Tribute to Richard E. Zody

Public budgeting is multifaceted. It draws from areas of study and practice ranging from management to administration to planning. Guided by analysis—enhanced by computational and technical advances—and political systems, it overlays the public sector at every level of government, including local, state, national, and international. It is also the domain of both academics and practitioners. This tribute honors Richard E. Zody by focusing on the multifaceted nature of public budgeting to reflect the career of a man committed to many of these dimensions. The central focus of his career was on improving public budgetary and management systems, and in doing so, he deftly drew from the many dimensions of budgeting. Dick demonstrated in his study, writing, teaching, and application an intellectual interest in two particular themes: the relationship between academics and practitioners; and budgeting and management, which includes the use of analytical skill and strategic planning. Through these interests, Dick impacted many lives.     

Benevolence in Beijing

My brand new bicycle had been stolen! Disbelief. Anger! Disappointment... I had been riding it for only a day,and was as excited as a,well,a boy with a new bike. Even though I only paid what would be the equivalent of half a tank of gas for my truck back home,I was still sorely put out.     

Appraising Commitments and Guarantees with Option Prices1

Budgetary decision‐making is prone to myopia and to tunnel vision. Pension commitments suffer from both of these pathologies. In this case, we look closely at the State of Oregon's Public Employee Retirement System to show how the disclosure standards adopted by the Government Accounting Standards Board (GASB) help correct the fiscal vision of state and local governments and further conclude that postemployment commitments ought to be comprehensively examined in GASB's review of its accounting and reporting standards scheduled for 2008, ideally from the standpoint of present‐value budgeting.     

From “New Institutionalism” to “Institutional Processualism”: Advancing Knowledge about Public Management Policy Change

Research on public management reform has taken a decidedly disciplinary turn. Since the late 1990s, analytical issues are less often framed in terms of the New Public Management. As part of the disciplinary turn, much recent research on public management reform is highly influenced by the three new institutionalisms. However, these studies have implicitly been challenged by a competing research program on public management reform that is emphatically processual in its theoretical foundations. This article develops the challenge in a more explicit fashion. It provides a theoretical restatement of the competing “institutional processualist” research program and compares its substantive findings with those drawn from the neoinstitutionalisms. The implications of this debate about public management reform for comparative historical analysis and neoinstitutional theories are discussed.     

COLLECTIVE ACTION IN PRISONS: PROTESTS,DISTURBANCES, AND RIOTS*

This study assesses competing explanations of inmate collective action using data from a nationwide sample of 317 adult maximum-and medium-security state prisons. Most previous studies have relied on data from only those prisons that have experienced riots. Hence, the conditions thought to cause collective outbursts may be equally present in prisons that did not experience such action. The current design allows for a comparison of riot and nonriot prisons. Additionally, this study examines the forces that generate other forms of collective action in prison, such as minor disturbances and inmate work stoppages. The results show that the variables under the administrative-control theory heading, but not the inmate-balance theory heading, help account for these events. Some consideration is given to the possibility that these two theories are complementary explanations.