Abstract
A theory of the budgetary process within public resource allocation has to recognize that decision rules may vary over time and program. Our findings based on a new econometric approach indicate that various different decision mechanisms operate in different categories of public resource allocation. Variation over time is particularly difficult to accommodate within the incrementalist approach as incremental decision rules imply structural stability over time. We find the opposite to be true of the programs analysed.
A model of the public expenditure process has to take choice into account to a larger extent. The attempt to make budget-making a function of constraints violates the occurrence of shiftpoints that is typical of the data. The existence of a base and the resort to mechanical rules for the derivation of the yearly increments implies a deterministic interpretation of budgetary behavior. Budgets are made in choice processes where the principal actors employ various decision rules meaning that budget-making is more voluntaristic than deterministic. The choice rules employed for the derivation of requests and appropriations are not mechanistic decision rules.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Bailey, J. J. and O'Connor, R. U.: 1975, ‘Operationalizing Incrementalism: Measuring the Muddles’, Public Administration Review 33, 60–66.
Braybrooke, D. and Lindblom, C.: 1963, A Strategy of Decision, Free Press, New York.
Crecine, J. P.: 1969, Governmental Problem-Solving: A Computer Simulation and Municipal Budgeting, Rand McNally, Chicago.
Cyert, R. and March, J. G.: 1963, A Behavioral Theory of the Firm, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs.
Davis, O. A., Dempster, M. A. H., and Wildavsky, A.: 1966, ‘A Theory of the Budgetary Process’, American Political Science Review 60, 529–547.
Davis, O. A., Dempster, M. A. H., and Wildavsky, A.: 1974, ‘Towards a Predictive Theory of Government Expenditures: US Domestic Appropriations’, British Journal of Political Science, 419–452.
Dempster, M. A. H. and Wildavsky, A.: 1979, ‘On Change: Or, There Is No Magic Size for an Increment’, Political Studies 27, 371–389.
Dempster, M. A. H. and Wildavsky, A.: 1980, ‘Modelling the US Federal Spending Process: Overview and Implications’, Laxenburg: International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis.
Gist, J. R.: 1974, Mandatory Expenditures and the Defence Sector: Theory of Budgetary Incrementalism, Sage, London.
Lindblom, C.: 1959, ‘The Science of “Muddling Through”’, Public Administration Review 19, 79–88.
Lindblom, C.: 1965, The Intelligence of Democracy, Free Press, New York.
March, J. G. and Simon, H. A.: 1958, Organizations, Wiley, New York.
McCabe, B. P. M. and Harrison, M. J.: 1980, ‘Testing the Constancy of Regression Relationships over Time Using Least Squares Residuals’, Applied Statistics 29, 142–148.
Wanat, J.: 1974, ‘Basis of Budgetary Incrementalism’, American Political Science Review 68, 1221–1229.
Westlund, A.: 1982, ‘Moving Sums of Squares of Ordinary Least Squares Residuals for Structural Stability Testing’, Statistical Research Report 82-8, University of Umeå.
Wildavsky, A.: 1964, The Politics of the Budgetary Process, Little, Brown, and Co., Boston.
Wildavsky, A.: 1975, Budgeting, Little, Brown, and Co., Boston.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Lane, JE., Westlund, A. Choice and constraint in budget-making. Theor Decis 23, 217–230 (1987). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00129148
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00129148