A Budget for all Seasons: Why the Traditional Budget Lasts

Abstract

Almost from the time the caterpillar of budgetary evolution became the butterfly of budgetary reform, the line-item budget has been condemned as a reactionary throwback to its primitive larva. Budgeting, its critics claim, has been metamorphized in reverse, an example of retrogression instead of progress. Over the last century, the traditional annual cash budget has been condemned as mindless, because its lines do not match programs; irrational, because they deal with inputs instead of outputs; shortsighted, because they cover one year instead of many; fragmented, because as a rule only changes are reviewed; conservative, because these changes tend to be small; and worse. Yet despite these faults, real and alleged, the traditional budget reigns supreme virtually everywhere, in practice if not in theory. Why?

This paper grew out of my collaboration with Hugh Heclo on the second edition of The Private Government of Public Money. I wish to thank him, James Douglas, Robert Hartman, and Carolyn Webber for critical comments.