SPAEF

ON THE LACK OF A BUDGET THEORY

Author(s): BARBARA L. NEUBY
Source: Public Administration Quarterly, Vol. 21, No. 2 (SUMMER, 1997), pp. 131-142
Published by: SPAEF
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/40861705 .
Accessed: 14/06/2014 16:42

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

SPAEF is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Public Administration
Quarterly.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 185.2.32.46 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 16:42:44 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
ON THE LACK OF A BUDGET THEORY
BARBARAL. NEUBY
StateUniversity
ofWestGeorgia
ABSTRACT
Theoriesof behaviorexistin most subfieldsof politicalscience
yet,afterseventyyearsof research,thereis stillno theoryofbudget-
ing.Lack of consensuson theproperfocusapproachto and statusof
budgetingtheory as well as disagreement on a basic definition
of the
concept have militated
the conceptualdiscourseand iterativedebate
necessaryto develop theory.The degree of effortrequired and
rewardsof theorydevelopment also retardtheoryformation. Conse-
quently,progressin budgetformation, administration,and politics
has notadvancedas it mightiftheorywereavailableto examineand
explainbudgetprocesses.

INTRODUCTION
Theories are foundin nearlyeverysubfieldof politicalscience
and publicadministration, yetbudgeting,as an integralpartof both
or perhapsa subfieldin itsownright,is basicallydevoidof theoreti-
cal guidance.A comprehensivesearch of the literatureof the past
seventyyearsshows thatthe bulk of articlesdo not deal withthe
topicat all or onlymentionit in passing.Dozens of worksdescribe
one or more aspectsof a particularcity'sbudgetprocess,but very,
veryfewdiscusstheory.
Noted authorsand expertsin the field of budgetinghave ob-
servedthislack of theory.As earlyas 1926, Seligman stated that
fiscaltheoryand practicehas not been explainednor connectedin
anyclear,detailedfashion.V.O. Key (1940), in whatis perhapsthe
mostpopularand mostoftenquoted articleon the subject,reiterat-
ed thegenerallack of theory.More recentauthorsand practitioners
follow suit (Thurmaier, 1941; Rubin, 1990; Bretschneider and
Straussman, 1988;Schick,1988;Wildavsky, 1988,1975; Caiden, 1985;
Premchand,1983;White,1985;Wanat,1974).
Caiden (1985:501)summarizesthestatusof theoreticalefforts by
stating,"The interacting
aspectsof publicbudgetingand the uneasy

This content downloaded from 185.2.32.46 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 16:42:44 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
(132) PAQ SUMMER 1997

tensionbetween empiricalandnormative concerns precludea single

of
theory budgeting." Schick notes
(1988:59) that theory if
is "difficult
notimpossible"andPremchand while
(1983:40), attempting to deal
withtheory, stillfeelsthereis no overarching paradigm.White
concludes
(1985:624) with, "In short, is
budgeting nearlyeverything
andfarmorethananyonecan comprehend ... These multipleand
conflicting
purposes make action if
difficultnot impossible."Litera-
turerevolvesarounddiscussionsof the conceptsand aspectsof
budgeting,theapproachtheory shouldtake,and thestatusofthe
theoretical
effort.

CONCEPTS AND ASPECTS OF BUDGETING

Withpreviousdisclaimers in mind,whyis thereno commonly

accepted and debated of
theory budgeting? Implicitin theliterary
debateareseveralfactors inhibiting
theory development. Thereis no
consensus as to whatbudgetingactuallyis,whether it is a political,
economic orsocialprocess.Thereis no agreement on thescopeofa
budgettheory, no agreement uponthedominant methodsor tech-
of
niques budgeting, disagreement about the approacha budget
theory should take,and no agreement about thestatusof theory
itself.

