Review of Social, Economic & Business Studies, Vol.

9/10, 161-178

Critical Control Points on

Performance-Based Budgeting System

Kamil TÜGEN
Prof. Dr., Dokuz Eylul University

H. Ahmet AKDENİZ
Prof. Dr., Faculty of Administrative Sciences, Department of
Econometrics, Dokuz Eylul University

Mehmet AKSARAYLI
Dr., Dokuz Eylul University

Haluk EGELİ
Asst. Prof. Dr., Dokuz Eylul University

Ahmet ÖZEN
Res. Asst., Dokuz Eylul University

Abstract
Performance-Based Budgeting System (PBB) is one of the latest
techniques which is achieved in the development process of
modern budgeting systems. In its core, the system entails the public
organizations to primarily prepare a strategic plan containing their
visions and missions and to appropriate an allocation matching
most the operations they will accomplish in the budgets that they
will apply so that such organizations may prepare such budgets in
compliance with a market-focused managerial insight. And the
relationship between the goals and the allocations is evaluated
within the framework of performance indications and how and in

161
 Review of Social, Economic & Business Studies, Vol.9/10, 161-178

what manner such organizations should achieve the performance

which they aim at are identified. In this study, critical control
points have been first identified in order to uncover what steps
should be taken in a Performance-Based Budgeting system. Then
such aspects which may have a positive or negative effect on the
efficient functioning of the PBB by means of a diagram measuring
the effectiveness of the system have been explained. It has been
concluded that the system may not be effectively applied before the
process identified for the PBB within the framework of the results
obtained from the critical control points and the diagram in
question.

Keywords: Budgeting, Strategic Planning, Performance

Evaluation, Performance Criterion, Performance-based
Budgeting, Optimization

Introduction
Budgeting systems are usually divided into two as conventional
and modern budgeting systems. The new public management
approach in the globalizing world order has brought to the
forefront the Performance-Based Budgeting System (PBB) which
is a modern budgeting system. The first applications of the
performance-based budgeting system have started in such
developed countries as the United States of America (USA),
Australia, New Zealand and the United Kingdom. Following such
countries, studies have been carried out to that effect in several
developed countries in the Continental Europe. In developing
countries, studies for the system are implemented with support
from several developed countries and from such international
organizations as the World Bank. There are some reasons why the
performance-based budgeting system has started to spread
throughout the world. For a State employs the PBB to ensure
accountability to its citizens and to high-ranked civil servants and
to enhance communications in the budgeting process and deems it
to be a medium which provides the society with information about
the State’s performance (O. Roark, 2001: 6). USA, where the

162
 Review of Social, Economic & Business Studies, Vol.9/10, 161-178

initial applications of the modern budgeting systems are observed,

is also pre-eminent in terms of the performance-based budgeting
systems. The very first legal regulation concerning the
performance-based budgeting at federal level in the country started
in Hawaii under the Executive Budget Act 1970 (Melkers and
Willoughby, 1998: 56). However, the study entitled “Reinventing
Government” written by David Osborne and Ted Gaebler in 1992
speed up the studies toward the application of this system at the
federal level. Following this study, the “Government Performance
and Results Act” was enacted in 1993, and the country officially
shifted to the performance-based budgeting system at federal level.
Having found a wide area of application at present, this system is
tried to be structured in a way which shall be most appropriate for
the specific conditions of each country. Therefore, there is no
standard model which has been technically identified among
countries so that this system may be applied.
The performance-based budgeting system is a system which
may efficiently function only if all the necessary aspects and
factors are considered. It is not possible to state that the system
shall rationally function before the required infrastructure is
entirely completed. The following aspects must be considered so
that the effectiveness expected of the performance-based budgeting
system may be achieved:
a. Need for a simultaneous information network,
b. Adequate personnel with performance culture,
c. A public management insight focused on performance,
d. Stability of the economic and political structure,
e. Quality of the society’s expectations of the public services,
f. A waging system based on performance,
g. Political decision-makers’ belief in the system.
As such aspects play a supplementary role in terms of the
functioning of the system, they are deemed to be a necessity so that
the effectiveness of the performance-based budgeting system may
be measured. Therefore, while making structural regulations in the
existing budgeting system for the performance-based budgeting
system, the specified aspects should be simultaneously taken into

