Decision about how much of society’s resources we want to take from the private sector to use for problems of broader public interest.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
The Budget The device that allocates the shortage of public money There is never enough money to do all the things people want done.
Advertisements

HEALTH PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT
Linkages Between NPoA and MTEF
How Other States Have Solved the Problem Connecticut School Funding Summit January 30, 2007 John L. Myers.
Unit 7 Macroeconomics: Taxes, Fiscal, and Monetary Policies Chapters 15.1 Economics Mr. Biggs.
9 th Annual Public Health Finance Roundtable November 3, 2012 Boston, MA Peggy Honoré.
Week 15: Ethics, Wrap Up, Student Presentations Ethics -- public sector Ethical issues in public budgeting and finance Revisit course goals Begin student.
Economics and Economic Reasoning
Week 9: Budget Proposals and Priorities Politics of competition for resources Budget justification and budget analysis –vocabulary –categories of justification.
1 County Budget & Finance Issues. 2 What Counties Do.
Week 5: Deficits, Budget Balancing, Reforms (cont.) Review Leg. Analyst’s Recommendation on school reform Summarize Kettl Balancing budgets--state and.
Week 6: Revenue Politics and Revenue Issues Guest Speaker: Brad Williams, Senior Economist, LAO –Overview of revenues for California State Budget –Issues.
McGraw-Hill/Irwin Copyright  2006 by The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved. ECONOMICS AND ECONOMIC REASONING Chapter 1.
Health Systems and the Cycle of Health System Reform
Public Policy and Administration 230 Public Budgeting and Finance Professor Nancy Shulock Executive Director Institute for Higher Education Leadership.
Public Budgeting and Finance. Donald Kettl: Decision about how much of society’s resources we want to take from the private sector to use for problems.
Eric R. Johnson Hillsborough County, (Tampa) FL
Chapter 3 Budget Structures and Institutions
Week 3: Budget Processes: Federal and California
Centralizing Collections By William Miller Miller Consulting Miller ConsultantsMiller Consultants.
The Policy Process and Budgeting
Public Financial Management: An Introduction Training for Support PAC Staff Hilton Hotel, Windhoek, Namibia May 2012.
Sources of Federal Revenues
Dr. Timothy Mitchell Rapid City Area Schools
Pearson Education, Inc., Longman © 2008 The Congress, the President, and the Budget: The Politics of Taxing and Spending Chapter 14 Government in America:
The Congress, the President, and the Budget: The Politics of Taxing and Spending Chapter 14 Copyright © 2009 Pearson Education, Inc. Publishing as Longman.
Week 7: County-level Finance Issues Guest Speaker:  Russ Fehr, Principal Administrative Analyst, Sacramento County –County financing issues -- Proposition.
Week 4: Deficits, Budget Balancing, Reforms Federal deficit politics: questions raised by Kettl book Is budgeting rational? Should it be? Can it be? –Definitions.
McGraw-Hill© 2004 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved.
Week 7: California State and Local Government Finance Guest Speaker: Michael Cohen, Legislative Analyst’s Office, Local Government Section –Proposition.
Week 9: Budget Proposals and Priorities Politics of competition for resources Budget proposals and justification –format for Budget Change Proposal (BCP)
Oregon 10-Year Plan for Oregon Project Boards and Commissions Briefing.
Week 5: Deficits, Budget Balancing, Reforms Week 4 follow up: BCPs – look at samplesample Deficit politics – federal –questions raised by Kettl book –rationality.
Week 6: State-level Finance Issues Guest Speaker: Brad Williams, Senior Economist, LAO –Overview of revenues for California State Budget –Issues in revenue.
Week 3: Budget Processes: Federal and California Review first memo assignment Federal Budget Process –Class group exercise California Budget Process –Key.
Public Policy and Administration 230 Public Budgeting and Finance Professor Nancy Shulock Associate Vice President for Academic Affairs CSUS Course web.
Budgeting for Outcomes November 28, 2012 ISAC Fall School of Instruction.
Week 12: Performance Management and Performance Budgeting Discuss Eureka exercise Review mid-term Conceptual Origins of Performance Management Government.
WACTC 2014 Allocation and Accountability Recommendations - Briefing SBCTC October 2014.
Week 8: Local Government Finance Guest Speaker: Betty Masuoka, Assistant City Manager, City of Sacramento –City revenues and expenditures –Major financing.
Role and Responsibilities of the Joint Budget Committee A conceptual framework 3 June 2003.
THE LINKS BETWEEN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL POLICIES JOSÉ ANTONIO OCAMPO UNDER-SECRETARY GENERAL ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL AFFAIRS.
Coping with the Fiscal Crisis December 10, Overview Budget Picture Legislative Analyst’s Office (LAO) Impact on Community Colleges Budget Reduction.
Week 4: Budgeting as Policy Making Discuss memo #2 and selection of agency/department What is policy making in the context of budgets? Application of Kingdon.
Copyright © 2009 Pearson Education, Inc. Publishing as Longman. The Congress, the President, and the Budget: The Politics of Taxing and Spending Chapter.
Week 12: Implementing and Managing Budgets Discuss Eureka exercise Discuss mid-term Budget management –Context: New Public Management –Mechanics and tools.
Managing the Planning Process 1. ____ is a system designed to identify objectives and to structure the major tasks of the organization to accomplish them.
Managing the Planning Process
Fiscal Policy= Congress+ President Budget: – A policy document allocating burdens (taxes) and benefits (expenditures). Deficit: – An excess of federal.
Week 2: Politics and Dynamics of Public Budgeting Budgeting: political or technical? Rubin’s model of budgetary decision making The “baseline” – class.
Budget Preparation Requirements, Practices and Tips Elections Directors Conference December 5, 2005 Jack Vogt School of Government.
Planning and Organizing Chapter 13. The Planning Function Planning for a business should stem from the company’s Business Plan – The business plan sets.
Public Policy Process and Public Administration
{ Topic 8:Taxes and Spending.  Governments collect taxes to pay for programs, but taxes can have powerful effects on the general economy  The federal.
PP 620: Public Policy and Health Administration Unit One Seminar Kris R. Foote, J.D., M.P.A., M.S.W. Kaplan University.
CLASS ONE – NURSING HISTORY.  Demonstrates expert knowledge, skills, and attitudes in the practice of nursing  Administrative skills are based upon.
McGraw-Hill/Irwin Copyright  2006 by The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved. ECONOMICS AND ECONOMIC REASONING Chapter 1.
Chapter 2 Public Budgeting and Finance.  political (political science)  economic (economics)  accountability/control (business)  managerial/administrative.
Chapter 14: Congress, The President, and the Budget The Politics of Taxing and Spending Federal Revenue and Borrowing Federal Expenditures The Budgetary.
Introduction to Program Budgeting
Budget Process and Timeline
Tax Reform Session 5-6.
Texas Budget Process GOVT 2306, Module 12.
Financing Budget oversight: Problems and Solutions.
Managing the Planning Process
Topic 8:Taxes and Spending
Managing the Planning Process
Managing the Planning Process
Topic 8:Taxes and Spending
Comprehensive Review of Expenditure
Presentation transcript:

Decision about how much of society’s resources we want to take from the private sector to use for problems of broader public interest

 line item -- emphasize control  pushes policy into background  minimizes conflict  program budget -- emphasize policy  what should government do  requires more analysis  performance budget -- emphasize management  productivity of specific tasks, not overall goals  administrative outcomes

 Federal:  economic and political perspectives  expenditure driven  entitlements  defense  State/Local:  organizational and administrative perspectives  revenue driven  more unified executive control  more issues concerning citizen input

 Theory: a framework for accumulating knowledge  Normative, descriptive, positive  normative -- what should be  descriptive -- what is  positive -- what will be (predictions)  V. O. Key 1940 question in search of normative theory: “On what basis should it be decided to allocate X dollars to activity A instead of B”

 Aaron Wildavsky ◦ normative theory impossible -- utopian ◦ descriptive theory: incrementalism  how decisions are made (process or outcome?)  how strategies selected  main theory today but partially discredited

 how much can revenue estimates be politicized before other means are found?  how much of the political can be treated technically without loss of political accountability?  how does the political or technical become more dominant at one stage or another or in various circumstances?  when does executive v legislative have upper hand?  does citizen participation in resource allocation increase support for government?

Traditional  focus on control  centralized  private exercise of admin power  line item format  formulas  minimal flexibility for managers  accountability for inputs Contemporary  Focus on policy/performance  decentralized  public sharing of information  program format  priorities  maximum flexibility for managers  accountability for outcomes

 Greater executive control than in Federal process  Budget balance requirement  Focus on agency programs and policy  One committee, one bill, one process in each house  Senate Budget and Fiscal Review  Assembly Budget  Appropriations committees no budget bill role  Trailer Bills  Governor’s Budget sets agenda for budget hearings  LAO gives item by item analysis (not done by CBO)

 Governor  Department of Finance (equivalent of federal OMB)  Executive agencies  Senate and Assembly budget committees/subcomm.  Legislative Analyst’s Office (equivalent of federal CBO)  Timeline (about 12 months)  Initial preparation: July-August  Agency budget development (BCPs): Sept - Dec  Governor’s Budget Presented: January 10  LAO Analysis published: mid-February  Budget subcommittee hearings: February - May  May Revise  Conference Committee/”Big Five”: June  Constitutional Deadline for Legislature: June 15  Start of fiscal year: July 1

Assembly  Education  Resources  Health and Human Services  State Administration  Information Technology / Transportation Senate  Education  Resources  Health  General Government  Energy

 Purpose:  how do issues rise and fall on the agenda?  how do agendas translate into policy?  how can non-incremental change be explained?  Key feature: distinction between agendas (problems) and alternatives (policies)  different processes  different participants and roles  Major challenge to linear models of policy making!

