasts are not as useful for making political decisions as for making management decisions: the forecast is usually used as an internal document, is only sometimes intended to affect council decisions, and is not usually included in the budget. In short, the forecast may be most useful for making managerial decisions since that is what most cities want out of it. It also tends to be more useful if the budget format is less traditional. Finally, the findings indicate that forecasting may be more useful to management to the degree the council finds it politically useful. This is extremely important since it suggests that as powerful as technology may be, budgetary tools that do not meet political needs will be managerially confined.Clearly, more research is needed in this area. Does forecasting actually shape long-range plans? In the long run, will the forecasting effort change the ways cities budget? Can the availability of forecasting information strengthen one actor relative to another? These are important questions that need answering to clarify the impact of forecasting and other technologies on the budget process.     

Confessions of a Dinosaur

The old time budget officer has been all but wiped out—the species having been deprived of its natural habitat by the great smoke cloud that began to spread after the great cataclysm of 1974 when the Budget Act began to change all the rules. This, of course, is an overstatement. But it is clear—at least from the perspective of this old dinosaur—that the job of the budget officer has changed over the years, from what many perceived of as a master of financial magic to just another serf (or supervisor) in the bureaucratic feudal system.
This is not a polemic against the Budget Act or the changes that have taken place. The only thing constant about the budget process is change. Rather, it is a discussion of how these changes have affected budget officers over the decades that I have been involved in the budget business.     

Budget institutions and taxation

While a number of different studies have explored the effects of budgetary procedures and the centralization of the budget process on government debt, deficits and spending, few of them have explored whether such fiscal institutions matter for public revenue. This article argues that centralizing the budget process raises the levels of taxation by limiting the ability of individual government officials to veto tax increases in line with common-pool-problem arguments regarding public finances. Using detailed data on budgetary procedures from 15 EU countries, the empirical analysis shows that greater centralization of the budget process increases taxation as a share of GDP and that both the type of budget centralization and level of government fractionalization matter for the size of this effect. The results suggest that further centralizing the budget process limits government debt and deficits by increasing public revenues as well as constraining public spending.     

Separation of powers and political budget cycles

Political budget cycles (PBCs) arise when the electorate is imperfectly informed about the incumbent’s competence and the incumbent has discretion over the budget. Focusing on the second condition, we study how separation of powers affects PBCs in the composition of government spending. We find that the details of the budget process, namely, the bargaining rules, the status quo’s location, and the degree of compliance with the budget law, are critical for the existence and the amplitudes of PBCs. In particular, when the status quo is determined by the previous budget and there is high compliance with the budget law, separation of powers acts as a commitment device which solves the credibility problems that drive PBCs.