Process

Thereis no agreement onthe"type" ofprocessbudgetingis. The

is filledwithreferences
literature to a political
process(Thurmaier,
1995;Bretschneider and Straussman, 1993; Rubin,1990) or an
economicprocess(Axlerod,1995;Wildavsky, 1992,1988, 1975;
Pigou,1947).Schick(1988) and Seligman(1926) havenotedthat
budgetingencompasses so muchthatithasbecomea socialprocess.
Key (1940) believesthat budgeting equals a full-blowntheoryof
a
government,supremely and
politicalprocess Wildavsky followed
suitin his spiritedThePoliticsof theBudgeting
Process(1992, 1988).
Pigou'seconomicrationalestatesthatbudgeting is based on an
of
equalization themarginal of
utility resources(in Key,1940:1137)
and mostof the otherauthorsgivesome attention to economic
factors.
Anthony Downs (1957:71)combines the two approaches
whenhe states"budgetdecisionsresultfromthecalculation ofwhich
willgainthemostvotes"whileRubin(1990) notesthat
alternative
budgetingis a cooptedfield.Schick(1988) and Premchand (1983)

This content downloaded from 185.2.32.46 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 16:42:44 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
FAQ SUMMER 1997 (133)

feelbudgeting crossroads.
is at a disciplinary
The generalfocusis on the allocationof resourcesbut thereis
no agreementon whetherthatis primarilya politicalor economic
function.Effectivecommunication necessaryfor theorybuildingis
limitedwhentheorists viewthetopicwithinan exclusiveframework.
Feedback in successive iterations,usually necessaryto promote
conceptualconsensus,therefore is slowin coming,ifat all.

Scope of Theory

Anotheraspect of the budget debate centerson the scope of

theoryand thenumberof actorsto be includedin theory.Many and
varied are the functionsof government.Whetherclassified as a
strictlypoliticalor economicprocess,budgetingdeals withmanyof
these functionsand operations.The literatureis filledwithworks
describingmulti-year planning,"topdown"and "bottomup" budget-
ing,socially-responsive budgeting,fiscalpolicymaking,conflictreso-
lution, uncontrollableand deficitreduction, to name buta fewof the
proper functionsof budgeting(Axlerod,1995; Schick,1995; Thur-
maier,1995;Rubin,1990;LeLoup, 1988;Pitsvadaand Draper, 1984;
Premchand,1983;Crecine,1969).
Otheracceptedbudgetfunctions includeoversight and controlof
agencies, prioritydetermination,accounting management, and
budgetingis considered as an arena for settlingpolitical power
struggles(Axlerod,1995;Thurmaier,1995;Schuman,1984). Wildav-
sky(1992, 1988) notes thatbudgetingmustprovidecontinuityfor
planning,flexibility to respondto crises,rigidityto controlspending,
and opennessforaccountability. The scope of budgetingfunctions
seemstremendously broad.
The range of eligible actors has broadened as well to include
nearlyeverybureaucratand interestgroupunderthe sun (Axlerod,
1995; Rubin, 1990; Caiden, 1985; Sokolow and Honadle, 1984;
Premchand,1983; Crecine,1969; Downs, 1957). The generalpublic
is also implicitlyincludedin broad discussionsof priority settingand
resourceallocation(Crecine,1969). Budgetingat all threelevels of
government is no longermonopolizedby a fewelectedofficialsand
agency officialsas an infinitevarietyof actors triesto pass go and
collecttheirtwohundreddollars.The multiplicity of actorsand the
assumed macro-boundaries of budgetinglessen the likelihoodof a
singletheoretical response( Caiden,1985).

This content downloaded from 185.2.32.46 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 16:42:44 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
(134) FAQ SUMMER 1997