163
 Review of Social, Economic & Business Studies, Vol.9/10, 161-178

consideration as well. But only in this way, one may mention the
existence of a budgeting system focused on performance.
Starting from here, an efficient solution technique should be
developed for the performance-based budgeting system which shall
take into consideration all such aspects. To this end, a
performance-based budgeting system diagram shall be developed,
starting from the critical control points solution technique in this
study, thus trying to optimize the effectiveness of the performance-
based budgeting system.

164
 Review of Social, Economic & Business Studies, Vol.9/10, 161-178

PBBSCCP 1
Question 1: Is the performance of the organizations decisive in the allocation of public resources?

Yes No Not PBBSCCP

Stop: Line-Item B. S.

PBBSCCP 2
Question 2: Does it make the performance measuring possible by employing qualified personnel?

Yes No Not PBBSCCP

Stop: Candidate P. B. S.

PBBSCCP 3
Question 3: Does the applications and present structure allow for an efficient information flow?

Yes No Not PBBSCCP

Stop: P. B. S.

PBBSCCP 4
Question 4: Does it allow efficient use of resources?
Yes No Not PBBSCCP
Stop: Candidate Program B. S.
PBBSCCP 5
Question 5: Is the administrative and financial structure eligible for functional classification?

Yes No Not PBBSCCP

Stop: Advanced Candidate Program B. S.
PBBSCCP 6
Question 6: Can a relationship be established between the annual budgets and development?

Yes No Not PBBSCCP

Stop: Program B. S.

PBBSCCP 7
Question 7: Are budget allocations evaluated from the beginning each year without making
connections to previous years?
Yes No Not PBBSCCP
Stop: Planning – Programming B. S.
PBBSCCP 8
Question 8: Does the system allow for the preparation of an alternative budget?

Yes No Not PPBBSCCP

PBBSCCP: Critical Control Stop: Candidate
Points Zero-Based B. S.of
Performan

165
 Review of Social, Economic & Business Studies, Vol.9/10, 161-178

PBBSCCP 9
Question 9: Does the budgeting system enhance the executive’s initiative?

Yes No Not PBBSCCP

Stop: Advanced Candidate Zero-Based B. S.

PBBSCCP 10
Question 10: Are the applications suitable for transparency and accountability?

Yes No Not PBBSCCP

Stop: Zero-Based B. S.

PBBSCCP 11
Question 11: Is the budgeting system suitable for organizations’ accountability to the public?

Yes No Not PBBSCCP

Stop: Candidate P. B. B. S.

PBBSCCP 12
Question 12: Can any connection be established with the previous years’ application in the budgeting
system?
Yes No Not PBBSCCP
Stop: Advanced Candidate P. B. B. S.

PBBSCCP 13
Question 13: Is the entry into performance contract with top executives at an adequate level in the budgeting
system?
Yes No Not PBBSCCP
Stop: Candidate P. B. B. Model Basing on Contract

PBBSCCP 14
Question 14: Are there any performance documents other than budget in the budgeting system?

Yes No Not PBBSCCP

Stop: P. B. B. Model Converted to Budget Format

PBBSCCP 15
Question 15: Do organizations prepare a strategic program?
Yes No Not PBBSCCP
Stop: P. B. B. Model Basing on Performance Contract

P. B. B. Model Basing on Strategic Planning

ce-Based Budgeting System-

B.: Budgeting – S.: System – P.: Performance
Figure 1: Critical Control Points of Choosing the Alternative Budgeting
System

