Trends in Performance Budgeting in Seven OECD countries
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
An international trend exists to use more information on results in public budgeting, but the focus of these initiatives varies from country to country, as demonstrated in this study of performance budgeting reforms in Australia, Canada, Sweden, the Netherlands, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, and the United States. On one hand, an evolution is taking place toward output and outcome budgeting, but on the other hand, a trend is moving toward accrual budgeting. The implementation of results-oriented budgeting evokes four major challenges: (a) to align the fiscal framework with the results-oriented budget reform, (b) to create legislative interest for performance, (c) to provide high-quality results information, and (d) to establish the leadership and authority of the central budget office. Are the results of performance budgeting worth the challenge? Very little evidence seems to exist that performance information is used in the political budgetary decision-making process or in the legislative oversight function. The major impact of results-oriented budget reform appears to be situated in the internal management of departments and agencies.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it