立法预算办公室与“另类事实”和后真相时代的灵丹妙药兼容吗?

Usman W. Chohan
{"title":"立法预算办公室与“另类事实”和后真相时代的灵丹妙药兼容吗?","authors":"Usman W. Chohan","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.2923780","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Legislative Budget Offices are a core element in the movement towards enhancing transparency and accountability in the fiscal process. Yet they are fragile institutions that must continually defend their position in the budget process through analytical rigour and nonpartisanship. When they do come under attack, the consequences for the fiscal process are singularly dire. That is why, in an era of “alternative facts” and “post-truth” nostrums, the viability of the American Congressional Budget Office (CBO) requires revisitation. This paper considers the text of remarks from a hostile American political figure against the CBO (Gingrich, 2017), to reexamine an emergent question in budgetary philosophy: is a Legislative Budget Office compatible with the nostrums of an “alternative facts” and post-Truth era?","PeriodicalId":127865,"journal":{"name":"Political Economy: Budget","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2017-02-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Is a Legislative Budget Office Compatible with the Nostrums of an 'Alternative-Facts' and Post-Truth Era?\",\"authors\":\"Usman W. Chohan\",\"doi\":\"10.2139/SSRN.2923780\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Legislative Budget Offices are a core element in the movement towards enhancing transparency and accountability in the fiscal process. Yet they are fragile institutions that must continually defend their position in the budget process through analytical rigour and nonpartisanship. When they do come under attack, the consequences for the fiscal process are singularly dire. That is why, in an era of “alternative facts” and “post-truth” nostrums, the viability of the American Congressional Budget Office (CBO) requires revisitation. This paper considers the text of remarks from a hostile American political figure against the CBO (Gingrich, 2017), to reexamine an emergent question in budgetary philosophy: is a Legislative Budget Office compatible with the nostrums of an “alternative facts” and post-Truth era?\",\"PeriodicalId\":127865,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Political Economy: Budget\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2017-02-25\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Political Economy: Budget\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2923780\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Political Economy: Budget","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2923780","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

立法预算办公室是提高财政过程透明度和问责制运动的核心要素。然而,它们是脆弱的机构,必须通过严谨的分析和无党派精神,不断捍卫自己在预算过程中的地位。当他们真的受到攻击时,财政过程的后果将是极其可怕的。正因为如此,在一个充斥着“另类事实”和“后真相”妙方的时代,美国国会预算办公室(CBO)的生存能力需要重新审视。本文考虑了一位敌对的美国政治人物对国会预算办公室的评论文本(Gingrich, 2017),以重新审视预算哲学中的一个新问题:立法预算办公室是否与“替代事实”和后真相时代的妙方兼容?
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Is a Legislative Budget Office Compatible with the Nostrums of an 'Alternative-Facts' and Post-Truth Era?
Legislative Budget Offices are a core element in the movement towards enhancing transparency and accountability in the fiscal process. Yet they are fragile institutions that must continually defend their position in the budget process through analytical rigour and nonpartisanship. When they do come under attack, the consequences for the fiscal process are singularly dire. That is why, in an era of “alternative facts” and “post-truth” nostrums, the viability of the American Congressional Budget Office (CBO) requires revisitation. This paper considers the text of remarks from a hostile American political figure against the CBO (Gingrich, 2017), to reexamine an emergent question in budgetary philosophy: is a Legislative Budget Office compatible with the nostrums of an “alternative facts” and post-Truth era?
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Presidents in Deficit: Are there Historical Rewards to Deficits? A Comparative Assessment for 2022 State Budget in Azerbaijan Selective Default Expectations Is Metallica Fractal? A Case Study European Safe Assets: Past, Present, and Future
×
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