THE CASES OF PUBLIC SECTOR BUDGETING FOR K-12 EDUCATION IN CANADA AND WELLBEING BUDGETING IN NEW ZEALAND: INCREMENTAL TO PERFORMANCE-BASED BUDGETING

Budgeting is a critical activity for any government. The budgeting approach selected impacts what outcome is achieved. Three common approaches present in practice and in the literature are incremental, performance-based, and productivity budgeting. In addition to the budgeting approach used, one must also consider the complex relationships and inherent tensions between budget actors. \n\nThe first paper of my dissertation centres on how budgeting for public K-12 education is done in 12 out of 13 Canadian provinces and territories. Education was selected as it is a ministry that is comparable from province to territory. By interviewing 25 budget actors, I found that most jurisdictions construct their budgets using incremental approaches. A drawback to incremental budgeting—the status quo—is that a potential $6.0 billion in productivity gains at the combined provincial/territorial and federal levels could be realized.\n\nTo determine how a jurisdiction adopts and implements a novel budgeting approach, I then focused on the adoption and implementation of New Zealand’s wellbeing budgets in the second and third papers of my research. I chose to study this budgeting approach as it was the first Western example of wellbeing as a clear budgeting outcome. Here, in interviews with 22 former and current budget actors, I found that cooperation between and amongst groups of budget actors over time has facilitated a wellbeing approach. They were able to reach a consensus on the importance of efficiency and budget performance. Because of the political aspect of national budgeting, internal and external influences, and New Zealand’s culture, it was natural that the country’s legislation for the performance-based budgeting approach progressed into something innovative. \n\nLastly, I identified successes and challenges in the implementation of this new approach. A theme that emerged was the presence of constructive disagreements and debate. This benefited the implementation of this budgeting approach because it meant that there was both a change in system operations and a change in target behaviour or conditions. Most budget actors indicated that a shift to long-term thinking and better quantification of which investments lead to which wellbeing outcomes is still required for full realization of this budgeting approach.\n\nCultural shifts in the public sector that orient analysis, decision-making, and funding allocations to non-economic outcomes engender a holistic approach to budgeting and public policy. It is important to acknowledge that this budgeting approach requires time, resources, and likely, legislation to achieve. A budget reform must be framed as an iterative process that requires all perspectives from the top to the bottom to be fully successful. Fostering a dynamic, youthful, and academic group of budget actors means that with a performance-based or productivity foundation to public sector budgeting, new ideas can materialize, be experimented with, and improved upon to achieve wellbeing outcomes.

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.