EI英文期刊论文英国项目预算

　　本EI英文期刊论文主要内容是讨论性能测量在世界各地被广发运用的主要原因和具体方法的介绍。《电子科学技术与应用》(ISSN刊号：2251-2608)衷心邀请来自世界各地的学者们投稿，来稿会进行同行评审。本刊属开放获取刊，可以即时查看或访问研究结果，同时允许免费使用学者的研究成果。本刊致力于出版电子和电子工程领域全面和最新发展的高质量学术论文。我们为电子和电子工程领域广泛的研究人员和专业人士提供了一个交流和信息交换平台。

　　标题：讨论的论点，作为性能测量已成为世界许多地区的资源利用和被越来越多地用于保持部门考虑其性能分项预算过多集中在运送过程中，应该由PPBS系统侧重于输出取代。在讨论考虑为什么，因为英国已经在新公共管理改革的前列20多年为什么分项预算仍然是用在英国的公共部门预算的主要方法。

　　线项目预算已使用多年，并提供简单，但有限的信息超出了特定类别的支出或拨款的成本，以确保准确性和控制。另一方面，一个规划，规划和预算系统(PPBS)是一种合理的方式对预算应作为决策和资源分配的一个重要组成部分的典范。尽管如此，线项目预算，尽管它的批评，仍然是主要的预算方法在英国公共部门使用。本文将探讨为什么分项预算仍然被用来作为预算的主要来源，为什么PPBS的未充分利用，尽管他们可能是非常有益的。

　　新公共管理(NPM)技术在很大程度上增加了多年，这导致在更有效地管理他们的产品和有效的公共部门的需要。新公共管理方法的使用已被证明在某些情况下是有益的如：“节约成本在公路养护”，如公共图书馆管理的情况下也被证明是有益的：“新公共管理的结果包括责任、节约成本，与公民使用/满意。”其他机构受到NPM还包括“监狱，心理健康，社会关怀，年轻人、军队和移民拘留中心”等等。事实上，成本节约在NPM技术说明预算是至关重要的，因此使用正确的预算方法的重点，即项目预算或预算。

　　Title: Discuss the contention that as performance measurement has become increasingly linked to resource utilisation in many parts of the world and is increasingly used to hold departments to account for their performance that line item budgeting focuses too much on the process of delivery and that it should be replaced by a PPBS system focussing on the output. In your discussion consider why, given that the UK has been at the forefront of NPM reforms for over 20 years why line item budgeting is still a major method of budgeting used in the UK public sector.

　　Line-item budgeting has been used for many years and provides simple, but limited information beyond the cost of specific categories of expenditures or appropriations in order to ensure accuracy and control. On the other hand, a planning, programming and budgeting system (PPBS) is a prime example of a reasonable approach to budgeting which ought to be a crucial part of decision making and resource allocation. Nonetheless, line-item budgeting, despite its critique, is still the major method of budgeting used in the UK public sector. This essay will examine why line-item budgeting is still being used as the main source of budgeting and why PPBS’s are underused even though they are potentially extremely beneficial.

　　New Public Management (NPM) techniques have largely increased over the years, which have resulted in the need for the public sector to manage their products more efficiently and effectively. The use of NPM methods has proven to be beneficial in some cases, such as: “cost savings in road maintenance” (Larbi 1999), and as demonstrated by Ward (2007), cases such as public library management have also proven to be beneficial: “the outcomes of NPM included accountability, cost savings, and citizen’s use/satisfaction.” Other bodies which come under the NPM also include “prisons, mental health, social care, young persons, military and immigration detention centres” (Murray, Evans, Steinerte and De Wolf 2008) to name a few. The fact that cost savings are the main focus on NPM techniques illustrates how budgeting is crucial for public management and thus it is important to use the correct budgeting method, namely line-item budgeting or PPBS.

　　Line-item budgeting (also known as “traditional” budgeting) has been widely used for many years to assign different amounts to each line of the budget. It has been said that line item budgeting will “reduce spending” (Holtz-Eakin 1988) and that “the major benefit is that the budget is viewed as a sum of its parts and that each part is considered separately in terms of some measure of perceived need” (Thompson, Wood and Crampton, 2008: 142). It has further been stated that “the most prevalent modern form of expenditure budgeting is line-item budgeting and it is the form par excellence of the hierarchy” (Rabin 1992:55). Arguably, line-item budgeting has been used for many years because of its mere simplicity and control orientation. This has resulted in its continued use despite the availability of newer budgeting implements.

　　On the other hand however, despite its popularity, line-item budgeting still possesses problems. It has been suggested by Bergmann (2008) that “traditional line-item budgets should be replaced by product budgets allocating a lump sum to each of the products and controlling the institutions through performance indicators rather than individual line-items.” Moreover, it has been argued that “it is impossible to determine what justification underlies adopted levels of expenditure and that such a method of allocating money allows secretiveness in budgets, vests power in only a few select persons, and does not encourage accountability” (Thompson, Wood and Crampton, 2008: 143). Thus, it seems that although line-item budgeting is far more commonly used than it should be, it’s use has in fact lessened and it does evidently have drawbacks. Moreover, it is obvious that this form of budgeting does not provide a sound basis for decision making.

　　Some argue that a planning, programming and budgeting system (PPBS) is the best method of budgeting in that it “contributes to accountability, both by its focus on programs and by its potential to use object-function codes to include productivity analysis. And that organisations are more likely to reach their stated goals and objectives” (Thompson, Wood and Crampton, 2008: 143). PPBS was developed because of the deficiencies in the traditional approach to budgeting and it was stated that “Programme budgeting is primarily a system associated with corporate management which identifies alternative policies, presents the implications of their adoption and provides for the efficient control of those policies chosen” (Jones and Pendlebury 2000: 79). It was further stated by Jones and Pendlebury (2000: 70) that “the principle features of programme budgeting are that it relates to outputs, emphasises the future and emphasises choice.” Arguably, PPBS was seen as a solution to the problems and deficiencies caused by the traditional approach to budgeting.

　　Nevertheless, although there was a lot of enthusiasm surrounding PPBS’s initially, by the 1970’s it has been abandoned by many organisations that had introduced it. There are however examples of PPBS remaining, yet not as many as formerly anticipated. Wildavsky (1970) submits that “the planning-programming-budgeting system has brought great damage to effective policy analysis,” and that “PPBS has failed everywhere and at all times” (Jones and Pendlebury 2000: 79). Hofstede (1981) further argues that “attempts to implement a system of PPBS would represent a fundamental error in the choice of management control models.” Possibly the finest form of budgeting system is programme budgeting and yet it appears to be discarded.

　　Still, it is argued that line item budgeting is about means and PPBS is about ends, yet it is questionable how accurate this view is. Jones and Pendlebury (2000: 60) say that “the way in which the annual revenue budget is prepared depends upon whether the emphasis is on the nature of the income and expenditure (line-item budgeting) or on the purpose of expenditure (PPBS).” It does appear that line-item budgeting is about the means since the emphasis is mainly on the income and altho

转载请注明来自发表学术论文网：http://www.fbxslw.com/ywlw/12394.html