Budgetary practices in a Tanzanian University: Bourdieu's theory

Abstract

PurposeThis paper explores budgetary practices in a Tanzanian university after decentralization.MethodologyData were collected through interviews, document analysis, and observation. Moreover, Bourdieu's theory was used in open and axial coding procedures for data analysis.FindingsThe findings show that decentralized budgeting was a disillusionment. Administrators failed to transfer financial authority to resource recipients. Budgetary practices were shaped by the social structure/budget cycle (field), resources possessed by budgetary actors (capital) and the sincerity patterns of actors in budgetary practices (habitus). Most resource recipients had insincerity in budgeting habitus deploying subversive strategy, while the minority had sincerity in budgeting habitus, deploying submissive strategy. On the other hand, administrators had sincerity and insincerity in budgeting habitus, deploying conservative strategy.Practical implicationsIn order to enhance effective decentralization, resource recipients should be provided with adequate financial resources and budgeting skills. Furthermore, they should be trusted and recognized. Moreover, in order to shape budgeting strategies and practices towards achieving organizational objectives, managements should identify and work on internal, external and technical budgetary constraints. In addition, they should promote sincerity in budgeting habitus as habitus can be created, altered, and reproduced through knowledge.Originality/ValueThis is the first paper to investigate budgetary practices in a university setting, employing all Bourdieu's six theoretical concepts. It contributes to Bourdieu's theory by introducing a submissive strategy. In addition, it introduces “episteme” concept as the opposite of “doxa.” Moreover, the paper responds to the call by Deering and Sá (2018) to investigate what guides budgetary practices in a university setting. The paper has also demonstrated the role of approval organs and subordinates which were neglected in prior studies. It proposes a theory of budgetary practice in a University setting when budgeting is decentralized. It thus responds to the call to investigate and theorize the role of actors in calculative practices (such as budgeting) in a University setting (Argento et al., 2020; Aleksandrov, 2020; Grossi et al., 2020; Ozdil and Hoque, 2017).

Balancing between accountability and autonomy: the impact and relevance of public steering mechanisms within higher education

“…More recently, this trend has also expanded into the East, the Middle East and Africa (e.g. Harun et al , 2020; Komutputipong and Keerasuntonpong, 2019; Upping and Oliver, 2012; Mah'd, 2020; Mkasiwa, 2020).…”

Contingency factors and budget actors' behaviour during COVID-19: the case of Uganda

“…Current budgeting research has mostly employed Bourdieu's theory (see, e.g. Mkasiwa, 2020), negotiated order and power (Lapsley et al, 2011), political budget cycle theory (K€ onig and Wenzelburger, 2017), institutional (logics) theory (Ezzamel et al, 2012;Kaufman and Covaleski, 2019) and dramaturgy (Corrigan, 2018). Contingency theory of change (Leavitt, 1972) while extensively applied in management accounting (Hayes, 1977;Otley, 1980) is relatively absent in budgeting-specific research.…”

“…Current budgeting research has mostly employed Bourdieu's theory (see, e.g. Mkasiwa, 2020), negotiated order and power (Lapsley et al. , 2011), political budget cycle theory (König and Wenzelburger, 2017), institutional (logics) theory (Ezzamel et al.…”

Institutional logic and scholars' reactions to performance measurement in universities

“…Over the last 30 years, institutional and socioeconomic development and globalization have played crucial roles in the changes observed in the higher education sector. These changes have affected aspects such as governance (Boitier and Rivi ere, 2013), accountability (Narayan et al, 2017), reputation (Suomi et al, 2014), higher education export (Guthrie et al, 2014), organization, funding, management (Tucker and Parker, 2020), budgeting (Lepori and Montauti, 2020;Mkasiwa, 2020), accounting systems (Conrath-Hargreaves and W€ ustemann, 2019;Moll and Hoque, 2011), research assessment (Martin-Sardesai et al, 2017a), as well as universities' academic and social legitimacy (Gebreiter and Hidayah, 2019). Previous studies have also shown clear changes occurring in the performance measurement (PM) of universities.…”