Methodsand Techniques

What techniquesare actuallyused in budgetingand do they

structure the processdefinitively? No agreementhas been reached
abouttheproperroleofincrementalism butit remainsthedominant
budgetingmethodenjoyingthe most,sometimesheated, debate.
Manyhave pointedout incrementalism's shortcomings as a "theory"
of budgetingand have offeredsituational-specific alternativesto
escape its dominance.Wildavsky(1992, 1988), Lewis (1988), and
Lindblom(1965) formthemaincampholdingfastto incrementalism
as theoryas theybelievethe processdominatesreality.The process
of changingthe base slightlyincorporatesLindblom's decision-
makingof piecemeal, mutualadjustmentwhichallows parties to
cooperatewithintheconflictual processof debatinggoals and values
(Wildavsky, 1992,1988;Braybrookeand Lindblom,1965).
Davis, Dempster,and Wildavsky (1966) also use mathematicsto
demonstrate how incrementalism operatesin thebudgetaryprocess.
Pitsvada and Draper (1984) believe the process is the dominant
methodbecause the practicesof indexing,multi-yearbudgeting,
continuing resolutions, and preparationof currentbudgetsgenerally
begin with some established base. Budgettextbooks(Axelrod,1995,
1988;Lynch,1990; Lee and Johnson,1989) and numerousarticlesall
emphasize the concept budgetary"base"as a startingpointfrom
of
whichincrementsare added to or subtractedfrom.Agencies use
theirprecedingyear'sbudgets.
Incrementalism is supportedby a commonsense view thatthe
budget reflects
societal wantswhichdo notchangedramatically from
to
year year(Kamlet and Mowery,1980). Lewis (1988) furthernotes
thatrecentbudgetaryreformssuch as Zero-Based Budgetingand
PlanningProgramming and Performance budgetinghave not altered
theuse of a base figureand increments.
Slidingdownthe scale of acceptance,Schick (1988) and others
criticizeincrementalism as a sometimes-useful methodbut believe
thebroaderbudgetary scope, withthe advent of uncontrollables,off-
budgetspending, automatic deficitreduction,and other mechanisms
lessen the technique'simportance(Bretschneiderand Straussman,
1988; Gist, 1977; Wanat, 1974). Castingaside incrementalismas a
theoreticalconstructentirelyare Rubin (1990), LeLoup (1988),
Bozeman and Straussman(1982), and Gist (1977). LeLoup points
out thatincrementalism declinedin the 1970sas the theoreticalshift
frommicroto macro-levelprocessesbegan. Rubin (1988) declared

This content downloaded from 185.2.32.46 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 16:42:44 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
PAQ SUMMER 1997 (135)

thatthe processwas "dead"because it was too "global."Criticizing

incrementalismas being overlydeterministic,Rubin (1990) and
Schick(1990) believethat,as an explanatorymodel,it did not de-
scribethe processwell. Notingthata budgetarybase is not always
defined,Bozeman and Straussman(1982) and Gist (1977) strikeat
theheartofincrementalism theory.

StatusofEfforts

Also lackingis a consensuson the statusof theoreticalefforts.

Views alternatebetweenthosestatingtheoryhas notkeptpace with
eventsand thosebelievingit has. Much of therecentworkdescribed
one or more situationally-specificaspects of a budget process
promotingsame as "theory."Straussman(1985:345) notes much
attentionto normativetheoryand Magner and Johnson(1995:452)
assertthattheirparticularmunicipalfindingsare "consistentwith
theory."LeLoup (1988) assertsthattheoryhas, generally,kept up
withthe timesand Rubin (1989:80) agreesby stating"recenttheory
is expandingits scope to includepoliticsof revenues,decisionproc-
esses,balancedbudgetattempts, and budgetimplementation." Rubin
laterqualifiesthebeliefbystating"weneed moredescriptive theory"
and in thesame workalso saysthatbudgetingis so complexthatno
simpletheorywillbe adequate.

Bozeman and Straussman(1982), Schick (1988), and Wanat

(1974) all believe that events have outpaced theory.Wildavsky
(1988), althoughthe fatherof incrementalism as the predominant
method, realizes thatthereis no current
theory.Premchand(1983)
mirrorsthisapproachby sayingthat,despitehistoricalaccountsof
budgetingin all societies, recentliteraturehas still produced no
overalltheory.

Reviewingthe literature,it appears thatthereis no consensus

amongtheoriesfromdifferent disciplinesas to an acceptable,opera-
tionalconceptof budgeting,on the statusof budgetingas a singular
field,on howbroad thetheory'sfocusshouldbe, whatfunctionsare
includedor whichactorsplaya role,and on the statusof effortsto
developtheory.Whileincrementalism remainsthedominantmethod
discussedin budgetingcircles,thereis muchdiversity as to its suit-
ability.