 Three streams or processes  problems (agendas)  policies (alternatives, solutions)  politics  Two types of participants  visible cluster (dominate agenda and political streams)  hidden cluster (dominate policy stream)  Window of Opportunity  predictable, e.g. elections, budget process  unpredictable, e.g. natural disaster

 Three streams must converge  Being on agenda is necessary but not sufficient  need solutions and ripe political conditions  Role of the policy specialists  form communities and work on alternatives  look for opportunities to match to problems  policy entrerpreneurs  bring the solutions together with problems  importance of framing

 key concept: understanding budget problems as policy problems ◦ not a question of economic efficiency but values ◦ allows application of Kingdon  how do budget issues get on the agenda?  how does budget policy get made?  State Budget Offices play a key role ◦ gatekeepers ◦ how do they make decisions? (micro model)

 Control orientation ◦ Compile agency requests ◦ Don’t question policy orientation ◦ Budget execution emphasis ◦ Far removed from Governor’s policy staff  Policy orientation ◦ Analyze agency proposals against Governor’s policy ◦ Develop alternatives ◦ Proactive on major policy/budget issues ◦ Focus on agency mission and effectiveness ◦ Closer involvement with Governor’s policy staff

 Budget analysts are like Kingdon’s policy entrepreneurs ◦ nexus of macro and micro budgeting  manage top down and bottom up information flow ◦ bring together problems, solutions, politics ◦ part of “hidden” cluster of actors (institutional memory) ◦ two major deadlines provide windows  Skills used ◦ efficiency analysis: technical/economic ◦ effectiveness analysis: political, social, legal

 More constrained—less discretionary  Less political executive influence  More managerial/staff-driven ◦ city manager drives budget ◦ mayor policy positions not very public  More expectation for direct citizen access and participation  More or less ideological?

 What is rationality?  The economics/politics debate ◦ do concepts of economic efficiency and rationality apply to politics? ◦ do they apply to budgeting?

Rational-Comprehensive Method: 1. Clarify objective apart from policy choices 2. Ends-means analysis 3. Good policy is the best means to the ends 4. Analysis is comprehensive - -accounts for all relevant impact 5. Information is conclusive and authoritative 6. Outcomes projected with certainty Successive Limited Comparisons: 1. Objectives and choices are linked 2. Ends and means not distinct 3. Good policy is one on which agreement can be reached 4. Analysis is always limited 5.Information is ambiguous; subject to interpretation/framing 6.Outcomes rationalized afterward

 economic, not political  based on analysis  comprehensive review of options  orderly decision rules  allocated funds where they are most needed by objective measures  promote reallocation from lower to higher priorities

 Practical critiques: ◦ comprehensive analysis is impossible ◦ asks analysts to do what they cannot  Normative critiques ◦ budgeting is about choosing among values ◦ political process does a better job of solving value problems ◦ political strength of program = deserving of $$ support ◦ incrementalism/bargaining is the most fair ◦ process reflects political system – change system not process ◦ analysis must serve, not replace, politics

Proposed to replace line-item budgeting – why?  Performance budgeting ◦ links inputs with outputs  Planned Programming Budgeting Systems ◦ link program goals/strategic plans with program costs  Management by Objectives ◦ links manager-driven objectives with budgets  Zero-Based Budgeting ◦ justify all costs above specified level  Do the outcomes justify the efforts?

 rationality fixes have failed ◦ technique cannot substitute for political judgment ◦ role of Congress must be honored ◦ implementation problems  process fixes have failed ◦ procedures cannot substitute for political judgment ◦ always a circumvention strategy ◦ procedures cannot force unwanted decisions ◦ creativity and game playing  Other foils: ◦ top-down, centralized process open to interest groups/closed to citizens ◦ anti-tax sentiment ◦ divided party government

 Solution: political leadership  confront controversy  promote vision and values  promote citizenship and sense of fairness  define the public interest  other characteristics of effective political leadership?  Would a greater sense of fairness of tax and spending policies help?  disconnection between who pays and who benefits  should there be a closer connection?

 Does the state face the same pressures toward deficits?  Do process or rationality “fixes” have a better chance of success at the state level?  Current deficit  what’s the constituency for budget balance?  what strategies (gimmicks) are being used?  real alternatives – who is proposing them?  Proposed reforms  ZBB  Commission on Government Waste and Inefficiency

 Are politics and analysis antithetical?  How can analysis serve, rather than replace politics?  What should analysis try to accomplish?  If analysis is rejected by decision makers, is it useless?  What should budget analysts try to accomplish?  Would unlimited analysis achieve rationality?

