英语论文网

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