166
 Review of Social, Economic & Business Studies, Vol.9/10, 161-178

Analysis of the Critical Control Points of the Budgeting System

Choice
In this section of the study, we have tried to develop critical control
points in order to identify the performance measure, or in other
words organizational success, which underlies the system so that
the public organizations may achieve the goals which they have
identified in accordance with their objectives and to put forward
any aspects as required for the functioning of the system.
There are fifteen questions in the analysis of the critical
control points and such questions include the development from
the Line Item Budgeting System toward the Performance, Program,
Planning-Programming-Budgeting, Zero-Based Budgeting and
Performance-Based Budgeting Systems.
The initial step which should be taken in the establishment
of critical control points is to determine whether or not the
performance shall be taken as the basic criterion in the allocation
of public resources. This is the most apparent difference between
the modern and conventional budgeting systems. As the
conventional budgeting system (line-item budgeting system) is
input-focused, it fails to consider performance in the allocation of
the resources, and as the modern budgeting systems are output-
focused, they consider performance to be one of the basic aspects.
If a modern budgeting system considers performance to be decisive
in the allocation of budget resources, the system must be designed
to this purpose. But although performance is a common
denominator among the modern budgeting systems, a range of
steps are also needed to distinguish such systems.
The second step is related to whether or not qualified
personnel are employed for the performance measurements. The
fact that performance is decisive in the allocation of public
resources in a modern budgeting system is a necessary criterion but
not an adequate one. If any trained and qualified personnel cannot
be employed for this purpose, it is rather difficult to bring into life
no matter what kind of a legal regulation is in place. Therefore, a
budgeting system in which no qualified personnel are employed
but which takes performance as a basis may not go beyond a
“candidate performance budgeting system”.

167
 Review of Social, Economic & Business Studies, Vol.9/10, 161-178

At the third step, the quality of the existing information

network is discussed for the efficient application of the budgeting
system. Such that, while the legal regulations and personnel quality
are sufficient for the measurement of performance, a budgeting
system lacking in the necessary information network is referred to
as “performance budgeting system”. In its form which was tried to
be applied in the middle of the twentieth century, the performance
budgeting system could not go beyond the term-end auditing of an
organization in its general outline and was limited to base upon
previous years’ losses rather than aiming at performance for the
future.
The fourth step questions whether or not it is possible to use
the resources in an efficient manner in a budgeting system with
qualified personnel and information network, which focuses on
performance. These three elements in question alone are not
sufficient for the efficient use of resources. Further, the system
requires that public expenses must be classified by major service
groups, i.e. functions. A budgeting system lacking the functional
classification which is compulsory in terms of service effectiveness
may not go beyond a “candidate program budgeting system”.
The fifth step is about whether or not organizations are
classified by the basic service fields of the public so that they may
achieve a sufficient performance in administrative and financial
terms. Functional classification of the existing budgeting system
alone is an element which is sufficient. The success of the
functional classification is also dependent on whether or not the
administrative and financial structure is appropriate for such a
formation. As a matter of fact, such a structuring will prevent in-
service transitions, thus allowing the use of resources for the same
purpose. Otherwise, the existing budgeting system shall keep
remaining an “advanced candidate program budgeting system”.
The sixth step is about the establishment of the relationship
between the annual budgets and the development plans in a
budgeting system where functional classification prevails. For to
be able to give the budget a long-term viewpoint may only be
possible through planning activities. Accordingly, a budgeting
system in which the budget-plan relationship is not established but

