Budgeting is such a universal and essential activity of governments, that it is often assumed it may be discussed in terms of a single set of concepts, and that research findings from experience may be extrapolated beyond their specific context without further thought. All governments appear to have to undertake very similar functions in mobilizing and spending revenues. It is, therefore, not surprising that for a long time budgeting has been subjected to a principles or how-to approach, which abstracts it from the environment altogether. Budgeting has been seen as a technique operating in a closed system, whose success depends on the enlightment and cooperation of those within the system. The dependence of those budgetary techniques upon specific conditions beyond the control of the direct participants has often not been appreciated, and the failure of advanced techniques of budgeting to gain acceptance or to accomplish their aims has left a wake of suspicion against attempts at generalized theorizing. The danger now is of over-reaction, and of contentment by scholars with anarchy, a superfluity of unconnected findings.' Facts may be built up without coherence, waiting for the one big computer which will magically glue them together. The fallacies that more equals better, and that theorizing must await comprehensiveness may impede clear thinking about what is already at hand, and result in random fact collection in place of focused research. What appears to be required is a comparative approach. The need for empirical research, whether confined to country or even a single jurisdiction or administrative unit, should not be downgraded. It remains essential, but it is also necessary to provide a perspective upon the methods and findings of that research-a self-awareness guarding against total and uncritical immersion in things as they are at the moment, and allowing room for comparison with things as they are in some place else, or as they have been in the past. At present even a vocabulary, outside formal budget categories, is lacking for this purpose. The need is to link budgeting and public finance with their environment, and to endeavor to promote meaningful hypotheses regarding mutual relationships between modes of handling financial resources and specific contextual features, between institutional constraints and possible budgetary outcomes. Any move toward theory along these lines is fraught with difficulties over and above the normal problems of comparative research. Public budgeting stands at the cross-roads of many disciplines2 and is open to many perspectivese.g., administrative theory, policy analysis, economics, political science-which tend to pull in different directions, and whose efforts cannot easily be added to another to provide an integrated account. Depending on the perspective chosen, therefore, there
Read full abstract