Past and Future Budget Classics: A Research Agenda

• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/puar.12289
• Published date: 01 January 2015
• Date: 01 January 2015

75th Anniversary

Article

Irene Rubin writes on public budgeting

and f‌i nance and qualitative research

methods. Recent publications include

the seventh edition of The Politics

of Public Budgeting: Getting and

Spending, Borrowing and Balancing

and “The Executive Budget in the Federal

Government: The First Century and

Beyond” with Roy Meyers in Public

Administration Review.

E-mail: hearthealthy.rubin9@gmail.com

Past and Future Budget Classics: A Research Agenda 25

Public Administration Review,

Vol. 75, Iss. 1, pp. 25–35. © 2014 by

The American Society for Public Administration.

DOI: 10.1111/puar.12289.

Irene Rubin

Northern Illinois University

Editor’s Note: This essay, by budget expert and

past PAR Editor in Chief Irene Rubin, reviews

four budgeting classics that appeared in PAR

since 1940. The articles were among PAR’s

75 most influential articles (http://publicad-

ministrationreview.org) selected by the Editorial

Board in 2014. Rubin discusses why the four

articles were influential, what has changed since

they were published, and identifies a research

agenda for creating future budget classics.

JLP

Abstract:  is article summarizes the content of four

classic articles on budgeting that have appeared in

Public Administration Review, outlines some of the

major changes in budgeting that have occurred since

those authors wrote, and, based on those changes, of‌f ers a

research agenda for the next set of budget classics.

Four budgeting articles in Public Administration

Review (PAR) have been designated among the

most inf‌l uential 75 articles appearing in PAR’s

history.1  e four are Verne B. Lewis’s article “Toward

a  eory of Budgeting” (1952), Aaron Wildavsky’s

“ e Political Implications of Budget Reform”

(1961), Allen Schick’s “ e Road to PPB:  e Stages

of Budget Reform” (1966), and Charles H. Levine’s

“Organizational Decline and Cutback Management”

(1978).  ese essays have been passed from one

generation of public administrators, both scholars and

practitioners, to the next.

 ese four essays framed much of the research for

decades. Budgeting scholars (def‌i ned here as those

whose primary research interest is public budgeting)

debated whether budgetary decision making is more

rational, along the lines of Lewis’s ideas, or more

political, as Wildavsky argued. Authors discussed

Wildavsky’s incrementalist theory, providing evidence

pro and con (Bozeman and Straussman 1982; LeLoup

1978; Schick 1983; White 1994).  e debate was not

limited to the United States (Boyne, Ashworth, and

Powell 2000). Researchers continued to examine the

intent and relative successes of budget reforms and

to look at predominant budget orientation, as Schick

had done ( urmaier and Gosling 1997), and there

were many articles on cutback management, an area

emphasized by Levine (Behn 1985; Bozeman 2010;

McManus 2008).

Public budgeting has changed enormously since these

classics were written—the most recent of the four was

published in 1978. Other than the path laid down

by the budget classics, budget scholars have not had

much of a proactive agenda. Lacking an overarching

theory to point toward important topics, budgeters

have followed public sector issues as they arose.  e

result has been kaleidoscopic, with little follow-up on

past topics. With all of the changes that have occurred

since the last set of budget classics published in PAR,

it is time for new classics to guide research, pose new

questions, and of‌f er alternative explanations.

 is article describes the budget issues discussed in the

classic essays, summarizes some of the major changes

that have occurred in public budgeting since these

essays were published, and of‌f ers a research agenda

based on those changes.

Def‌i ning the Field: What Issues

Did the Classic Essays Address?

Verne Lewis addressed V. O. Key’s famous question,

“On what basis shall it be decided to allocate x dollars

to activity A instead of activity B?” (Key 1940, 1138).

His answer was normative: all the possibilities for

spending should be examined, and money should be

allocated where it can achieve the most of an agreed-

upon goal. Such a scheme requires extensive knowl-

edge of programs and the relationship between inputs,

outputs, and outcomes, as well as agreement on goals.

Aaron Wildavsky countered that reform along the lines

described by Lewis ignored politics. Society is not a

single entity with a single set of goals. Individuals and

groups want dif‌f erent things from the budget that have

Past and Future Budget Classics: A Research Agenda