This content downloaded from 185.2.32.46 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 16:42:44 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
(136) FAQ SUMMER 1997

AN INCONSISTENT APPROACH

The lackofconsensusinbudgeting conceptsspillsoverintoa

bipolarsplitas to theproperapproach to theoretical efforts.On the
one hand,a suitableapproachmustbe positive and empirical, and
on theotherhand,itis claimedthatbudgettheory mustbe norma-
tive to be explanatory.Normativetheoristsstress the all-
encompassing natureof budgeting, believingthatbudgettheory
shouldincorporate andexplain interaction
between publicwantsand
allocationof resources in termsof acceptednorms(Bretschneider
andStraussman, 1988:305; LeLoup,1988;Wildavsky, 1988;Crecine,
1969;Musgrave, 1959). For Wildavsky(1975), theory mustrelateto
thevaluesofthosebudgeting. Key(1940) feltthat budgeting would
approximate a whole of
theory government-a supremely normative
process.
Rubincalledformoredescriptive theory and criticizes Wildav-
sky's and Lindblom's incrementalism because it promotes reliance
onnorms. SchickandCrecinetaketheonlyknown, published empir-
ical and positiveapproachbysearching forelementsbasic to the
generic budgeting process.
Problems are inherent in eachapproach.Without consensuson
operationalconcepts, empirical is ifnot
theory difficult, impossible,
to test(Schick,1988).Based on varying notionsofwhatbudgeting
"shouldbe"or "should explain,"anynormative theory is also impos-
sibleto prove.The factthattheoretical "efforts" are dividedalong
thesetwoapproaches further militates
unifiedtheory.
ESSENCE OF THE DEBATE

A distillation
oftheliterature producesa framework forfurther
research.
Among scholars there is no agreement on whether budget
processesare political,
economicor evensocial;thereis no agree-
menton whatfunctions are included in theprocessor on theposi-
tionofactors;onmethod ortechniques; onwhether is
budgettheory
or shouldbe normative or empirical. Lastbutnotleast,thereis no
agreement on thestatusof theoretical efforts.Rubin(1990) and
LeLoup (1988) assertthat theory keptpace witheventsbut
has
neithersayswhatthattheoryis. The literature revolvesaround
and
quasi-normative situationally-specific Fromsuchone
studies.
can onlynotethatbudgeting is a "process" ofallocatingresources
amongconflicting claims, involving many factorsand participants.

This content downloaded from 185.2.32.46 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 16:42:44 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
PAQ SUMMER 1997 (137)

Thatis all theliteratureaffords. It is notenough.

Expositionof budgetaryaspects is not theory.Social science is
criticizedfornotbeingscientific, forderivingspurious,untestable
hypothesesfrombiased data. Physicalscienceis consideredscience
because it investigatesrelationshipbetween forcesand bodies in
theirmostelementallevel.It is positiveand empirical,not norma-
tive.Because of itspositiveapproach,it is perceivedas legitimateby
itspractitionersand bysociety.Social science strugglesto achieve
this status,in part,by attemptinga positiveapproach in a social
worldfullof vague operationalconceptsand difficultto measure
variables.
Budgetingoccursin everysociety,therefore discernibleelements
mustexist.As a social scienceeffort, ifbudgetscholarswantto get
on thescientificbandwagon,fostertheirownlegitimacy and become
an
useful, empirical, core of
concept budgeting must be developed
thatdescribesthe process,its elements,and predictschange.Theo-
ristshaveto stopbeatingaroundthebudgetbush.
Scholars ignorethe basic concept of "budgetness"and instead
describeand debatethevariousaspectsof a processwhose elements
theycannoteven agree upon. Premchand(1983) noted thatthere
was no settledbodyof knowledge.Whereis thesearchforcommon,
identifiableelementsof the process? Budgetingoccurs in every
society,therefore discernibleelementsmustexist.
The workofSchickand earlierworkof Crecine(1969) represent
such a searchforbasic, root elements.Schick(1988, 1990:206) be-
lieveswe mustbeginby identifying the smallestactionsthatconsti-
tutebudgeting.His studiesinducehimto offer"claiming" and "allo-
catingresource"as twobasic elementsof everybudgetprocess.His
studiesshowthattheseelementsare subjectto rulesand procedures
which,ifuncovered,can predictchange.
Crecine(1969) reiteratestheneed foran atomistictheorystating
thattheorybased on normscan neverbe provensince normscannot
be testedand are politicalquestions.Normsalso varyacross socie-
ties and over time. To build a useful,testable theoryit must be
applicableto all societies.This is a tremendoustask.
Is empirical,scientifictheoryimpossibleto develop and test?
Whickeret al (1993) note thatthe entirefieldsof politicalscience
and publicadministration are notveryamenableto laboratoryexper-
imentationin an environmentof shiftinghuman phenomena and
fluidsocial relationships.The scholarsnote onlyrecentmathemati-
cal groundingin these two social science fields.The excuse that

