No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Preparation of the Local Budget
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 02 September 2013
Extract
The old saws, “money makes the mare go” and “he who pays the piper calls the tune,” make for awareness of the central importance of budgeting in government. While these expressions indicate the possibility of a measure of general understanding of public budgeting, they also are indicative of the ease with which superficiality and misconceptions may develop in this field. A public budget, one authority has rightly declared “… is not what most people conceive it to be. It is not figures about sums of money to be set aside for definite expenditures, nor is it a series of graphic charts, nor multitudes of sheets indicating limits not to be exceeded.” While columns of figures, forms and procedures, and preparation of the budget document are important budget activities, they are only incidental to the basic functions of budgeting, which are to aid the executive in his job of management and to help simplify the task of the legislative body in determining policy. To carry out these two functions properly, the whole governmental organization, indeed, the citizenry, too, must be involved in budgeting.
The budget is a psychological device to make people in an administrative organization think and, as will be explained more fully, to make the people themselves think about their government. Budget reformers, hard at work in this worthy cause since the model municipal corporation act of 1899 was drafted, have emphasized the executive's rôle in budgeting: “it shall be the duty of the Mayor … in each year to submit to the Council the annual budget …” The tendency has been for the executive and his budget officer, commonly the controller, to work up a budget and then impose it, with councilmanic consent, on the administration.
- Type
- American Government and Politics
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © American Political Science Association 1946
References
1 Sweester, Frank B., “Essentials in Budgeting,” Handbook of Business Administration, p. 1536.Google Scholar
2 Stone, Donald C., “In Defense of the Budget,” Toward Better Budgeting, p. 16.Google Scholar Papers presented at the Twenty-Ninth and Thirtieth Conferences of the Governmental Research Association, held at Princeton, New Jersey, Sept., 1940, and Sept., 1941.
3 Sweester, op. cit.
4 Encyclopaedia of the Social Sciences, III–IV, p. 41.
5 Gill, Norman N., “Big City Budget Methods,” National Municipal Review, Vol. 32 (June, 1943), pp. 291–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6 Dimock, Marshall E., The Executive in Action, p. 133.Google Scholar
7 Smith, Harold D., “The Budget as an Instrument of Legislative Control and Executive Management,” Public Administration Review, Vol. 4 (Summer, 1944), p. 182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
8 Key, V. O., “The Lack of Budgetary Theory,” in this Review, Vol. 34 (Dec., 1940), p. 1137 ff.Google Scholar
9 Fiscal Aspects of Metropolitan Consolidation (Berkeley, 1943), p. 54.
10 Some city managers have pointed out that the preliminary hearing is unnecessary, for throughout the year they are picking up manifestations of citizen opinion on services through registered complaints and otherwise. In a measure this is true, but it does not result in an over-all and balanced consideration of expenditures in relation to services, which is the need.
11 “Kansas City Goes A-Polling,” National Municipal Review, Vol. 32, p. 16. See also Cahalan, Don, Public Opinion on City's Budget Planning (Civic Research Institute, Kansas City, 1943).Google Scholar
12 Kneedler, Grace M., “Economic Classification of Cities,” Municipal Year Book, 1945, pp. 30–68.Google Scholar
13 U. S. Treasury Department Committee on Intergovernmental Fiscal Relations, Federal, State, and Local Government Fiscal Relations… 78th Cong., 1st Sess., Sen. Doc. 69
14 Buck, A. E., “Budgetary Reconstruction from the Citizens' Standpoint,” Toward Better Budgeting, p. 22.Google Scholar
15 Democracy Trains Its Microscope on Government in Blue Earth County, Minnesota.
16 The statement made by Robert H. Rawson in 1941 that in the development of objective criteria upon which to analyze expenditure requests the federal government is far behind local government is probably still true. See his “Formulation of the Federal Budget,” Public Policy, Vol. 2, pp. 112–113.
17 Simon, Herbert A., “Recent Progresa in Measuring City Activities,” Public Management, Vol. 25, pp. 255–261Google Scholar; Ridley, C. E. and Simon, Herbert A., Measuring Municipal Activities (Chicago, International City Managers' Association, 1941).Google Scholar
18 Levitan, David, “The Employee and the Government,” Journal of Politics, Vol. 7 (Aug., 1945), pp. 302 ff.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
19 Work Simplification, Publication 91, Public Administration Service.
Comments
No Comments have been published for this article.