Mathematical Methods of Budget Modeling



This chapter presents a complex of models used to analyze and forecast the flow of budget financial resources. Current calculations and long-term forecasting of budget indicators are the instrument of realization of strategic development plans. Traditional methods of budget program planning are still widely used: they include planning based on rated standards specified by the superior bodies or by changing dynamics of the previous periods. However, the development of information technologies (IT), requirements of market economy and high pace of development give rise to new, highly intellectual, precise analytical and planning models.

The semantic and frame-based models suggested in the monograph create the mathematical base for automated system control. The author was the first in the world to develop the mathematical budget model which with mathematical exactness reflects properties and conditions at any budget level.


Semantic Model Semantic Network Budget State Budget Model Budget Performance 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. 1.
    Melnikov, V.D., Il’yasov, K.K.: Finances. Almaty (2001), p. 512 Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Stanford, J.: Free Trade and the Imaginary Worlds of Economic Modelers (1993) Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Stiglitz, J.E.: Nobel prize lecture: information and the change in the paradigm in economics (2001) Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Dugdale, D., Lyne, S.: Budgeting. CIMA Financ. Manag. 32–35 (2006) Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Il’yasov, K.: State Budget. Rik, Almaty (1994), p. 268 Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Law on the budget system of the Republic of Kazakhstan (1999) Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Wooster, J.: Current state and recommended directions of further development of the REFORM of the inter-budgetary relations in Kazakhstan. Econ. Stat. 1, 2–13 (2000) Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Mutanov, G.M., Shintemirova, A.U.: Mathematical Model of Budget. Astana (2003), 176 p. Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Cooper, W.D., Morgan, R.G., Redman, A., Smith, M.: Capital budgeting models: theory vs. practice. Bus. Forum 26(1/2), 15–19 (2001) Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Derfuss, K.: The relationship of budgetary participation and reliance on accounting performance measures with individual-level consequent variables: a meta-analysis. Eur. Account. Rev. 18(2), 203–239 (2009) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Ostergren, K., Stensaker, I.: Management control without budgets: a field study of “beyond budgeting” in practice. Eur. Account. Rev. 19(1), 1–33 (2010) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hannan, L., Rankin, F., Towry, K.: Flattening the organization: the effect of organizational reporting structure on budgeting effectiveness. Rev. Acc. Stud. 15(3), 503–536 (2010) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Mutanov, G.M.: Risk Management in the Underground and Mining Enterprises. Gylym, Almaty (1996), p. 291 Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Ostreykovsky, V.A.: Informatics. Vysshaya shkola (2000), p. 511 Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Pospelov, D.A.: Artificial Intelligence. Vol. 2. Models and Methods. Radio i svyaz (1990), p. 304 Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kusiak, E., Yan, K.T., Chau, U.M., et al. (eds.): Artificial Intelligence—Application in Integrated Production Processes. Machinostroeniye, Moscow (1977), p. 453 Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Tase, A., Gribbon, P., Lui, J. (eds.): Logical Approach to Artificial Intelligence: From Classical Logics to Logical Programming. Mir, Moscow (1990), p. 332 Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Jaeger, M.: Model-theoretic expressivity analysis. In: De Raedt, L., Frasconi, P., Kersting, K., Muggleton, S. (eds.) Probabilistic Inductive Logic Programming. Theory and Applications. Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence, vol. 4911. Springer, Berlin (2008) Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Hussaini, S.W., Kummamuru, S., IEEE: A cybernetic model to understand the context of complex IT transformation programs overcoming challenges in current program management frameworks. In: 7th Annual IEEE International Systems Conference (Syscon), pp. 745–749 (2013) Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Sullivan, S.D., Mauskopf, J.A., Augustovski, F., Caro, J.J., et al.: Budget impact analysis principles of good practice: report of the ISPOR 2012 budget impact analysis good practice II task force. Value Health 17(1), 5–14 (2014) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Li, M., et al.: Frame layer rate control for H.264/AVC with hierarchical B-frames. Signal Process. Image Commun. 24, 177–199 (2009). doi: 10.1016/j.image.2008.12.009 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Crognale, C.: Sensitivity and power budget of a homodyne coherent DP-QPSK system with optical amplification and electronic compensation. J. Lightwave Technol. 32(7), 1295–1306 (2014) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Fruth, J., Roustant, O., Kuhnt, S.: Total interaction index: a variance-based sensitivity index for second-order interaction screening. J. Stat. Plan. Inference 147, 212–223 (2014) CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Al-Farabi Kazakh National UniversityAlmatyKazakhstan

Personalised recommendations