The Impact of Shifting from an Annual Federal Budget Cycle to a Biennial Budget Cycle: A Look at the States and the Implications for Congress

A. C. Warnick
{"title":"The Impact of Shifting from an Annual Federal Budget Cycle to a Biennial Budget Cycle: A Look at the States and the Implications for Congress","authors":"A. C. Warnick","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.1081608","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This paper uses a public choice framework to consider the impact of Congressional adoption of a biennial federal budget. The introductory chapters detail the evolution of the current Congressional annual budget and explain how budgetary institutions affect the power structures inside Congress. The relevant public choice literature on budgetary institutions is also explored. Proponents of biennial budgeting argue that changing to a biennial process will provide several benefits to Congress: reduced discretionary spending through more Congressional control over the process, more time for oversight of programs, and greater transparency. Chapter 3 constructs a model of state spending to examine the relationship between budget periodicity and spending by constructing a model of state spending. In contrast to most of the literature on budget periodicity, this chapter finds a positive relationship between spending and biennial budgets. Chapter 4 conducts two case studies of states that have recently moved from annual budgeting to biennial budgeting to determine how the changes affected the influence and power of Appropriators relative to Authorizers. Anecdotal evidence from Connecticut suggests Appropriators' influence is negatively affected by a move to a two-year budget. Campaign contribution evidence from Arizona confirms that interest groups perceive this reduction in the power of Appropriators and, accordingly, donate less to Appropriators relative to Authorizers following a shift to biennial budgeting. Chapter 5 considers whether timing and transparency problems under an annual budget are technical issues that could be cured by extending the budget period and finds that instead these problems the political realities facing legislators. Thus, changing the budget period will not fix these issues and may exacerbate them. This dissertation finds that moving to a federal biennial budget process would increase the pressure on Congressional budgeters to spend, shift power away from Appropriators, and not solve timing and transparency problems in the federal budget.","PeriodicalId":297504,"journal":{"name":"Legislation & Statutory Interpretation","volume":"215 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2008-01-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Legislation & Statutory Interpretation","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.1081608","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

This paper uses a public choice framework to consider the impact of Congressional adoption of a biennial federal budget. The introductory chapters detail the evolution of the current Congressional annual budget and explain how budgetary institutions affect the power structures inside Congress. The relevant public choice literature on budgetary institutions is also explored. Proponents of biennial budgeting argue that changing to a biennial process will provide several benefits to Congress: reduced discretionary spending through more Congressional control over the process, more time for oversight of programs, and greater transparency. Chapter 3 constructs a model of state spending to examine the relationship between budget periodicity and spending by constructing a model of state spending. In contrast to most of the literature on budget periodicity, this chapter finds a positive relationship between spending and biennial budgets. Chapter 4 conducts two case studies of states that have recently moved from annual budgeting to biennial budgeting to determine how the changes affected the influence and power of Appropriators relative to Authorizers. Anecdotal evidence from Connecticut suggests Appropriators' influence is negatively affected by a move to a two-year budget. Campaign contribution evidence from Arizona confirms that interest groups perceive this reduction in the power of Appropriators and, accordingly, donate less to Appropriators relative to Authorizers following a shift to biennial budgeting. Chapter 5 considers whether timing and transparency problems under an annual budget are technical issues that could be cured by extending the budget period and finds that instead these problems the political realities facing legislators. Thus, changing the budget period will not fix these issues and may exacerbate them. This dissertation finds that moving to a federal biennial budget process would increase the pressure on Congressional budgeters to spend, shift power away from Appropriators, and not solve timing and transparency problems in the federal budget.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
从年度联邦预算周期转向两年预算周期的影响:对各州及其对国会的影响的观察
本文使用公共选择框架来考虑国会通过两年期联邦预算的影响。引言部分详细介绍了当前国会年度预算的演变,并解释了预算制度如何影响国会内部的权力结构。本文还探讨了预算制度的相关公共选择文献。两年预算制的支持者认为,将预算制改为两年制将给国会带来几个好处:通过加强国会对预算制的控制,减少可自由支配的开支;有更多时间监督项目;提高透明度。第三章构建国家支出模型,通过构建国家支出模型来考察预算周期与支出之间的关系。与大多数关于预算周期性的文献相反,本章发现支出与两年期预算之间存在正相关关系。第4章对最近从年度预算改为两年期预算的州进行了两个案例研究,以确定这些变化如何影响拨款人相对于授权人的影响力和权力。来自康涅狄格的轶事证据表明,采用两年预算制对拨款人的影响力产生了负面影响。来自亚利桑那州的竞选捐款证据证实,利益集团认为拨款人的权力减少了,因此,在转向两年一次的预算编制后,相对于授权人,拨款人的捐款减少了。第5章考虑年度预算下的时间和透明度问题是否是可以通过延长预算期来解决的技术问题,并发现这些问题是立法者面临的政治现实。因此,改变预算期限并不能解决这些问题,反而可能使问题恶化。本论文发现,转向联邦两年预算程序将增加国会预算人员的支出压力,将权力从拨款人手中转移,并不能解决联邦预算的时间和透明度问题。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Chevron as a Voting Rule Health Insurance Exchanges in Health Care Reform Legal and Policy Issues Equitable Balancing in the Age of Statutes Creating a Template for Banking Insolvency Law Reform after the Collapse of Northern Rock Unjust Laws and Illegal Norms
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1