Public Sector Accounting and Budgeting

Public Sector Accounting and Budgeting

Meta-analysis of barriers to the establishment of performance-based budgeting in the Iranian organizations

Document Type : Original Article

Authors
Sareh Mohseni Tonekaboni 1
Sedigheh Toutian 2
1 Master of Public Administration, Islamic Azad University, Science and Research Branch, Tehran, Iran
2 Associate Professor of Public Administration, Islamic Azad University, Central Tehran Branch, Tehran, Iran
Abstract
Performance-based (operational) budgeting system as a management system to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of organizational resource consumption has been seriously considered by governments at the national and local levels. In this system, budget credits are allocated based on the performance of organizational units in order to produce outputs (products and services) or the same short-term goals or achieve the same results or long-term goals, and thus the organization to increase transparency in how to use Resources are directed to perform activities, generate outputs, and achieve goals and strategies, as well as greater accountability. The method of the present study is a bit of meta-analysis. The statistical population of the study includes 71 in-country articles, of which 20 articles were entered into the meta-analysis process using purposive non-random sampling method. Reliability of identification was obtained through the agreement of the judges in selecting the articles and their classification, reliability of identification was obtained through the agreement of the judges on the use of specific concepts to identify variables and reliability of the level of significance and effect size was obtained through agreement in calculating the size of the effect. Findings showed that technical and process, environmental and human variables were the most important factors in the lack of operational budgeting in government agencies. Among the 3 variables and 41 effect sizes (effect sizes were between 0.1-3.1, 0.5-0.3 and above 0.5 and were assumed to be low, medium and high, respectively), the share of technical factors And a process with an average effect size of 0.58 is more prominent for establishing operational budgeting. Environmental factors with an average effect size of 0.53, human factors with an average effect size of 0.51 are the second and third priority, respectively. 
Keywords
Operational budgeting
Meta-analysis
Environmental factors
Human factors
Technical and process factors

Subjects

ابراهیمی‌نژاد، مهدی؛ فرجوند، اسفندیار. (1380). بودجه از تنظیم تا کنترل. تهران: انتشارات سمت.
پناهی، علی. (1386). بودجه‌ریزی عملیاتی (در نظریه و عمل). چاپ اول. تهران: انتشارات مرکز پژوهش‌های مجلس شورای اسلامی.
حسن‌آبادی، محمد؛ نجارصراف، علیرضا. (1385). مسیر بودجه‌ریزی عملیاتی نوین. برنامه‌وبودجه. 86-131.
حضوری، محمدجواد؛ مقرب، سیدمهدی؛ جنتی، علی. (1392). شناسایی الزامات استقرار بودجه‌ریزی عملیاتی در دانشگاه‌های علوم پزشکی کشور. مجموعه مقالات چهارمین کنفرانس بین‌المللی بودجه‌ریزی عملیاتی. تهران: گروه مشاوران پنکو.
زینالی، مهدی؛ محمدزاده سالطه، حیدر؛ مهران­‌پور، حمید. (1392). بررسی موانع پیاده­‌سازی بودجه‌­ریزی عملیاتی در وزارت امور اقتصادی و دارایی با استفاده از مدل شه. مجله اقتصادی، 3، 49- 64.
صدر مغانی، محسن؛ پو زمانی، زهرا. (1393). موانع استقرار بودجه‌ریزی عملیاتی در سازمان امور مالیاتی ایران. حسابداری دولتی، 1(1).، 22-30.
طاهرپور کلانتری، حبیب‌الله؛ دانش‌­فرد، کرم‌­الله؛ رضایی دزکی، فرهاد. (1390). شناسایی عوامل مؤثر بر استقرار قانون بودجه عملیاتی در سازمان‌های دولتی. برنامه‌وبودجه، 16، 31- 56.
فروغی، داریوش؛ حقیقی پراپری، محمد؛ رسائیان، امیر. ( (1391). امکان‌سنجی اجرای روش هزینه‌یابی بر مبنای فعالیت در بودجه‌بندی عملیاتی دستگاه‌های دولتی (مطالعه موردی: دستگاه‌های دولتی استان اصفهان). حسابداری سلامت، 1(1)، 47- 62.  
فرزاد، محبوبه؛ قاسمی، محمد؛ عرب اول، مهرداد؛ رمضانی، عباسعلی. (1393). موانع استقرار بودجه‌ریزی عملیاتی در دستگاه‌های اجرایی استان سیستان و بلوچستان. دانشگاه علوم پزشکی زابل (رستمینه)، 6(2)، 53-44.
قربانی‌زاده، وجه‌الله. (1392). راهنمایی کاربردی فراتحلیل با نرم افزار CAM2. تهران: جامعه شناسان.
وفائی، آذر. (1388). عوامل موثر بر اثربخشی سیستم بودجه‌ریزی عملکرد در سازمان­‌های عمومی. برنامه‌ریزی و بودجه، 79- 98.
Andrews, M. (2004). Authority, Acceptance, Ability and Performance-Based Budgeting Reforms, The International Journal of Public Sector Management, 17(4), 332-344.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Diamond, Jack. (2002). Performance Budgeting is accrual accounting required? IMF working paper, 130.
Lu, Yi., Willoughby, Katherine., & Arnett, Sarah. (2011). Performance Budgeting in the American States,What's Law got to do with it?. State and Local Government Review, 43(2), 79-94.
Pakmaram, A., Esgandari, K., Babaei, K.H., & Khalili, M. (2012). Identifying and prioritizing effective factors in the performance based budgeting in telecommunications‘ company with TOPSIS method. African Journal of Business Management, 6(24).
Posner, PL., & Park, C.K. (2008). Role of the legislature in the budget process. OECD Journal on Budgeting, 7(3), 1-26.
Kong, D. (2005). Performance-based budgeting: The U.S. experience. Publ Organ Rev, 5(2), 91-107.
Robbins, S. P. (2002). Organizational Behavior. 9ed. India: Printice Hall publication.
Young, R. D. (2003). Performance Based Budgeting Systems, public policy and practice. An Electronic journal Devoted to Govermance and public policy in south Carolina, 2(2), 1-24.
Isaac, L. (2014). Appraising the Impact of Budgeting and Planning on the Performance of Financial Institutions in Nigeria. Research Journal of Finance and Accounting, 5(16), 12-27.
Surianti, M., & Dalimunthe, A. (2015). The Implementation of Performance Based Budgeting in Public Sector (Indonesia Case: A Literature Review). Research Journal of Finance and Accounting, 6(12), 198-211.
Zaneta, P. (2013). Traditional versus Activity-based Budgeting in Non- Manufacturing Companies. Journal of Social Sciences, 82(4), 26.

  • Receive Date 27 December 2021
  • Revise Date 18 January 2022
  • Accept Date 02 February 2022