英语论文网

ugh the expenditure on the overall programmes is shown it is not the same as PPBS where its main focus is on the expenditure. As verified by Millward (1968) “PPBS is being advanced as a revolutionary method for making allocative expenditure decisions within the governmental sphere.” However, Rabin (1992: 54) states that “the most prevalent modern form of expenditure is line-item budgeting.” Thus, it is uncertain whether the above view is accurate and whether the relationship between ends and means has been established, since “it may often be the case with PPBS that the resources required to undertake a particular program are scattered over several departments” (Jones and Pendlebury (2000: 79).

Nevertheless, in determining which budgeting approach to use under the NPM approach it is worth considering which the most appropriate form is. It is said by Allen and Tommasi (2001: 132) that “as long as it is comprehensive and includes an appropriate classification system, a line-item budget fits well with the requirements of expenditure control both at the lowest organisational level and at the aggregate level.” Therefore, it could be said that line-item budgeting is the correct approach to use. However, PPBS seems to “lead to better managerial planning and control because resources could be allocated more precisely to specific activities, and actual achievements could be monitored more effectively” (Jones and Pendlebury (2000: 62). Consequently, it is unclear whether line-item budgeting does focus more on the process of delivery which ought to be replaced by a PPBS system, focusing on the output, since it has been illustrated that line-item budgeting does also focus on the expenditure.

If a line-item budgeting system were to be completely replaced by a PPBS system it may produce difficulties within the budgeting process since one of the main arguments against PPBS is that “it would be difficult to operate since during the course of a typical day a police officer might be involved on several programmes and so it would be necessary to introduce a method for allocating direct, as well indirect costs to specific programmes. The administrative effort in doing this might well result in the costs exceeding any benefits” (Jones and Pendlebury 2000: 63). Thus, it may be safer to have both budgeting methods to fall back on, yet PPBS should be used more frequently as its “principle feature relates to outputs, it emphasises the future and it emphasises choice” (Jones and Pendlebury 2000: 63).

Nonetheless, although PPBS systems ought to used more frequently than line-item this is not always the case and as one survey reported, “approximately one-third of local governments still use the line-item method exclusively and another 43% use line-item in combination with other methods” (Crompton 1999: 63) This is mainly because it is “simpler, easier, more controllable, and more flexible than are many of the subsequent alternatives” (Crompton 1999: 63). It was also suggested by Kluvers (2002) that “line-item budgeting will continue to be used because users are familiar with this type of budgeting.” Therefore, although the use of a PPBS method of budgeting is not being taken full advantage of it seems that the use of line-item budgeting is, and users appear to be reluctant to move away from this method which may result in both approaches being used alongside each other in the future.

Overall, PPBS concentr