Public Budget As Decision-Making Process

1. Decision - Making Models: Incremental Change Model Satisfying Model Ideal Rational Model Stages of Problem Solving Model Many People use these theories or models as their guide to reform public budgeting To understand these theories or models , a criterion must be developed to judge them and the concept of conceptual models itself must be explained A conceptual model can viewed as a tool which enables the user to understand and deal with complex phenomena A tool can be judged “good’ or ‘bad” in terms of the user’s purpose Public Budget As Decision-Making Process

2. Professionals should judge conceptual models or theories in terms of the model’s usefulness in helping them accomplish their tasks These tasks must be accomplished within a decision-making context largely induced by the ideologies of the culture Decision-making models can be judged in terms of their applicability to the decision-making environment of the public budget person Some major and commonly noted decision-making models are the Incremental Change Model, the Satisfying Model, and the Ideal -Rational Model. To this list, a provocative but little-cited model called the “Stages of ProblemSolving” canbe added.

3. Incremental Model: This model is used for descriptive and normative purposes ( The former refers to a model which is constructed for purposes of explaining and/or predicting the consequences of policy choices while the latter is constructed for purposes of optimizing the attainment of some utility ). The model tells us that the best predictor of what will happen in the future is what we are doing now. Our focus shall be on the normative use of the model Main Features of this model: Style of policy - making based on small,marginal changes from existing policies. It narrows the area open to dispute, thereby reducing conflicts, and that it is consistent with the principles of conservatism Budget processes were seen as stable, predictable, changing little from year to year and based on well defined roles that could represented by relatively simple decision rules

4. In developing a budget, the agency takes the role of an advocate and the budget reviewer takes the role of accommodates This model is an excellent tool for understanding the political environment of public policy making, but it is not useful for explaining the more technical difficulties associated with analysis. The Satisfying Model: Based on certain criterion ( See Figure ) Select first acceptable alternative, the acceptable is the standard for judgment. This model dramatically emphasizes that decisions are made under pressure, and sever limitations make achieving even a satisfactory alternative a significant accomplishment.

5. The Rational Model: The model systematically breaks decision-making down into six phases: 1. Establish a complete set of the operational goals, with relative weights allocated to the different degrees to which each may be achieved; 2. Establish a complete inventory of other values and resources with relative weights; 3. Prepare a complete set of the alternative policies open to the policy maker 4. Analyze the alternative policies by making a valid predictions of the cost and benefits of each alternative; 5. Calculate the outcome ( net expectations ) of each alternative;and 6. Compare the net expectations and make a selection. The problem with this model is that the best alternative often cannot be achieved because of practical concerns ( lack of time ).

6. Stages of Problem Solving Model: Phases 1. Perception that a problem exists. This permits the possibility of multiple value perspectives; 2. Considering the solutions; 3. Analyze the alternatives; 4.Decide whether to reconsider the nature of the problem or to plan resolve the problem;and 5. Evaluation of outcomes Phases 4 and 5 are not part of the rational model. From evaluation, the decision maker may either start over by reconsidering the problem or re-plan his or her actions steps

7. Comparative analysis of the four models: • The incremental model is an excellent tool for understanding the political environment of public policy making. With this model, the public budget person can better understand how the budget process is dominated by the strategies employed by and the conflicts that arise among participants. Proponents of this model argued: That a process which concentrates on an increment is preferable to one that attempts to review the whole budget because it moderates conflict, reduces search costs, stabilizes budgetary roles and expectations, and reduces the amount of time that officials must invest in budgeting , thus increasing the likelihood that important political values will be taken into account. • The Satisfying and Ideal - Rational Models are useful for understanding the difficulties associated with decision-making. The Satisfying Model dramatically emphasizes that decisions are made under pressure, and

8. Severe limitations make achieving even a satisfactory alternative a significant accomplishment. The problem with model is that one is often not satisfied that the best alternative has been selected. On the other hand, the desire for deciding on the best alternative is reflected in the Ideal-Rational Model. The problem with that model is that the best alternative often cannot be achieved because of practical concerns such as a lack of time. • The Stages - of - Problem Solving Model can be contrasted to the Ideal- Rational Model. In the problem solving model, the starting point is the perception that a problem exists, thus permitting one to consider the significance of culture, time, and perspective. By contrast, in the rational model the starting point is the definition of one’s goals. Next, in the problem-solving model, the person formulates the problem,

9. Defines alternatives, gathers information, and tests proposals. In the rational model, the next steps cited are defining alternatives and gathering information. In the problem-solving model, the last steps are planning action, taking action steps, and evaluating outcomes. Again in contrast, the rational model is limited to deciding a given matter with the intention of maximizing goals. The rational model dose not extend to taking action steps and evaluating outcomes. Another distinction is that the rational model dose not have reconsideration as a factor, whereas the problem-solving model does. • The problem-solving model can help people working in public budgeting understand the nature of analysis. The rational model serves as the primary theoretical explanation of how analysis should conducted, but the rational model can not be attained.

10. The problem-solving model serves as an alternative theoretical explanation of how analysis should be conducted in the budgetary process. The model permits cycles of defining one’s problem, producing alternatives, and testing alternatives. It implicitly recognizes that any given analysis will depend upon the ingenuity of the analysts, the kind of data available to them, the amount of resources at their command in undertaking the analysis, and other factors. Also the problem solving model helps the public budget person relate budgeting, management-by-objectives, progress reporting, accounting, auditing, and program evaluation. • Non of the models by themselves is adequate. The problem-solving and the incremental change models help the bureaucrat to understand the role of program and budget analysis in the budget-making process.

11. They can be significant, but there are some constraints in using them. The problem solving model helps the bureaucrat to understand the context in which intelligence, knowledge, and analytical techniques must be used. Together, the models meet the criteria. • The rational model, the theoretical basis for some budget reforms, can lead individuals to make false and naive expectations. That model ignores the political context and demands the impossible in terms of analysis.. This can encourage some individuals in the budget process to neglect timeliness, seek needlessly expensive data, search for needless alternatives, and quest for clarity in objectives which will not be forthcoming.

12. Garbage Can • Multiple streams in budgeting. Irene Rubin (2006, 2007) has adapted 'garbage can' theory for the setting of federal budgeting, which she interprets as reflecting the convergence of five streams: revenue (taxes, fees, tariffs, etc.), expenditure (what to spend on), process (who influences what to spend on), implementation/execution (how to administer), and balance (how to meet balance requirements). In what she labels "real-time budgeting," budget decisions are made in a non-linear manner, on the fly, in the context of pressures from any of the five streams or some combination converging at the moment. The multiplicity of streams creates a variety of dynamics. For instance, when actors fail to prevail in the expenditure stream they may seek to focus on restructuring the process stream. When decisions in the expenditure stream precede decisions in the revenue stream, they will be less stable. Etc. Similarly, Katherine Willoughby (Melkers and Willoughby, 1998, 2001, 2005; and Thurmaier and Willoughby, 2001) has analyzed budgeting in terms of "multiple rationalities," referencing Rubin's concept of "real-time budgeting" but arguing that performance budgeting would increase the flow of information in agenda-setting streams (she references the agenda-setting model of Kingdon, 1984).