 Balanced budget requirement  More intense efforts to hide deficits  Fewer macroeconomic issues to consider  Greater influence of environment on balance/deficit  Deficits don’t (usually) accumulate-- problems more tractable  Temporary, not structural deficits -- more fixes available

The problem: getting support for increasing revenues is much harder than getting support for spending proposals 1. Public officials must go about getting support very carefully 2. “anti-revenue” politics: politics of protection from taxation, tax reductions, exceptions 3. Attention to protecting individuals, interest groups, regions from taxation leaders to piecemeal, complicated, inconsistent, inequitable structures => pressures for reform

 Confront issues of fairness, public good, options  Accountability for use of funds  Timing – e.g. crisis  Earmark revenues  example: California Lottery  Temporary increases  Tax politically weak/outsiders  Gimmicks (smoke and mirrors)

 Equity ◦ similar situations treated similarly ◦ differential burdens fair  Administrative feasibility ◦ efficient, uniform ◦ high degree of voluntary compliance  Appropriateness ◦ sufficient; stable; predictable  Political feasibility (acceptance)  Accountability/Visibility ◦ payer understands charges

 Logic: capacity to pay as measured by earnings  Importance: over half of State General Fund  Policy issues ◦ tax rates v tax base (deductions, exclusions, credits) ◦ simplification (relates to acceptance) ◦ reliance on volatile source

Logic: capacity to pay as measured by consumer spending Importance: provides about 1/3 of state and city revenues Policy issues:  Role in local finance (regional growth)  Exemptions of household purchases  Tax expenditure programs  Include services in addition to goods – erosion of base  Internet sales  fairness and revenue issues

 Logic: capacity to pay as measured by property holding  Importance: about 30% of local revenues Policy Issues  public opposition – ideological reasons  equity  allocations by state among local governments  assessment methodology (subjectivity leads to public opposition)  importance to school finance (other states)

Purposes  Promote certain economic behavior  e.g. research and development  Prevent harmful activity  e.g. tax benefits for alternative fuel  Tax relief for certain segments of society  e.g. low-income tax credits  Facilitate tax administration  e.g.conform to Fed tax Criteria  Efficient accomplishment of policy goal  Subject to review and periodic reporting

 Similarities to budgeted expenditures  aimed at accomplishing public policy objectives  cost to the taxpayer  subject to interest group pressure  pork for constituents  Differences from budgeted expenditures  not directly measurable--must estimate (indirect effects)  subject to far less analysis  less visible; beneficiaries harder to discern  more resistant to cuts -- become entitlements

 Board of Supervisors used to set a countywide property tax rate to fund countywide services  Counties had a greater share of the costs of human services programs  VLF was a much less significant revenue source 37

 Board of Supervisors had discretion over property tax rate & property tax revenue  There was a political balance between taxing and spending.  An elected official could gain political credit for keeping tax rates down 38

 Property tax rate reduce to 1%  Base growth capped at 2%  System forced to use growth to maintain base spending  Subsequent Ballot Initiatives: ◦ Shifted of property taxes from schools to local government ◦ Had the State of California assume greater share of human services 39

 The state’s support of local government was withdrawn in the early 1990s  Realignment -- share of sales tax replace shares of support for human service programs 40

 Funding mandates ◦ County shares of state & federal programs  Honoring contracts ◦ County workforce ◦ Debt  Political priorities ◦ Some are more equal than others 41

42

 Requirement ◦ Appropriations ◦ Reserve contributions  Financing ◦ Fund Balance ◦ Revenues ◦ Reserve releases 43

 Net cost of programs is determined & compared to general purpose financing  Net cost is equal to program expenditures less program revenues  General purpose financing is not linked to specific programs or groups of programs  No link between program net cost & availability of general purpose financing 44

 baseline cost/workload data (which base year to choose?)  justify changes from base (e.g. quantify workload increase)  comparisons (relevant)  formulas and standards (appropriate and inappropriate uses)  “fair share”  research on cause and effect  best practices  pilot (where research may be lacking or inconclusive)  fit under budget office guidelines, strategic plan, etc.  propose accountability measures  check to avoid “the big mistake”

 Frames request in terms of program priorities/strategic plan  Provides baseline data for a few years, for context  Clearly lays out different parts of request  Deals with each part in turn (and they add up!)  Provides quantitative justification for dollar amounts  Makes logical arguments  Reflects research – not the easy way out  Doesn’t try to fool the analyst  Honest about current resource availability  Addresses issues of priority within the department  Acknowledges recent history of budgeting in the unit  Addresses one-time v on-going needs openly  Includes objectives, expected results, and performance measures