168
 Review of Social, Economic & Business Studies, Vol.9/10, 161-178

functional classification is based upon may be qualified as a

“program budgeting system”.
The seventh step is about whether or not the budget
allocations have been evaluated in connection with previous years
in a budgeting system which takes into consideration the long-term
planning of the public services in line with the plan-budget
relationship. A budgeting system which does not take into
consideration the budget realizations of the previous years may be
specified as a budgeting approach on micro basis. Whereas a
budgeting approach which is based upon long-term planning both
allows for the establishment of the budget-plan relation and makes
it possible to obtain outcomes in accordance with macro goals from
budget policies. A budgeting system so prepared may be defined as
“planning-programming-budgeting system”.
At the eighth step, it is questioned whether or not alternative
budgets are prepared in a budgeting system which takes into
consideration the previous years’ practices. If a budgeting system
does not allow for the preparation of alternative budgets although it
does not take into consideration the previous years’ realizations,
then it may be expressed as a “candidate zero-based budgeting
system”.
The ninth step questions whether or not the executives are
provided with adequate flexibility in order to prepare alternative
budgets at the budget preparation stage. If an executive does not
have an extended initiative while preparing an alternative budget,
then such a budgeting system may be defined as an “advanced
candidate zero-based budgeting system”.
The tenth step is about the compliance of the budget
practices with transparency and accountability criteria, assuming
that the public executives have certain flexibility during the budget
preparation process. A system which does not possess such modern
concepts as accountability and transparency, but which provides
the public executives with adequate flexibility in budget
preparation may be expressed as a “zero-based budgeting system”.
The eleventh step questions whether or not the budgeting
system is appropriate for the organizations’ public accountability.
If the current practices are insufficient in terms of the
organizations’ public accountability while they are suitable for

169
 Review of Social, Economic & Business Studies, Vol.9/10, 161-178

transparency and accountability, then such a system may be

specified as a “candidate performance-based budgeting system”.
The twelfth step is about whether or not the previous years’
budget practices are determinative for future terms in a budgeting
system with public accountability. If budget policies are
determined without taking into consideration the previous years’
practices in the system, then the existing system may be defined as
an “advanced candidate performance-based budgeting system”.
The thirteenth step questions the competency of entering
into a performance contract with top executives while taking into
consideration the previous years’ accounts in the budget. If entry
into a performance contract is not sufficient in the budgeting
system, then the existing budgeting system may be specified as a
“candidate performance-based budgeting model basing on
contract”.
The fourteenth step questions whether or not any
performance documents other than the budget are prepared while
entering into performance contracts in the budgeting system. If
there is not any determinative document other than the budget in
the budgeting system, then the system is deemed to be a
“performance-based budgeting model converted to budget format”.
The fifteenth step questions whether or not organizations
prepare a strategic plan. If an organization fails to prepare a
strategic plan, then it applies a “performance-based budgeting
model basing on performance contract”. If an organization
prepares a budget under the strategic plan, then such a system may
be specified as a “performance-based budgeting basing on strategic
planning”.

170
 Review of Social, Economic & Business Studies, Vol.9/10, 161-178

Measurement of the Effectiveness of the Performance-Based

Budgeting System
The diagram developed for this purpose is given in Figure 2.
+
Preferential treatment
of friends and relative Quality of Quality Orientation
in the appointment of Lawmakers Education to
public personnel Service Informatio
+
- + + Technological
Development
+ +

- +
Focusing Personnel Communicati +
Improving the quality Legislative Quality on Quality
of an organization’s System on +
personnel and Performance
+ -
+ -

+ Optimization of + Communicatio
+ PBB System’s n Loss of Time
Identification of Effectiveness
Strategic and Cost
+ + + -
Setting forth the Priorities in -
organization’s Public Services +
strategic plan
+ + Savings in
public
resources
+ Utilization of performance
Allocation by information in accordance
performance in with the performance Customer-
the utilization of measurement, evaluation + citizen
public resources and reporting in the satisfaction
+
system
Optimization of quality
and effectiveness in
+ - public services +
-

Optimization of
necessary and Deviation from
correct continuous performance
information flow - goals

-: represents that the incident at the initial circle of the arrow adversely affects the
incident at the point where it ends;
+: represents that the incident at the initial circle of the arrow directly affects the
incident at the point where it ends.
Figure 2: Performance - Based Budgeting Diagram

The analysis of critical control points for the efficient application

of the performance-based budgeting system suggests the steps
which should be taken for the functioning of the system. However,
it is also important to identify any factors which may have either
positive or negative effect on the functioning of the system. In the
diagram shown in Figure 2, one tries to set forth the effectiveness
of the system, taking into consideration the positive or negative
factors which may determine the efficient applicability of the
system and the relationships between such factors.
When one examines the diagram, one sees that technological
development is pre-eminent among the factors which have a
positive effect on the new budgeting system. Internet usage and

171
 Review of Social, Economic & Business Studies, Vol.9/10, 161-178

computerization spreading all over the world is one of the most

significant factors in the acquisition and diversification of
information. Accordingly, it is possible to say that there is a direct
relationship between the technological development and
information society. For the technological development will ensure
transition to information society and enhance the quality of
communication and minimize the loss and cost of time, thus
leading to efficient use of public resources. On the other hand,
diversification and prevalence of information forms the
infrastructure of the presentation of the education of high quality.
The increased quality of education shall increase the quality of the
lawmakers as well as that of the civil servants. Further, the
performance-based wage policy must be used to support the quality
of personnel contained in the diagram. The fact that the lawmakers
have been equipped with information at a high level shall allow for
the preparation of the legislation which they will pass in
accordance with the PBB. This will also prevent nepotism which is
expressed as preferential treatment of friends and relatives. In this
manner, organizations shall be allowed to rest their strategic plans
upon more rational ground. And strategic plans formed in a
rational manner shall lead to performance-based allocation of funds
both in the identification of strategic priorities and in the utilization
of public resources while offering public services. Further, loss and
cost of communication time decreased by technological
development will ensure regular information flow, thus positively
affecting the allocation of public resources by performance. On the
other hand, performance information feedback (re-evaluation in the
system of the performance data obtained) in accordance with the
measurement, evaluation and reporting of the performance in the
system will decrease the possibility of deviation from performance
goals, thus positively affecting the performance-based allocation of
the resources. Consequently, the increase in the quality of the
public personnel, development in communications, identification
of strategic priorities in public services and performance-based
allocation of public resources shall positively support the
effectiveness of the PBB as a whole but an efficient budgeting
system shall provide optimization in the presentation of public

172
 Review of Social, Economic & Business Studies, Vol.9/10, 161-178

services, thus allowing for the citizens to obtain the highest

satisfaction from the public services which is the final objective.

Results
As the algorithm of the systematic structure of the critical control
points aims at the selection of an alternative budgeting system in
the public sector, it is based on the principle of determining what
elements will be taken into consideration in the selection of the
critical control points established by this system structure and the
budgeting system of the public sector. Within this framework, an
algorithm has been established showing how the selection of an
alternative budgeting system in the public sector will be identified
by the structural conditions of each country. Starting from here, the
findings from the flow chart of the critical control systematic
structure as given in Figure 1 are as follows:
a. It is determined what kind of a budget technique the public
sector should employ and by what conditions.
b. The necessity of each country’s establishing the infrastructure
suitable for its budgeting system which it has identified in
accordance with its socio-economic conditions and, in line
with this, carrying out activities for the goals planned during a
certain period of time is determined.
c. It is revealed that it is not rational for a country to apply a
budgeting system at a more advanced level before establishing
the required infrastructure and completing those stages which
shall take the system to success.
d. It is shown what steps each country must take according to the
existing criteria in order to achieve an ideal budgeting system.
And several results have been obtained from the Figure 2
where the schematic structure which ensures the effectiveness
of the performance-based budgeting system established in
accordance with the analysis results of the critical control
points. The findings obtained under the systematic structure
established in the diagram in question are as follows:

173
 Review of Social, Economic & Business Studies, Vol.9/10, 161-178

i. It is revealed that one of the most important factors

determining the effectiveness of the system is those
feedbacks based upon technological development.
ii. Provision of regular information flow basing upon the
development of technology will directly support the bringing
up of the qualified personnel needed by the public sector.
iii. Employment of qualified personnel and legislation made by
rational decision-makers will positively support the
effectiveness of the performance-based budgeting.
iv. Depending on the rise in the quality of the education, the
quality of the lawmakers will also rise and this will prevent
nepotism in terms of the personnel to be employed, thus
allowing for the identification of the public services in
accordance with strategic priorities within the framework of
the optimization of plans.

Conclusion
In order to obtain the expected effectiveness from a budgeting
system, it is required to plan each necessary step by establishing an
interrelation between the steps. Correct planning of such steps is an
indication of to what extent a country’s expectations of a system
have been satisfied. On the other hand, some factors are also
required, which facilitate the efficient functioning of the system as
well. As a consequence, the effectiveness of a budgeting system
may only be possible by the establishment of a resultant of the
steps identified by the critical control points and those factors as
represented in the diagram.

References

ANDREWS, M. (2004), “Authority, Acceptance, Ability and

Performance-based Budgeting Reforms”, The International
Journal of Public Sector Management, Vol: 17, No: 4.

174
 Review of Social, Economic & Business Studies, Vol.9/10, 161-178

ANDREWS, M. (2006) “Beyond Best Practice and Basics First In

Adopting Performance Budgeting Reform”, Public
Administration and Development, No: 2.
ANDREWS, M. and HILL; H. (2003), “The Impact of Traditional
Budgeting Systems on the Effectiveness of Performance-
Based Budgeting: A Different Viewpoint on Recent
Findings”, International Journal of Public Administration,
Vol: 26, No.
BAC, AAD (2002), “Government Budgeting and Accounting
Reform In The Netherlands”, Models Of Public Budgeting
and Accounting Reform, OECD Journal On Budgeting, Vol:
2, Supplement 1.
BEHN, R. D.(2003), “Why Measure Performance? Different
Purposes Require Different Measures”, Public
Administration Review, Vol: 63, No: 5, September –
October.
BERMAN, E. and WANG, X.(2000), “Performance Measurement
in US Counties: Capacity for Reform”, Public
Administration Review, Vol: 60, No: 5, September-October.
BLONDAL, J. R. and KRISTENSEN, J. K. (2002), “Budgeting In
Netherlands”, OECD Journal On Budgeting, Vol: 1, No: 3.
BLONDAL, J. R. (2003), “Budget Reform In OECD Member
Countries: Common Trends”, OECD Journal On Budgeting,
Vol: 2, No: 4, 2003.
BLONDAL, J. R. (2001), “Budgeting In Sweden”, OECD Journal
On Budgeting, Vol: 1, No: 1.
CHEVAUCHEZ, B. (2002), “Government Budgeting and
Accounting Reforms In France”, Models Of Public
Budgeting and Accounting Reform, OECD Journal On
Budgeting, Vol: 2, Supplement 1.
COTHRAN, D. A. (2001), “Entrepreneurial Budgeting: An
Emerging Reform?”, Performance-Based Budgeting, (Edited
By: Gerald J MILLER, W Bartley HILDREH, Jack
RABIN), Wsetview Pres, USA
DIAMOND, J. (2003), “Performance Budgeting: Managing the
Reform Process”, IMF Working Paper WP/03/33, February.
EGELİ, Haluk- Ahmet ÖZEN; Türk Bütçe Sürecinin Mali
Saydamlık ve 5018 Sayılı Kamu Mali Yönetimi ve Kontrol

