Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Performance-Based Budgeting: The U.S. Experience

  • Published:
Public Organization Review Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In the United States, it is premature to claim that performance-based budgeting (PBB) will replace line-item budgeting in near future, particularly at the federal and state level. This article attempts to (1) provide a brief historical context of PBB in the U.S.; (2) identify some challenges associated with the theoretical underpinnings and operational principles of PBB; (3) document current practice and research pertaining to designing and implementation; and (4) discuss the prospect of PBB. The locus of PBB in the 21St century will be local, the focus will be comparative, and the impetus will come mainly from the media.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Altman, Stan. (1979). “Performance Monitoring Systems for Public Managers.” Public Administration Review 39(1), 31–35.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ammons, David N. (1995). “Overcoming the Inadequacies of Performance Measurement in Local Government: The Case of Libraries and Leisure Services.” Public Administration Review 55(1), 37–47.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ammons, David N. (1999). “A Proper Mentality for Benchmarking.” Public Administration Review 59(2), 105–109.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ammons, David N., Charles Coe, and Michael Lombardo. (2001). “Performance-Comparison Projects in Local Government: Participants’ Perspectives.” Public Administration Review 61(1), 100–110.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baker, William M. (1994). “Understanding Activity-Based Costing.” Industrial Management 36, 28–30.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berman, Evan and XiaoHu Wang. (2000). “Performance Measurement in U.S. Counties: Capacity for Reform.” Public Administration Review 60(5), 409–420.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, Richard E., Mark J. Myring, and Cadillac G. Gard. (1999). “Activity-Based Costing in Government: Possibilities and Pitfalls.” Public Budgeting & Finance 19(2), 3–21.

    Google Scholar 

  • Caiden, Naomi. (1998). “Public Service Professionalism for Performance Measurement and Evaluation.” Public Budgeting & Finance 18(2), 35–52.

    Google Scholar 

  • Coe, Charles. (1999). “Local Government Benchmarking: Lessons from Two Major Multigovernment Efforts.” Public Administration Review 59(2): 110–123.

    Google Scholar 

  • Connelly, Michael, and Gary Tompkins. (1989). “Does Performance Matter? A Study of State Budgeting.” Policy Studies Review 45, 616–620 Sept./Oct.

    Google Scholar 

  • Coplin, William D., Astrid E. Merget, and Caroryn Bourdeaux. (2002). “The Professional researcher as Change Agent in the Government-Performance Movement.” Public Administration Review 62(6): 699–711.

    Google Scholar 

  • Denhardt, Robert B., and Janet Denhardt. (2000). “The New public Service: Serving Rather than Steering.” Public Administration Review 60(6), 549–559.

    Google Scholar 

  • DeNise, Aangelo S. (2000). “Performance Appraisal and Performance Management.” In Katherine J. Klein, and Steve W.J. Kozlowski (Eds), Multilevel Theory, Research, and Methods in Organizations: Foundations, Extensions and New Directions. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, pp. 121–156.

    Google Scholar 

  • Epstein, Paul D. (1984). Using Performance Measurement in Local Government. New York, NY: Van Nostrand.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gore, Al. (1996). “Reinvention’s Next Steps: Governing in a Balanced Budget World.” National Performance Review (March 4) 4.

  • Grizzle, Grizzle A., and Carole D. Pettijohn. (2002). “Implementing Performance-Based Program Budgeting: A System-Dynamics Perspective.” Public Administration Review 62(1), 51–62.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hatry, Harry. (1999). “Mini-Symposium on Intergovernmental Comparative Performance Data.” Public Administration Review 59(2): 101–104.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hatry, Harry P., and Donald Fisk. (1971). Improving Productivity and Productivity Measurement in Local Government. Washington, D.C.: The Urban Institute.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hatry, Harry P., Louis H. Blair, Donald M. Fisk, John M. Greiner, John R. Hall, and Philip S. Schaenman. (1977). How Effective Are Your Community, Services? Washington, D.C.: The Urban Institute.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jordan, Meagan M., and Merl M. Hackbart. (1999). “Performance Budgeting and Performance Funding in the States: A Status Assessment.” Public Budgeting & Finance 19(1), 68–88.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kelly, Janet M., and David Swindell. (2002). “A Multiple-Indicator Approach to Municipal Service Evaluation: Correlating Performance Measurement and Citizen Satisfaction Across Jurisdictions.” Public Administration Review 62(5), 610–621.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kliman, Albert J., and Louis Fisher. (1995a). “Budget Reform Proposals in the NPR Report.” Public Budgeting & Finance 15(1), 27–38.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kliman, Albert J., and Louis Fisher. (1995b). “Response by Leonard, Cook, and McNeil to NPR Piece.” Public Budgeting & Finance 15(1), 39–40.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kopczynski, Mary, and Michael Lombardo. (1999). “Comparative Performance Measurement: Insights and Lessons Learned from a Consortium Effort.” Public Administration Review 59(2), 124–134.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kravchuk, Robert S., and Ronald W. Schack. (1996). “Designing Effective Performance-Measurement Systems under the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993.” Public Administration Review 56(4), 348–358.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lynn, Laurence E. Jr. (2001). “The Myth of the Bureaucratic Paradigm: What Traditional Public Administration Really Stood For.” Public Administration Review 61(2), 144–160.

