The reporting of performance measures and standards in budgeting is expected to strengthen the accountability of results, at the same time lessening the need for compliance with burdensome rules and regulations. Reduction in rules and red tape is anticipated to provide greater discretion, allowing administrators to better utilize their expertise in budget decisions. However, does this in fact happen? Is there is evidence that performance budget reform increases administrative discretion? This book examines that question by testing the fit between reform expectations and reform outcomes as viewed by practitioners. It argues that performance budget reform will not realize change as predicted by its advocates, because this theory of reform does not sufficiently consider the organizational realities of public administrators today; that is, an environment characterized by multiple and often conflicting accountability claims.

The reporting of performance measures and standards in budgeting is expected to strengthen the accountability of results, at the same time lessening the need for compliance with burdensome rules and regulations. Reduction in rules and red tape is anticipated to provide greater discretion, allowing administrators to better utilize their expertise in budget decisions. However, does this in fact happen? Is there is evidence that performance budget reform increases administrative discretion? This book examines that question by testing the fit between reform expectations and reform outcomes as viewed by practitioners. It argues that performance budget reform will not realize change as predicted by its advocates, because this theory of reform does not sufficiently consider the organizational realities of public administrators today; that is, an environment characterized by multiple and often conflicting accountability claims.