Abstract
This article compares budgetary reforms in Singapore and Hong Kong. Despite similar reform measures being undertaken in line with the global reform trends under new public management, it is found that such reforms per se have not fundamentally altered the institutional configuration of the respective budgetary regimes. While greater financial autonomy and flexibility have been given to departments and ministries, resulting in the central budget agency (CBA) surrendering micro-budgetary control, the latter continues to play a strategic macro-budgetary role at the governmental level. Neither have budgetary relationships moved towards control by performance as implied by the ‘budgeting for results’ objective. Despite their commonalities, Hong Kong has lately displayed a weaker CBA than Singapore, largely due to extra-budgetary factors rooted in their different governance and institutional contexts.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
