Purpose – Budgeting is central in public organizations. From a research viewpoint, it is an extremely multifaceted and potentially rich field to investigate and develop. The changing institutional and socio-economic landscape, moreover, requires a profound reassessment of its roles and features in accounting studies. The purpose of this paper is to review the existing European literature on public budgeting, looking at how public administration, public management, and accounting contribute to current budgeting theories and practices and to advance a proposal on how they can individually and jointly contribute in the future. Design/methodology/approach – The authors collect and analyze all the papers on public budgeting in the European context that were published in all the issues of 15 major accounting and public-management journals since 1980. Findings – Budgeting has so far played a rather marginal role in European public management and accounting research. Among the existing papers, most focus on the Anglo-Saxon context, look at the intra-organizational aspects of budgeting, emphasize its managerial and allocative functions, either adopt an interpretive theoretical framework or make no explicit reference to theory, and rely on qualitative analyses. Public budgeting lies at the intersections between different disciplines and professions, but this multifacetedness has been largely neglected by the existing literature. These intersections thus offer significant opportunities for future research. Building on the distinction between the intra- and inter-organizational foci of budgeting, between its different functions (i.e. allocative, managerial, external accountability), and between the accounting and the public administration and management perspectives, the authors propose possible future research topics. Originality/value – Budgeting plays a central role in public organizations and is used to allocate a large share of national incomes. This paper explores the existing literature and puts forward some potentially fruitful avenues for future research.

No abstract

PurposeThe paper aims to offer a viewpoint on how governmental budgeting needs to be reconsidered after the COVID-19 outbreak.Design/methodology/approachBuilding on extant research, and drawing on the Italian context, the paper provides reflections on four interrelated aspects: (1) how budgeting and reporting processes and formats are being modified; (2) how budgeting may enhance governments' financial resilience; (3) how citizens are involved in the budgeting cycles and (4) how emergency responses may produce opportunities for corruption.FindingsTo tackle COVID-19 related challenges, budgeting, rebudgeting, reporting processes and formats need to be reconsidered and supported by the development of new competencies. Governments will need to put stronger emphasis on the anticipatory and coping roles of budgeting to reduce public organizations' exposure to shocks and support governmental resilience. The involvement of citizens has proven critical to face the pandemic and will become increasingly relevant due to the financial impacts of COVID-19 on future public service provision. Greater attention to the risks of increased corruption is also needed.Originality/valueDrawing lessons from one of the countries most hit by COVID-19, the paper offers a viewpoint on a timely topic of international relevance by looking in an integrated way at interrelated topics such as budgeting, rebudgeting, reporting, financial resilience, coproduction and corruption.

The literature on budgeting in the public sector has traditionally focused on the annual budgetary process. Much less attention has been paid to rebudgeting—that is, what governments do to revise and update their budgets during the fiscal year. Because of its potentially large impact on appropriations, rebudgeting seemingly deserves more attention than it has been granted so far. This article uses data from a sample of Italian municipalities to test hypotheses on the main drivers of budget revisions. According to the results, rebudgeting is strongly affected by the degree of incrementalism in the initial budgeting process, as well as by several internal and external determinants, such as political variables, organizational features, financial conditions, and the local socioeconomic environment.

The introduction of accrual accounting in Italian Local Governments has been mandated in a way that permits, and in fact encourages, a merely formal compliance. Local Governments must produce accrual‐based financial statements, but double‐entry bookkeeping is not mandatory, nor may traditional budgetary accounting be abandoned. Why, then, should they bother to introduce an integrated system of budgetary and accrual accounting? In this paper, we empirically investigate the determinants of Local Government's choices of accounting innovation. According to our results, ‘rational’ elements such as complexity, types of activities performed, presence of surpluses, and access to capital markets are seemingly unhelpful in explaining why a Local Government decides to introduce accrual accounting. What counts are ‘institutional’ and cultural explanations, such as the perceptions of CFOs and the North‐South divide.

Reforms of the public health-care sector have emphasised the role of management accounting (MA). However, there is little systematic evidence on its use and benefits. To fill this gap, we propose a contingency-based model which addresses three related issues, that is, whether: (i) MA use is influenced by contextual variables and MA design; (ii) top-management satisfaction with MA mediates the relationship between MA design and MA use; and (iii) financial performance is influenced by MA use. A questionnaire was mailed out to all Italian public health-care organisations. Structural equation modelling was performed to validate the research hypotheses. The response rate was 49%. Our findings suggest that: (i) cost-containment strategies encourage more sophisticated MA designs; (ii) MA use is directly and indirectly influenced by contingency, organisational, and behavioural variables; (iii) a weakly significant positive relationship exists between MA use and financial performance. These findings are relevant from the viewpoint of both top managers and policymakers. The former must make sure that MA is not only technically advanced, but also properly understood and appreciated by users. The latter need to be aware that MA may improve performance in ways and along dimensions that may not fully translate into better financial results.

In the last decade, the Italian National Health Service has been characterized by the introduction of managerial concepts and techniques, according to the New Public Management paradigm. Recently, these reforms have been increasingly criticized. This article examines the implementation of managerialism in an attempt to evaluate its overall achievements and shortcomings. Overall, managerialism seems to have made good progress: managerial skills are improving; several management tools have been adapted to health-care and public-sector peculiarities; health-care organizations have adopted a wide range of technical solutions to fit their specific needs. At the same time, managerial innovations have often focused on structures as opposed to processes, on the way the organization looks as opposed to the way it works, on the tools it has as opposed to those it actually needs and uses. We thus suggest that research, training and policy-making should stop focusing on the technical features and theoretical virtues of specific tools and should redirect their emphasis on change management.

In the 1990s, the Italian National Health Service (INHS) experienced a major reform introducing regionalization, quasi-markets and managerialism. The combination of quasi-markets and regionalization has produced an interesting scenario: 21 Regional Governments designing their own organizational and funding models to achieve the desired combination of equity, efficiency, freedom of choice and cost containment. This paper reports the results of a research project carried out in 1998-99 to identify such models, verify their actual states of implementation and analyse the resulting incentives for individual health-care organizations. Overall, most Regions have designed their models according to the 'LHU-centred' template, under which most public hospitals remain under Local Health Unit (LHU) control, LHUs are funded by their Regions on a capitation basis and each LHU is expected to reimburse other LHUs, Independent INHS Hospitals (IHs) and accredited private providers for services supplied to its residents. Reimbursements are activity-based according to Regional fee schedules. The major exception is Lombardy, Italy's largest and wealthiest Region, which has formally opted for the 'purchaser-provider split' template, with LHUs acting mostly as purchasers while IHs and accredited private professionals and organizations act as providers. In practice, however, many Regions still show significant features of the traditional cost-reimbursement system.