This content downloaded from 185.2.32.46 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 16:42:44 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
(138) PAQ SUMMER 1997

budgetingis too broada topicin whichto buildtheorydoes notwash

as theoriesof grandertopics,i.e.,thecosmos,etc.,existwithmathe-
maticalmodels in tandem.Or are budgetingscholarsincapable of
the inductive/deductive theoreticaldisciplinesnecessaryto tackle a
topic subordinate to the cosmos?
Where are the regressionanalyses,the posit/logicstudies,the
factoranalysesof commonbudgetary elements?In seventyyearsof
study there have been very few testable hypothesesreportedin the
literature.Cyertand March (1963) suggestedthat there may be
heuristicrulesforcomplexbudgetdecisions,butdid nottestthemin
real-lifesituations.Sacks and Helmuth (1961) performedone of
threeregressionanalysesfoundin the literaturethatlinkedbudget
outcomesto population,community wealth,and service demand.
Their model explainedbetweenten and eightypercentof the vari-
ance. Theystoppedtheirefforts at thispoint.
and
Davis, Dempster, Wildavsky (1966) attemptedthebehemoth
task of explainingcongressionalbudgetingusing linear regression,
demonstratingthe prominentposition of incrementalism.Their
findingsdo not constitutea generalizabletheory.Crecine's (1969)
book, Governmental ProblemSolving,remainsthe onlymajor work
knownapplyinga testableset of hypotheses withreal municipaldata
to them.Crecineteststhe Davis, Dempster,and Wildavskymodel
usingdata fromCleveland,Detroit,and Pittsburgh. Crecine'sregres-
sion models testthe theorythatbudgetdecisions are made using
historicalprecedents,simple fiscaldecision rules, incrementalism,
and satisfycing techniques.
He assumes a restrictiverevenueenvironment, stable govern-
mentalstructure, staffingcontinuity, and a stable community power
network.He devotes250 pages to explainingmodel characteristics
and questionsof validity and providesdescriptions of computersub-
routinesused. Crecine foundthata hierarchyof budgetingrules
does existand becomessimpleras problemcomplexity increases.He
also foundthat last year's budget providesthe base fromwhich
decisions are made but thatexternalpolitical constraintsare not
controlling.Revenuesare theprimary externallimitationas munici-
is
pal budgeting mainly an internalprocess.He provides78 pages of
appendices of all data used.
Crecine'sworkis notperfectbut it remainsthe primaryworkof
testedbudgetingtheoryand providesa frameworkaround which
more mightbe done. Crecine devotedseveral years of effortto a
workof thatmagnitude.Scholars could use and expand upon his

This content downloaded from 185.2.32.46 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 16:42:44 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
FAQ SUMMER 1997 (139)

approach. Theorydevelopmentis time consuming,requiringpa-

tience.Budgetingis a humanprocesssubjectto an infinite varietyof
potentially and
irrational arbitrarydecisions,
making theory difficult.
Giventhenormative, and atheoreticalnatureof most
descriptive,
budgetingarticles,it appearsthatscholarshipneed not be scientific.
The tenure-producing capital that accrues froma Crecine-style
effortis apparentlyan insufficient drawingcard to warrantsuch an
effort.Justas muchcapitaland academiclegitimacyflowfromthe
normative, essaysthatdiscussthe situationin the cityof
descriptive
Bumpsville. in
Interest and rewardsfortheorydevelopmentmaynot
exist.Withoutthe search forroot elementsof the budget process
and the iterativedebate thattypically accompaniestheorydevelop-
ment,theorywillnotbe produced.So what?
Theories in othergovernmentaldisciplinessuch as personnel
managementand organizational behaviorexplainhumanmotivation
and agencypractices,as examples.Practicalappliedtheoryhas shed
a whole new lighton public personnelmattersand organizational
practiceresultingin greaterunderstanding and positivechange in
thoserealms.
If we could understandbudgeting'sroot elementsand interac-
tionsas well as we claim to understandpersonnelmotivationand
bureaucraticprocedures,mightwe not be on our way to better
budgeting?If theaveragebudgetprocessbecame even slightly more
less and
streamlined, rancorous, divisive, theoretical would
efforts be
worththeirweightin gold. New informationmightfosterbetter
training.How manygovernmentsmightbenefitfromthese new
insights?Perhapsbudgetingis so miredin politics not even usable
theorycan shakeit loose to offerpracticalguidance.Untilscholarly
disensus becomes consensus and combined theoreticaleffortis
begun withsuitable rewards,we, as scholars,budgeters,and gov-
ernmentswill, as Lindblom (1965) says, continue to "muddle
through."

