Attention, Inertia, and Equity in the Social Security Program

True, James L.

doi:10.1093/oxfordjournals.jpart.a024423

Cited by 15 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 17 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The results presented here demonstrate that there are various elements of the rational, incremental, and garbage can in the process. Possibly, the idea of mixed scanning (Etzioni, 1967) or a punctuated equilibria model (Baumgartner et al, 1998;and True, 1999) might have relevance to a future research agenda on state budgetary decision-making. A more fruitful research path might systematically consider many different types of models, rather than exclusively focusing on each one singly, perhaps examining a hybrid form of budgeting.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Testing Rival Theories of Budgetary Decision–making in the US States

Reddick¹

2003

Financ Acc Manag

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

INTRODUCTIONThis article examines the impact of three rival decision-making theories on disaggregated US state budgetary output data. This study tests the impact of the different theoretical explanations on expenditure levels. The three budget models tested are the garbage can theory, incrementalism, and rational approaches. The garbage can theory of budgeting argues that decisions are determined by the random mix of problems, solutions, participants, and choice opportunities in the decision-making process. Incrementalism focuses on expenditure decisions based on marginality and regularity from previous spending outputs. Finally, rational approaches to budgeting advocate that decision-makers think prospectively by systematically weighing policy options. The rational approaches we focus on here are program budgeting, Zero Based Budgeting (ZBB), and biennial budgeting (representing more strategic long-term decision-making in comparison to annual budgeting). These theories are tested on resource allocations, the winners and losers in the budget game. The history of their existence is traced by an examination of budget process outputs over time and across the fifty states.The literature on budgetary theories has the tendency to concentrate on one theory to the exclusion of others. For example, the recent trend is to examine performance based budgeting at various levels of government. 1 This is insufficient since state budgetary decision-makers obviously use more than one method (Botner, 1985). This is demonstrated in Table 1, with survey evidence compiled by these authors from the National Association of State Budget Officers (NASBO) from 1989 to 1996. This survey evidence indicates that most states use some combination of incrementalism and rational methods such as program and zero based budgeting. 2 Therefore, to downplay incrementalism when we speak about budget approaches seems entirely inadequate.A recent study has examined quantitatively the impact of incrementalism on sub national budget outputs (Boyne et al., 2000). There is also an extensive body of

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This is incrementalism in its purest form. Exogenous impacts, as demonstrated through True's (1999) punctuated incremental model do not represent the heart of Wildavsky's original theory and are not tested here. Wildavsky made his argument that this year's budget is based on the previous year's budget.…”

Section: Budgetary Incrementalismmentioning

confidence: 99%

Testing Rival Theories of Budgetary Decision–making in the US States

Reddick¹

2003

Financ Acc Manag

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Budgets are perhaps a theoretically quintessential case for punctuated equilibrium because their outputs are fairly easily comparable across institutional contexts. Thus, beginning with studies of the overall federal budget (Jones, Sulkin, & Larsen, 2003) and specific categories therein (Mortensen, 2009; True, 1999, 2000), punctuated equilibrium scholars steadily painted an empirical picture of a public budgeting process that was dominated by a preponderance of small or incremental changes, a dearth of medium‐range changes, and a higher‐than‐expected amount of punctuated changes when compared to what a rational‐choice inspired Gaussian distribution would suggest (Jones et al., 2009).…”

Section: Perspectives On Budgets and Policy Changementioning

confidence: 99%

The Tortoise or the Hare? Incrementalism, Punctuations, and Their Consequences

Breunig

Koski

2012

Policy Studies Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this article, we contrast the long‐term consequences of incrementalism and punctuated equilibrium. We test what the impact of each of these types of policy change is on long‐term budgetary outcomes for the American states. Policy scholars have applied both theoretical approaches to the study of budgetary spending as an extension of policymaking. Given the two contrasting paradigms of policy change, we develop the following line of inquiry: Does punctuated equilibrium create a different budget in the long term than incrementalism? We address this question through an analysis of American state budgets because the U.S. states provide a rich variation in both budgetary outcomes and political institutions. We use budget data from all American states across all government functions for the period between 1984 and 2009. We find that, first, state budgets and budget functions vary in their degree of punctuation and, second, the degree of punctuation in a state's budget function corresponds to smaller long‐term growth. Additionally, the kind of spending matters: allocational budget categories are more likely to exhibit punctuations.

show abstract

“…For instance, the agenda positioning of the United States' cold-war military build-up and President Johnson's Great Society resulted in punctuated budget shifts (True, 1995). Social Security spending is also a reflection of priorities and is characterized by fluctuations in attention that result in policy-driven punctuations (True, 1998). Jones, Baumgartner, and True (1996) also demonstrate that the federal budget follows a leptokurtic distribution ("fat-tailed distribution").…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Punctuations and agendas: A new look at local government budget expenditures

Jordan

2003

J Policy Anal Manage

111

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Punctuated equilibrium theory (PET) is an agenda-based theory that offers a theoretical foundation for large budget shifts. PET emphasizes that the static, incremental nature of agendas is occasionally interrupted by punctuations. These punctuations indicate shifts in priority among the agenda items, and with those agenda shifts come trade-offs. This article expands the discussion of punctuated budgets to the level of local government by determining that local government expenditures have the characteristics espoused by the punctuated equilibrium theory. The article also determines the frequency of punctuations and the probability for future punctuations. The findings show that some budget functions and policy types are more prone to punctuations and, therefore, have a less stable agenda. The practical significance of extending PET to local government budgeting is the implication on planning, forecasting, and the agenda-setting process. © 2003 by the Association for Public Policy Analysis and Management.

show abstract

Attention, Inertia, and Equity in the Social Security Program

Cited by 15 publications

References 17 publications

Testing Rival Theories of Budgetary Decision–making in the US States

Testing Rival Theories of Budgetary Decision–making in the US States

The Tortoise or the Hare? Incrementalism, Punctuations, and Their Consequences

Punctuations and agendas: A new look at local government budget expenditures

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About