Specific Factors Determining Optimal Accomplishment of Spending Reviews
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
IntroductionA spending review - is regarded as one of the principal instruments used to evaluate public policies pursued by specific countries. The notion of public policies evaluation is a broader concept than to the category of spending review, and it is defined as an analysis of the effects of public interventions on the economy and on society. A spending review is viewed as an extensive and in-depth analysis of public expenditures in a specific country at the baseline level, which is in compliance with the applicable laws and policy pursued (in other words without shifts in politics). An overruling objective of such an analytical process is to deliver efficiency and savings through decreasing expenditures on tasks seen as unjustified by needs (low priority), redundant or ineffective expenditures. Central to the review is the analysis of the effects produced by alternative levels and directions of financing, that is an alternative expenditure structure compared to the baseline situation. A spending review makes it possible to adjust and reallocate resources intended for public intervention. An expected effect would also be a rational (optimal), from the perspective of ultimate social and economic consequences, squeeze on expenditures as part of required fiscal consolidation, or accomplishment of new priorities in fiscal policy through increased expenditures or reduced taxes. The notion of a spending review encompasses both financial and material aspects of state intervention, additionally complemented by their required shift. This notion actually comes close to the review and evolution of public policies pursued.There is no single universal method for conducting spending reviews. The reference literature only illustrate common proceedings formulas which should be deployed for the process. Moreover, key determinants affecting the correctness and efficacy of review procedures and effective application of their outcomes include: appropriate political commitment, the administration's responsibility, transparent objectives and project management, integration as part of budget processes, preparedness and capacity for implementing changes, developing transformative capacities as well as an effectiveness culture at all tiers of the public administration (DG ECFIN, 2014, p. 4). The success determinants outlined are related to overall present-day trends inherent to management development in the public sector, underlying New Public Management or New Public Governance.The paper verifies the thesis holding that spending reviews require an individualized approach which integrates specifics of the given country and guides to optimal accomplishment of the review objectives. The application of universal and general methods is essential though not sufficient, for optimal achievement of objectives. The analysis relies on the literature studies, research, available analytical documents from the EU and OECD as well as exemplary spending reviews. The thesis will be verified based on the author's analysis and assessment using research and professional experience.1. Reasons behind the interest in spending reviewsNegative repercussions in public finances suffered by numerous countries in the aftermath of the global financial crisis in 2007 brought advanced and innovative methods for consolidation and fiscal stabilization into focus. The initiatives used include spending reviews. Essentially, they were harnessed in the fiscal policy by the countries which previously utilized the instrument (Holland, Denmark, Finland, the United Kingdom, Australia) as well as those which introduced its use (Ireland, Canada, France) (Robinson, 2013). It should be highlighted that the review method covers countries with a substantially higher level of economic advancement and mature public management systems.The interest in the use of tax reviews by individual EU member states is varied because of a shortage of obligatory regulations in this respect at the international level. …
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,026 | 0,191 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,004 | 0,005 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,009 | 0,005 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,003 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,014 | 0,004 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».