REFERENCES
Axelrod,Donald (1995). BUDGETING FOR MODERN GOVERNMENT. New
York: St. Martin'sPress.
(1988). BUDGETING FOR MODERN GOVERNMENT. New York: St.
Martin'sPress.
Bozeman, Barryand Jeffery D. Straussman(1982). "ShrinkingBudgets and the
Shrinking Budget Theory." PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION
of REVIEW 42

This content downloaded from 185.2.32.46 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 16:42:44 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
(140) FAQ SUMMER 1997

(November-December):509-515.
Braybrooke,David and Charles E. Lindblom (1963). A STRATEGY OF DECI-
SION MAKING. New York: Free Press.
Bretschneider,Stuart,JefferyD. Straussman,and Daniel Mullins (1988). "Do
Revenues ForecastEffectiveBudgetSetting?"POLICY SCIENCES 21 (Novem-
ber-December):305-325.
Caiden, Naomi (1969). The Boundariesof Public Budgeting."PUBLIC ADMINIS-
TRATION REVIEW 45 (July/August):495-501.
Crecine, John(1969). GOVERNMENT PROBLEM SOLVING. Chicago: Rand
McNally.
Cyert,RichardM. and JamesG. March (1963). A BEHAVIORAL THEORY OF
THE FIRM. New York: Prentice-Hall.
Davis, Otto H., M.A. H. Dempster,and Aaron Wildavsky(1966). "A Theoryof the
Budget Process." AMERICAN POLITICAL SCIENCE REVIEW 60
(September):529-547.
Downs, Anthony(1957). AN ECONOMIC THEORY OF DEMOCRACY. New
York: Harperand Row.
Gist, JohnR. (1977). "'Increment'and 'Base' in the CongressionalAppropriations
Process."AMERICAN JOURNAL OF POLITICAL SCIENCE 21 (May):341-352.
Kamlet, Mark S. and David C. Mowery(1980). "The BudgetaryBase in Federal
Resource Allocations."AMERICAN JOURNAL OF POLITICAL SCIENCE 24
(November):814-820.
Key,VladimerO. (1940). "The Lack of a BudgetaryTheory."AMERICAN POLIT-
ICAL SCIENCE REVIEW 34 (December):1137-1144.
Lee, Robert D., Jr. (1991). "Developments in State Budgeting Trends in Two
Decades." PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION REVIEW 51 (May/June):254-262.
Lee, Robert,Jr.and Ronald W. Johnson(1989). PUBLIC BUDGETING SYS-
TEMS. Rockville,MD: Aspen.
LeLoup, Lance (1988). "From Micro-Budgeting to Macro-BudgetingEvolution in
Theoryand in
Practice," Irene Rubin (ed.). NEW DIRECTIONS IN BUDGET-
ING THEORY. Albany:State University of NewYork Press.
Lewis,Carol (1994). "BudgetaryBalance: The Norm,Conceptand Practicein Large
U.S. Cities."PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION REVIEW 54 (November/December):
515-523.
Lewis, Verne (1988). "Reflectionson Budget Systems."PUBLIC BUDGETING
AND FINANCE 8 (Spring):4-19.
(1952). "Toward a Theory of Budgeting."PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION
REVIEW 12 (Winter):42-54.
Lindblom, Charles E. (1965). THE INTELLIGENCE OF DEMOCRACY. New
York: Free Press.
Lynch,Thomas D. (1990). PUBLIC BUDGETING IN AMERICA. New York:

This content downloaded from 185.2.32.46 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 16:42:44 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
FAQ SUMMER 1997 (141)

