reams of minutiae. Beyond such elements, however, lies a basic, unalterable
reality. For organizations of all kinds, nothing is more important than the
process of resource allocation: what goal is sought, how much money they
have, what strings are attached to it, and what hurdles are placed before managers
who must spend it.
In government, budgeting is never easy. After all, the budget is the most
political of documents. If, as the political scientist Harold D. Lasswell once
said, politics is “who gets what, when, how,” the budget answers that question.
By crafting a budget, public officials decide who pays what taxes and
who receives what benefits. The publics largesse to children, the elderly, the
poor, the middle class, and others is shaped by the budgets that support cities,
states, and the federal government.
But if budgeting is inherently messy, such messiness is costly. Optimally,
the budget would by more than the product of struggles among competing
interests. It also would reflect the thoughtful planning of our public leaders.
No one can improve quality and cut costs without planning to do so.
Unfortunately, the most deliberate planning is often subordinated to politics,
and is perhaps the last thing we do in constructing a budget. Consider
our process. Early in the year, each agency estimates what it will need to run
its programs in the fiscal year that begins almost 2 years later. This is like asking
someone to figure out not only what they will by doing, but how much it
will cost 3 years later since that’s when the money will be spent. Bureau and
program managers typically examine the previous year’s activity data and