    Google Scholar 

  • McNab, Robert M., and Francois Melese. (2003). “Implementing the GPRA: Examining the Prospects for Performance Budgeting in the Federal Government.” Public Budgeting & Finance 23(2): 73–95.

    Google Scholar 

  • Melkers, Julia E., and Katherine G. Willoughby. (1998). “The State of the States: Performance-Based Budgeting Requirements in 47 out of 50.” Public Administration Review 58(1): 66–73.

    Google Scholar 

  • Melkers, Julia E., and Katherine G. Willoughby. (2001). “Budgeters’ Views of State Performance-Budgeting Systems: Distinction across Branches.” Public Administration Review 61(1), 54–64.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Association of State Budget Officers. (1996). Restructuring and Innovations in State Management. Washington, D.C.: National Governors’ Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • Office of Management and Budget. (2001). The President’s Management Agenda. 27–30.

  • Office of Management and Budget. (2002). Preparation and Submission of Budget Estimates, Circular No. A-11, Part 2.

  • PA Times. (2001). Quoted from http://www.ipma-hr.org (Accessed April 10, 2003).

  • Piotrowski, Suzanne J., and David H. Rosenbloom. (2002). “Nonmission-Based Values in Results-Oriented Public Management: The Case of Freedom of Information.” Public Administration Review 62(6): 643–657.

    Google Scholar 

  • Poister, Theodore H., and Gregory Streib. (1999). “Performance Measurement in Municipal Government: Assessing the State of the Practice.” Public Administration Review 59(4), 325–335.

    Google Scholar 

  • Radin, Beryl A. (2000). “The Government Performance and Results Act and the Tradition of Federal Management Reform: Square Pegs in Round Holes?” Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 10(1), 111–135.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ridley, Clarence E., and Herbert A. Simon. (1943). Measuring Municipal Activities: A Survey of Suggested Criteria for Appraising Administration. Chicago, IL: The International City/County Management Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roberts, Alasdair. (1997). “Performance-Based Organizations: Assessing the Gore Plan.” Public Administration Review 57(6), 465–478.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosenbloom, David H. (2001). “History Lessons for Reinventors.” Public Administration Review 61(2), 161–165.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schick, Allen. (1971). Budget Innovation in the States. Washington, D.C.: The Brookings Institution.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simon, Herbert A. (1957) Administrative Behavior: A Study of Decision Making Processes in Administrative Organizations, 2nd ed., New York, NY: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Steiss, Allan W. (1985). Strategic Management and Organizational Decision Making. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stiefel, Leanna, Ross Rubenstein, and Amy Ellen Schwartz. (1999). “Using Adjusted Performance Measures for Evaluating Resource Use.” Public Budgeting & Finance 19(3), 67–87.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tigue, Patricia, and James Greene Jr. (1994). “Performance Measurement: The Link to Effective Government.” Research Bulletin: Research & Analysis on Current Issues. Chicago, IL: GFOA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vigoda, Eran. (2002). “From responsiveness to Collaboration: Governance, Citizens, and the Next Generation of Public Administration.” Public Administration Review 62(5), 527–540.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wholey, Joseph S. (1983). Evaluation and Effective Public Management. Boston, MA: Little-Brown.

    Google Scholar 

  • Williams, Clif, and Ward Melhuish. (1999). “Is ABCM Destined for Success or Failure in the Federal Government?” Public Budgeting & Finance 19(2), 22–36.

    Google Scholar 

  • Willoughby, Katherine G., and Julia E. Melkers. (2000) “Implementing PBB: Conflicting Views of Success.” Public Budgeting & Finance 20(1), 105–120.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Political Science, San Jose State University, San Jose, USA

    Dongsung Kong

Authors
  1. Dongsung Kong
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Dongsung Kong.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Kong, D. Performance-Based Budgeting: The U.S. Experience. Public Organiz Rev 5, 91–107 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11115-005-1782-6

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11115-005-1782-6

Key words

Search

Navigation