Prentice-Hall.
Magner, Nace and Gary G. Johnson (1995). "Municipal Official's
Reaction to Justice in Budgetary Resource Allocation." PUBLIC
ADMINISTRATION QUARTERLY 18 (Winter):439^56.
Miller,RichardA. (1987). FACT AND METHOD. Princeton:PrincetonUniversity
Press.
Musgrave,RichardA. (1959). A THEORY OF PUBLIC FINANCE. New York:
McGraw-Hill.
Pigou,ArthurC. (1947). A STUDY IN PUBLIC FINANCE. London: MacMillan.
Pitsvada, Bernard and Frank D. Draper (1984). "Making Sense of the Federal
PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION
Budget the Old-FashionedWay-Incrementally."
REVIEW 44 (September/October):40M06.
Premchand,Aaron (1983). GOVERNMENT BUDGETING AND EXPENDI-
TURE CONTROL: THEORY AND PRACTICE. Washington,D.C.: Interna-
tionalMonetaryFund.
Rubin,Irene (1990). "BudgetReformin St. Louis: WhyDoes BudgetingChange?"
PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION REVIEW 50 (July/August):420-426.
(1990). "Budget Theory and Practice: How Good the Fit?" PUBLIC
ADMINISTRATION REVIEW 50 (March/April):
179-189.
(1990). THE POLITICS OF PUBLIC BUDGETING. Chatham,NJ: Cha-
thamHouse.
(1989). "Aaron Wildavskyand the Demise of Incrementalism."PUBLIC
ADMINISTRATION REVIEW 49 (January/February):78-82.
(1988). NEW DIRECTIONS IN BUDGETARY THEORY. Albany, NY:
State Universityof New York Press.
Sacks,Seymourand WilliamF. Helmuth(1961). FINANCING GOVERNMENT IN
A METRO AREA. New York: Free Press.
Schick,Allen (1990). THE CAPACITY TO BUDGET. Washington,D.C.: Urban
InstitutePress.
(1988). "Inquiryinto the Possibilityof BudgetingTheory,"in Irene Rubin
(ed.). NEW DIRECTIONS IN BUDGETARY THEORY. Albany, NY: State
University of New York.
Schuman, Howard E. (1988). POLITICS AND THE BUDGET: THE STRUGGLE
BETWEEN THE PRESIDENT AND CONGRESS. EnglewoodCliffs,NJ: Pren-
tice-Hall.
Seligman,Edwin ΚΛ. (1926). "The Social Theoryof Fiscal Science." POLITICAL
SCIENCE QUARTERLY 41 (September):354-387.
Simon, HerbertA. (1965). ADMINISTRATIVE BEHAVIOR. New York: Free
Press.
Sokolow,Alvin D. and Beth W. Honadle (1984). "How Rural Local Governments
Budget: Alternativesto ExecutivePreparation."PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION

This content downloaded from 185.2.32.46 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 16:42:44 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
(142) FAQ SUMMER 1997

REVIEW 44 (September/October):373-383.
D. (1985). "V.O. Key's The Lack of a BudgetaryTheory'--
Straussman,Jeffery
WhereAre We Now?" INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PUBLIC ADMINIS-
TRATION 7(4):345-374.
Thurmaier,Kurt(1995). "DecisiveDecision Makingin the ExecutiveBudget Proc-
ess: Analyzingthe Politicaland Economic Propertiesof CentralBudget Bureau
Analysts." PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION REVIEW 55 (September/Octo-
ber)^^).
Wanat,John(1974). "Bases of BudgetaryIncrementalism." AMERICAN POLITI-
CAL SCIENCE REVIEW 68 (September):1221-1228.
Whicker,Marsha L, RuthAnnStrickland,and DorothyOlshfski(1993). "The Trou-
and PoliticalScience."PUBLIC ADMINIS-
blesome Cleft:PublicAdministration
TRATION REVIEW 53 (November/December):531-541.
White,Joe (1985). "MuchAdo about Everything-Making Sense of Federal Budget-
ing."PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION REVIEW 45 (September/October):623-630.
Wildavsky, Aaron (1992). THE NEW POLITICS OF THE BUDGETARY
PROCESS. Glenview,IL: Scott,Foresman.
(1988). POLITICS OF THE BUDGETARY PROCESS. Glenview,IL: Scott,
Foresman.
(1975). A COMPARATIVE THEORY OF BUDGETARY PROCESSES.
Boston: Little,Brown.

This content downloaded from 185.2.32.46 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 16:42:44 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions