1
Research Paper: Types of Budgets
Fleuvio Jean
Helms School of Government, Liberty University
PADM 702: Advanced Public Administration Finance and Budgeting
Dr. Leona Monroe
July 6, 2025
2
Executive Summary
This research paper examines the implications of three predominant budget formats,
namely line-item budgeting, program budgeting, and performance budgeting, on the budgetary
process within public administration. Each format introduces unique advantages and challenges
that shape fiscal decision-making and policy execution. Line-item budgets offer transparency and
ease of control but hinder innovation and adaptability. Program budgets promote strategic
alignment of spending with organizational goals yet demand advanced administrative capacity.
Performance budgets support outcome-oriented governance, though they are susceptible to data
limitations and political pressures.
In addition to examining these three budgeting formats, the paper delves into two
influential constraints in the form of economic fluctuations (particularly those associated with the
business cycle) and political factors (especially tax policy). Business cycle dynamics strain fiscal
planning, challenging budget stability amid revenue volatility and social demands. Tax policy
adds another dimension of political complexity, often driven by partisan interests and electoral
considerations more than fiscal rationality. These constraints reflect the multidimensional
pressures facing budget officials who must navigate the tensions between political priorities and
administrative rationality.
3
Introduction
Public budgeting is a central function of government, serving as both a technical process
for allocating resources and a political exercise in prioritizing public values. As fiscal
environments grow more complex, public administrators face increasing pressure to transparent
while delivering efficiency and tangible outcomes. To meet these demands, governments rely on
various budgeting models, such as line-item, program, and performance-based, each with distinct
strengths and limitations. Line-item budgeting offers control and clarity, program budgeting
fosters strategic alignment, and performance budgeting emphasizes accountability and results.
However, the effectiveness of these models is not determined solely by their internal design.
External forces such as economic fluctuations and political pressures play a critical role in
shaping how budgets are developed and implemented. This paper explores the relationship
between budgeting frameworks and structural constraints. In so doing, it seeks to make the case
that effective public budgeting depends not just on methodological rigor but also on institutional
capacity and political adaptability in the face of uncertainty
Impact of Line-Item Budgets on the Budgetary Process
Line-item budgeting is one of the most enduring methods in public financial
management. It organizes expenditures by categories such as salaries, utilities, travel, and
equipment with a focus on inputs rather than outcomes. The primary appeal of this model lies in
its simplicity and perceived transparency. By detailing expenditures to specific cost items, it
allows for precise spending oversight and fiscal discipline. Hou (2022) argues that this
categorical clarity enhances budgets’ ability to be audited and minimizes opportunities for
financial mismanagement. In addition, the line-item format supports legislative accountability by
making it easy for policymakers to trace how funds are allocated and spent.
4
However, the strengths of line-item budgeting are also its most limiting features. Its rigid
structure impedes budgetary responsiveness, making it difficult for administrators to reallocate
funds in response to changes in circumstances or strategic priorities. For example, a study on
production efficiency (Banker et al., 2011) found that line-item constraints often inhibit the
ability of agencies to shift resources across functional areas. This rigidity discourages innovation,
as managers are discouraged from making cross-program investments or launching new
initiatives without formal budgetary amendments.
In addition, line-item budgeting eliminates the link between spending and performance. It
measures compliance with expenditure limits but offers no mechanism for evaluating whether
those expenditures achieve desired outcomes. In practice, this encourages a culture of
bureaucratic maintenance rather than goal-oriented or mission-driven governance. Agencies may
focus on not overspending a line item rather than questioning whether the expenditure produced
public value. As public administration increasingly emphasizes performance, equity, and results-
based accountability, line-item budgeting appears increasingly outdated. While it remains useful
for fiscal control, especially in politically sensitive or decentralized systems, it falls short as a
tool for strategic planning and outcome-based public management.
Impact of Program Budgets on the Budgetary Process
Program budgeting marks a shift from traditional line-item budgeting by focusing away
from financial inputs to the outputs and outcomes associated with government activities. Instead
of organizing funds by cost categories, this approach groups expenditures according to specific
programs aligned with policy goals. As Onana (2023) observes, this structure promotes
coherence between budget allocations and government priorities and facilitates strategic
5
planning. He notes that program budgeting improves efficiency by clarifying the relationship
between spending and policy impact, thereby supporting more informed decision-making.
A key strength of program budgeting resides in its encouragement of internal evaluation and
continuous policy learning. Unlike line-item budgets, which primarily monitor compliance,
program budgets require agencies to set goals and project outcomes and assess effectiveness.
According to Ervin (2013), this procedural shift allows for a results-oriented culture within
public organizations, pressing managers to justify expenditures in terms of measurable benefits.
As a result, program budgeting can lead to greater transparency and accountability while creating
a feedback loop that supports innovation and performance improvement.
These advantages, however, come with increased administrative demands. Implementing
program budgeting requires complex data systems, skilled staff, and a culture of evidence-based
governance. In many public organizations, especially in resource-sensitive environments, these
prerequisites are often lacking. When data quality is poor or performance metrics aren’t clear or
detailed, the link between spending and outcomes becomes speculative rather than measurable,
undermining this framework’s value. Furthermore, program budgeting is susceptible to political
pressure. Favored initiatives may continue receiving funds despite poor performance, while
politically marginalized but effective programs may be underfunded.
Ultimately, program budgeting enhances the strategic and performance capacity of public
financial management but depends heavily on institutional and technical capacity and political
will. Without these, its effects can be lessened by complexity, misalignment, or political
manipulation.
6
Impact of Performance Budgets on the Budgetary Process
Performance budgeting is a reform-oriented approach that seeks to tie government spending
directly to the results or outcomes it produces. Unlike traditional input-based models,
performance budgeting focuses on outputs such as services delivered and policy impacts
achieved. This alignment aims to enhance both efficiency and effectiveness in public
administration. Abbasov (2025) provides empirical evidence that performance budgeting
motivates public managers to allocate resources toward initiatives that produce measurable
public benefits. This promotes a more accountable and outcome-driven governance model, where
success is judged not only by expenditures but also by their societal impact.
The OECD (2019) has outlined several best practices essential to the success of
performance budgeting, stressing the importance of well-defined goals, reliable key performance
indicators, and institutional buy-in. These elements ensure that performance data are integrated
into the decision-making process rather than serving as symbolic gestures. When implemented
properly, performance budgeting can support resource allocation, reward high-performing
programs, and guide policy reform.
In spite of its appeal, performance budgeting is challenging to operationalize. It can be
both expensive and politically challenging to develop valid and reliable performance metrics.
Many public agencies lack the technical infrastructure to effectively evaluate outcomes.
Furthermore, performance results may be influenced by factors outside the agency’s controls,
such as economic conditions or demographic trends, opening the door to questions and concerns
about fairness in evaluation. Political incentives can also alter the process, leading to biases in
reporting and evaluation.
7
Nonetheless, performance budgeting reflects a broader movement in public
administration toward transparency, accountability, and evidence-based governance. Its
successful implementation requires more than technical tools; it demands a cultural shift toward
ongoing evaluation, learning, and adaptability. Institutions that can cultivate this environment
stand to benefit from a budgeting process that is not only more strategic but more responsive to
public needs and expectations.
Economic Impact: Impact of Business Cycle Fluctuations on the Budgetary Process
Business cycle fluctuations, defined as periodic expansions and contractions in economic
activity, present significant challenges for public budgeting. In times of economic downturn, tax
revenues typically decline due to lower personal incomes, decrease economic consumption, and
reduced corporate profits. Simultaneously, public demand for services such as unemployment
benefits and food assistance, healthcare services, etc. increases. This two-fold pressure creates
imbalances that challenge the stability and predictability of government budgets. The OECD
highlights that such conditions impose constraints on medium-term expenditure frameworks and
often require politically contentious reallocations (Rawdanowicz et al., 2021).
To manage these macroeconomic shocks, many governments have adopted more
sophisticated budget forecasting methods. Gibbs et al. (2025) stress the growing use of real-time
data analytics and predictive modeling to anticipate downturns and inform fiscal adjustments.
They advocate for dynamic scenario planning as a way to simulate economic shocks and stress-
test budgetary decisions before they materialize. These tools can bolster budgetary resilience by
enabling governments to pivot rapidly in response to shifting economic conditions.
However, there is disparity in the adoption and effectiveness of these innovations. Many
jurisdictions, particularly at the local level, lack the technical infrastructure or human capital to
8
fully integrate predictive analytics into budget formulation in a meaningful way. Moreover,
political disinclination to act on early warning signals, especially when forecasts suggest less-
than-popular spending cuts, can make these tools practically ineffective. In response, some
governments resort to austerity measures, which, albeit fiscally conservative, may deepen
economic contractions and worsen social vulnerability.
In essence, while business cycle fluctuations can be partially mitigated through forward-
looking tools, their successful application requires both administrative competence and political
will. Without these, governments risk perpetuating reactive, short-term budgeting that amplifies
volatility rather than lessens it.
Political Impact: Impact of Tax Policy on the Budgetary Process
Tax policy fundamentally shapes the budgetary process by establishing the revenue
parameters within which expenditure decisions are made. It reflects not only a government's
economic priorities but also embodies its political and ideological commitments. As Adolph et al.
(2018) argue, tax policy is inherently political, that is, governments design tax regimes to serve
allocative preferences, economic theories, and even strategic political calculations. The authors
further note that tax structures are often adjusted to appeal to key constituencies and attract
business investment, even when such adjustments compromise long-term sustainability and
fiscal rationality.
The timing and structure of tax reforms are especially vulnerable to political cycles.
Governments frequently lower taxes in the run-up to elections to gain popular support and
maximize chances of getting re-elected, despite negative implications for fiscal balance. The
IMF’s analysis of post–Great Recession tax policy assessed that short-term political incentives
often trumped long-term fiscal responsibility (Gaspar et al., 2017). Many governments delayed
9
or significantly altered tax reforms to avoid political backlash, even when those reforms were
supported by economic experts and budget analysts.
This politicization of tax policy adds significant volatility to the budgeting process.
Frequent changes to tax codes, driven by partisan politicking, rather than sound fiscal strategy,
muddy revenue projections and make long-term budget planning difficult. Budget officers are
then forced to engage in constant recalibration to hedge against unexpected policy shifts. This
reactive posture undermines strategic investment and weakens trust in the integrity of public
financial management.
Furthermore, when tax policy is politicized for short-term gain, it erodes public
confidence in the fairness and effectiveness of the budget process. Budgeting, thus, becomes a
battleground for political posturing and compromising the government’s capacity to deliver
sustainable public value, instead of functioning as a predictable rule-abiding process.
Conclusion
The nature of public budgeting is inherently multi-dimensional, influenced by a multitude
of administrative choices and economic and political forces. As governments confront rising
demands for transparency, efficiency, and the delivery of tangible outcomes, budget systems such
as line-item, program, and performance budgeting offer distinct frameworks to meet these
expectations. Line-item budgeting remains useful for ensuring fiscal control and legislative
clarity, whereas program budgeting enhances strategic coherence by linking expenditures to
policy goals. Performance budgeting, in contrast, prioritizes outcomes and results, with a view to
linking funding decisions to measurable public value.
However, these models do not operate in a vacuum. Their effectiveness is mediated by
external forces. Economic volatility, particularly during business cycle downturns, can
10
destabilize even the most well-designed budgets by shrinking revenue and increasing social
spending demands. Likewise, tax policy can introduce instability into revenue projections and
hinder rational budget planning. These constraints highlight a fundamental conflict in public
budgeting, that is, the need to balance administrative effectiveness with political adaptability.
Competent public budgeting, therefore, demands more than selecting the “right” model. It
requires institutional capacity, technical infrastructure, and perhaps above all, political will.
11
References
Abbasov, R. (2025) The Effectiveness of Performance-Based Budgeting in the Public Sector: An
Empirical Analysis and Policy Implications. iBusiness, 17, 56-76. doi:
10.4236/ib.2025.171003.
Adolph, C., Breunig, C., & Koski, C. (2018). The political economy of budget trade-offs. Journal
of Public Policy, 40(1), 25–50. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0143814x18000326
Banker, R. D., Chang, H., & Feroz, E. H. (2011). Line item budgeting and production efficiency.
The Journal of Theoretical Accounting Research, 7(1), 108-126.
https://go.openathens.net/redirector/liberty.edu?url=https://www.proquest.com/scholarly-
journals/line-item-budgeting-production-efficiency/docview/894123987/se-2
Ervin, O.L. (2013), "The logic of estimation: Describing the budgetary work of program
managers", Journal of Public Procurement, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 293-311.
https://doi.org/10.1108/JOPP-13-03-2013-B001
Gaspar, V., Gupta, S., & Mulas-Granados, C. (2017). Fiscal politics. In International Monetary
Fund eBooks. https://doi.org/10.5089/9781475547900.071
Gibbs, R., Carr, M., Mulcahy, M., & Walsh, D. (2025). Planning for business cycle fluctuations
in budgeting: the application of innovative data sources and techniques. The British
Accounting Review, 101576. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bar.2025.101576
Hou, Y. (2022). Line item and budget: Towards a theory of line item in budgeting. SSRN
Electronic Journal. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4312905
OECD. (2019). Good Practices for Performance Budgeting. https://doi.org/10.1787/c90b0305-en
12
Onana, S. P. (2023). Do programme budget mechanisms improve the efficiency of public
spending? Elements of theory and empirical data from Cameroon. International Review
of Administrative Sciences, 90(1), 185–202. https://doi.org/10.1177/00208523231201256
Rawdanowicz, Ł., Turban, S., Haas, J., Crowe, D., & Millot, V. (2021). Constraints and demands
on public finances: considerations of resilient fiscal policy. In oecd.org.
