Introducing 

Prezi AI.

Your new presentation assistant.

Refine, enhance, and tailor your content, source relevant images, and edit visuals quicker than ever before.

Loading…
Transcript

Planning-Programming-Budgeting System

5. Ability to tell the decision-maker what he gets and what he gives up to get it, the preferred program in terms of efficiency (fixed input, maximum return) and economy (fixed return, maximum input).

6. A method which puts value judgement into the ground rules for analysis rather than forcing the decision-maker to consider then in connection with every program or project.

7. Permits the decision-makers to consider all costs in relation to the purposes being pursued by the government and seeks measures of output that can be directly related to increment of input.

8. Pinpoints programs that should be expanded and spotlight programs which should be contracted.

3. Open and explicit analysis which permits political debate to center on truly political issues and provide enough information to permit scientific analysis and replication of the non-political portions of analysis.

9. Permits decisions to be made with knowledge of the incremental costs and outputs connected with the programs being considered.

1. Clear assignments of responsibilities to officers and their immediate subordinates.

10. Helps evaluate actual performance being a method for prospective analysis of proposed future courses of action rather than a system for reporting performance of past programs.

4. Ability to look beyond the budget of the particular agency for a particular year to find full system costs. This is a key element of the economic approach to government decision-making.

2. Linkages of planning and programming cycle to the analytical results in an attempt to ensure that the analysis is related to recommended budgetary actions.

"usefulness in relating end to means in a comprehensive fashion, the emphasis it puts upon the policy implication of budgeting, and the ease with which it permits consideration of the budget as a whole as each programs competes with every other for funds."

According to Aaron Wildavsky, the advantages of PPBS is in its....

The 3 documents embody the 5 features of PPBS. The PFP consists of a program accounting and multi-year costing, the PM zero base budgeting, and the SS quantitative evaluation or cut-effectiveness

analysis.

The 5 formal parts of the PPBS are:

(1)Program Structure

ADVANTAGES OF PPBS

(2)Issue Letters

(3)Program Memoranda

(4) Special Analytic Studies

(5) Program and Financial Plans

The advantages of PPBS were summarized by Harold A. Hovey as follows:

"The PPB approach clearly offers the best thing on the horizon to make the government decision-making a little more rational and the public sector of our economy a little more efficient. For this reason it has tremendous appeal."

(1)Program Categories

DISADVANTAGES OF PPBS

In the Philippines, the formal budgeting in the national government first began during the Commonwealth regime when the system was prescribed by Commonwealth Act No. 246 on Dec. 17, 1936

It was only on June 4, 1954 that the national government adopted "performance budgeting."

This was inculcated in Republic Act No. 992. However, the Government has not been able to fully implement it until 1978.

Program Sub-categories

The Program structure includes three levels of classification

As Wildavsky states:

Budgeting turns out to be an incremental process, proceeding from a historical base... in which decisions are fragmented, made in sequence by specialized bodies, and coordinated through repeated attack on problems and through multiple feedback mechanism.

In fact, budget decisions are " incremental, fragmented, non-programmatic and sequential".

INTRODUCTION:

Program Elements

Time, interest and uncertainty more often than not lead to non-optimal capital expenditure decisions. the estimate of monetized benefits is not always obtainable and is subject to great error. the costs analysis is difficult if not impossible to measure and the benefit-cost analysis is questionable where great uncertainties exist.

Summarily, the areas considered by Meriwitz and Sosnick are program accounting, muti-year costing, detailed description of activities which are considered of highly questionable value in terms of benefits to be accrued as against the cost to be generated. The question is raised on whether zero-based budgeting provides any basis for judging what is appropriate for allocation of resources. the quantitative evaluation of alternatives is questioned where errors in the prediction of financial costs and calculations of social costs are highly likely.

With regard to the superiority of incrementalism from OR\MS white explains that:

Unlike Wildavsky, Merewitz and Sosnick criticized PPBS by showing specifically its particular areas of operational difficulties. their protest was devoid of politics and allowed for the full discussion of the cognitive defects of PPBS.

In contrasts, White categorically states:

. . .the statement that no one knows how to do PPBS is both inaccurate and trivial... whether the PPBS that was or or is practiced happens to meet some set of explicit personal criteria is another matter, but Wildavsky does not offer much criteria.

Continuing his attack on Wildavsky, White concludes:

Whether OR\MS in any of it's forms adds an unbearable burden of calculation is contingent upon whether it replaces or supplements other calculations. it maybe that it, at first, supplements and then replaces the calculations. Redundance would seem an advisable tctic and the general criticism is probably a function of the temporary novelty of new ways of making decisions rather than a permanent fixture.

Wildavsky views policy analysis to be desirable. However, he maintains that PPBS is not the proper vehicle for getting it.

