{"title":"How budgets change: punctuations, trends, and super-trends","authors":"Ehud Segal, Frank R. Baumgartner","doi":"10.1007/s11077-024-09542-9","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Punctuated equilibrium theory (PET) describes policy change as occurring mostly through incremental movements with infrequent periods of dramatic change. An impressive body of empirical literature relating to budgeting supports this view, but virtually all empirical tests have focused on examining distributions of annual changes, thus nullifying chronology. In this article, we focus on the time element. Using the same databases as previously used in canonical PET studies, we explore multi-year trends, not only annual observations. For our analyses, we identify directional series of changes (while allowing for one-year changes in direction if these are immediately offset in the following year) on a U.S. budget distribution dataset covering the period of 1947 through 2014, with 60 categories of spending consistently defined over time and adjusted for inflation. We then assess the robustness of the PET findings when incorporating a longer time units of trending series of annual changes into the analysis. We find that almost 65% of changes occur in series of 4 years or more. Nonetheless, the signature PET literature pattern of high kurtosis is equally present in these series as well as in shorter series. Moreover, within growing and trending series, we find that 21% of these series generate 80% of positive budget change. Within these series, we identify a small group of “super-trends” that account for a large share of the overall change. We conclude that expanding methodologies for the study of budgetary change to incorporate longer-term dynamics helps to better understand policy change, but such findings remain consistent with the PET perspective.</p>","PeriodicalId":51433,"journal":{"name":"Policy Sciences","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Policy Sciences","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11077-024-09542-9","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Punctuated equilibrium theory (PET) describes policy change as occurring mostly through incremental movements with infrequent periods of dramatic change. An impressive body of empirical literature relating to budgeting supports this view, but virtually all empirical tests have focused on examining distributions of annual changes, thus nullifying chronology. In this article, we focus on the time element. Using the same databases as previously used in canonical PET studies, we explore multi-year trends, not only annual observations. For our analyses, we identify directional series of changes (while allowing for one-year changes in direction if these are immediately offset in the following year) on a U.S. budget distribution dataset covering the period of 1947 through 2014, with 60 categories of spending consistently defined over time and adjusted for inflation. We then assess the robustness of the PET findings when incorporating a longer time units of trending series of annual changes into the analysis. We find that almost 65% of changes occur in series of 4 years or more. Nonetheless, the signature PET literature pattern of high kurtosis is equally present in these series as well as in shorter series. Moreover, within growing and trending series, we find that 21% of these series generate 80% of positive budget change. Within these series, we identify a small group of “super-trends” that account for a large share of the overall change. We conclude that expanding methodologies for the study of budgetary change to incorporate longer-term dynamics helps to better understand policy change, but such findings remain consistent with the PET perspective.
期刊介绍:
The policy sciences are distinctive within the policy movement in that they embrace the scholarly traditions innovated and elaborated by Harold D. Lasswell and Myres S. McDougal. Within these pages we provide space for approaches that are problem-oriented, contextual, and multi-method in orientation. There are many other journals in which authors can take top-down, deductive, and large-sample approach or adopt a primarily theoretical focus. Policy Sciences encourages systematic and empirical investigations in which problems are clearly identified from a practical and theoretical perspective, are well situated in the extant literature, and are investigated utilizing methodologies compatible with contextual, as opposed to reductionist, understandings. We tend not to publish pieces that are solely theoretical, but favor works in which the applied policy lessons are clearly articulated. Policy Sciences favors, but does not publish exclusively, works that either explicitly or implicitly utilize the policy sciences framework. The policy sciences can be applied to articles with greater or lesser intensity to accommodate the focus of an author’s work. At the minimum, this means taking a problem oriented, multi-method or contextual approach. At the fullest expression, it may mean leveraging central theory or explicitly applying aspects of the framework, which is comprised of three principal dimensions: (1) social process, which is mapped in terms of participants, perspectives, situations, base values, strategies, outcomes and effects, with values (power, wealth, enlightenment, skill, rectitude, respect, well-being, and affection) being the key elements in understanding participants’ behaviors and interactions; (2) decision process, which is mapped in terms of seven functions—intelligence, promotion, prescription, invocation, application, termination, and appraisal; and (3) problem orientation, which comprises the intellectual tasks of clarifying goals, describing trends, analyzing conditions, projecting developments, and inventing, evaluating, and selecting alternatives. There is a more extensive core literature that also applies and can be visited at the policy sciences website: http://www.policysciences.org/classicworks.cfm. In addition to articles that explicitly utilize the policy sciences framework, Policy Sciences has a long tradition of publishing papers that draw on various aspects of that framework and its central theory as well as high quality conceptual pieces that address key challenges, opportunities, or approaches in ways congruent with the perspective that this journal strives to maintain and extend.Officially cited as: Policy Sci