175
 Review of Social, Economic & Business Studies, Vol.9/10, 161-178

Kanunu Çerçevesinde Değerlendirilmesi, Vergi Sorunları

Dergisi, Sayı:197, Şubat 2005.
ELLIS, K. and MITCHELL, S. (2002), “Outcome-focused
Management in the United Kingdom, OECD Journal on
Budgeting, Vol:1, Sup:4.
ERÜZ, E. (2005), “Yeni Mali Yönetim Yapısında Performans
Esaslı Bütçeleme”, 20. Türkiye Maliye Sempozyumu,
Pamukkale Universitesi İİBF Maliye Bölümü, Yayın No:1,
23-27 Mayıs 2005, Denizli.
GILMOUR, J. B. and LEWIS, D. E. (2006); “Does Performance
Budgeting Work? An Explanation of OMB’s PART Scores”,
Public Administration Review, V.1.5.
HAGER, G., HOBSON, A., and WILSON, G.(2006);
Performance-Based Budgeting: Concepts and Examples,
Program Review and Investigations Committee, Research
Report No: 302, USA, 2002.
(http://www.lrc.ky.gov/lrcpubs/RR302.pdf).
HILL, H. and ANDREWS, M. (2005), “Reforming Budget Ritual
and Budget Practice: The Case of Performance Management
Implementation in Virginia”, International Journal of Public
Administration, No:28.
KESİK, A. (2004), “Performansa Dayalı Bütçeleme”, 5. Kamu
Kalite -Sempozyumu-Kamu Kaynaklarının Etkili Yönetimi:
Stratejik Planlama ve İzleme, 9-10 .
KRISTENSEN, J. K., GROSZYK W. S., and BUHLER, B. (2002),
“Outcome-Focused Management and Budgeting”, OECD
Journal On Budgeting, Vol:1, No:4.
LUDER, K. (2002), “Government Budgeting and Accounting
Reform In Germany”, Models Of Public Budgeting and
Accounting Reform, OECD Journal On Budgeting, Vol:2,
Supplement 1
MATHESON, A. and KWON, H. S. (2003), “Public Sector
Modernization: A New Agenda”, OECD Journal On
Budgeting, Vol:3, No:1.
MELKERS, J. E. and WILLOUGHBY, K. J. (1998), “The State of
the States: Performance-Based Budgeting Requirements in
47 Out Of 50”, Public Administration Review, Vol:58, No:1,
January-February.

176
 Review of Social, Economic & Business Studies, Vol.9/10, 161-178

MELKERS, J. E. and WILLOUGHBY, k. J. (2001), “Budgeters’

Views Of State Performance- Budgeting Systems:
Distinctions Across Branches”, Public Administration
Review, Vol:61, No:1, January-February.
O’ROARK, J B. (2001), Performance-based Budgeting in State
and Federal Fiscal Performance: An Empirical Analysis,
George Mason University.
OECD; “Public Sector Modernization: Governing For
Performance”, Policy Brief, October 2004.
OSBORNE, D. and GAEBLER, T. (2002), Reinventing
Government, Addison-Wesley Publications, USA.
ÖZYILDIZ, R. Hakan; “Kamu Harcama Politikalarının
Denetlenmesi ve Performansa Dayalı Bütçe”, Hazine
Dergisi, Sayı: 13, Ocak 2000.
ROBINSON, M. (1996), “Program Budgeting: Costs and
Benefits”, Budgetary and The Management Of Public
Spending, (Edited By: Donald J SAVIOE), An Elgar
Reference Collection, USA.
SCHICK, A. (1990), “Budgeting For Results: Recent
Developments in Five Industrialized Countries”, Public
Administration Review, Vol:50, No:1, January-February.
SCHICK, A. (2001), “Does Budgeting Have A Future?”, OECD
22.nd Annual Meeting of Senior Budget Officials, Paris, 21-
22 May.
SCHICK, A. (1996), “Micro-Budgetary Adaptations To Fiscal
Stress In Industrialized Democracies”, Budgetary and The
Management Of Public Spending, (Edited By: Donald J
SAVIOE), An Elgar Reference Collection, USA
SCHICK, A. (1966), “Program Budgeting In The States: The
Pathology Of An Administrative Reform”, Yale University.
SCHICK, A. (1980), “The Road To PPB: The Stages Of Budget
Reform”, Perspectives On Budgeting, (Edited By: Allen
SCHICK), Second Printing, USA, 1980.
SCHICK, A. (1978), “The Road from ZBB”, Public
Administration Review, Vol: 38, No: 2, March-April.
TEKİN, A. (1998); “Kamu Kesiminde Performans Denetiminin
Bazı Ülkelerdeki Gelişimi”, Maliye Dergisi, Sayı: 129,
Eylül-Aralık.

177
 Review of Social, Economic & Business Studies, Vol.9/10, 161-178

TÜĞEN, K. and ÖZEN, A. (2004), Çok Yıllı (Orta Vadeli)

Bütçeleme Sistemi ve Uygulamaları, Dokuz Eylül
Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, Cilt:6, sayı:3,
Temmuz-Eylül 2004
United States General Accounting Office (GAO); “Performance
Budgeting- Past Initiatives Offer Insights for GPRA
Implementation”, Report to Congressional Committees,
GAO/AIMD/97-46, March 1997.

178