Under the PPBS, each government agency is required to establish its primary mission and then sets forth its more specific objectives. However, these agencies when created by laws have missions or objectives stated in their general and relative abstract terms.

As pointed out earlier by Hovey, PPBS is "mission-oriented". However, there are many factors which have restricted precise consideration of missions. Moreover, the organizational structure of many government agencies is not mission-oriented. In ,any cases

, differen agencies have similar, if not overlapping missions.

"Incrementalism is more than strategy for policy making that ignores consequences and outputs... If incrementalism at its best is superior to OR\MS, it is because its involvement of a wider number of actors in the conjecture and refutation process leads to better output."

CONCEPT OF THE PPBS

It involves (2) processes:

Planning and Budgeting. They operate with (5) levels of ambition.

Special Study

(1) one would specify the resources which are allocated for the purpose

Comprehensive Multi-year program and Financial Plan

Program Memorandum:

The Filipino Proponents avoided using the term "revolutionary" to minimize negative reaction to another "important technique".

With this Allen Schick counsels:

(2)a description is also given

Basically the PPBS is a "system approach".

It integrates the various functional aspects of program management.

These functional aspects are:

"There is no need for forcibly transplanting the PPB onto alien political soil. A government can design it's PPB to suit it's political conditions".

(3) the major tasks are defined

Planning

Programming

Budgeting

(4) an attempt is made at quantifying how far the program is expected to accomplish the tasks.

(5) a complete cost-benefit analysis is undertaken

Public administration is the bridge between government and people. As such, it is goal-oriented. It's goal is to provide the people the required governmental services they need for better living.

(3) Search for alternative means of reaching those goals most effectively at the least cost.

(2) Choose among those goals the ones that is most urgent.

(5) Measure the performance of our progarm to ensure a dollar's worth of service for each dollar spent.

For Wildavsky,PPBS even with the absence of the political difficulties, is not workable at all. He asserts that the introduction of PPBS presents insuperable difficulties of calculation. Many may know what program budgeting should be like in general, but no one can really determine what it should be in a particular case.

Moreover, the view of Wildavsky is answered by Michael White as follows:

OR\MS may be ecological rather than sociological, but the model of economic man has proven itself to give, at least in his culture, more consistently reliable predictions than any other has... Even if OR\MS analysis are politically insensitive they operate in a bureaucratic environment conducive to learning that skill.

Wildavsky's interpretation of five year expenditure projections as a politically unrealistic attempt to the president's hand is unsupported by either practice or theory; proof of political insensitivity need rest on more than that interpretation.

(4) Inform ourselves not merely on next year's cost, but on the second, third and subsequent years' cost of our program.

(1) Identify our national goals with precision and on a continuing basis.

It is an attempt to integrate

budgeting with overall planning,

execution and evaluation of

government policies

as rational as possible

Dissent about PPBS is not unexpected among the Fiscal Authorities involved in the budgetary process. among these fiscal experts are Schick, Merewitz and Sosnick.

"According to President Lyndon B. Johnson's announcement of the introduction of the PPBS of the american federal government on August 25, 1965", the new system would enable public officials to:

Another dissent comes from Leonard Meriwitz and Stephen Sosnick according to them:

(a) how far toward a program budget the defense department has gone,

Given the tide and rapid spread of PPB, one might suppose that an overwhelming case for it's adoption has been made. In fact, the opposite is true. The advocates of benefit-cost analysis and other parts of PPB have never shown or even tried that it's own benefits outweigh it's own costs.

"Few protests have been heard. In fact, the only loud voice has been Wildavsky's. He wrote, among other things, we would be in a much stronger position to predict the consequences of program budgeting if we know:

(b) Whether the program budget has fulfilled it's promise. to the best of our knowledge, not a single study of this important experiment was undertaken (or at least published) before the decision was made to spread it around the land.

Schick believes that the fundamental limitations in PPBS is that it attempts to tie planning into the budgeting process. He believes that budgeting is to routinized and functions within too restricted a time frame for planning.

The adoption o PPBS in the budgeting process of the American government enabled social scientists, particularly, Wildavsky to recognize it's political and cognitive difficulties in implementation.

These difficulties of PPBS have been defined as those which generate too strong a challenge to the status quo ("political") and those which require calculations no one could perform ("cognitive").

In discussing political difficulties Wildavsky says:

"The legitimacy of the political system may be threatened by costs that involve the weakening of customary political restraints. politicians who try to suppress oppositions who practice election frauds, may find similar tactics being used against them. The choice of a highly controversial policy may raise the costs of civic discord.Although the people involved may not hate the political leader, the fact that they hate each other may lead to consequences contrary to his desires.

design by Dóri Sirály for Prezi

Learn more about creating dynamic, engaging presentations with Prezi