Decisional Convergence in Reforms? — Evidence from a Comprehensive Study of Performance Budgeting Foundations in the US and China

Figures & data

Figure 1. Theoretical perspectives that influence elements of the framework of performance budgeting.

Table 1. Summary of performance budgeting characteristics of the US and China’s national government Initiatives

Legislation/ Executive Initiative	Government Performance and Results Act, 1993	President Bush’s Management Agenda (PMA), 2001; Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART), FY2004	President Obama’s Management Agenda; Government Performance and Results Modernization Act, 2010
Periods	Clinton (1993–2000)	Bush (2001–2008)	Obama (2009–2016)
U.S. Characteristics	Require strategic plans; focus on results beyond activities (GAO, 1997); Require federal agencies to prepare annual performance plans and reports to address performance gaps (Willoughby & Benson, 2011); Increase in performance information supply (Joyce, 2011); Use of performance indicators in agency funding justification (Jones & McCaffery, 2010)	Call for budget and performance integration; Focus on program (instead of agency) performance using a “traffic light” system; Scoring programs based on a questionnaire (PART) including program purpose, strategic planning, program management, and program results; Performance transparency by posting complete PART reviews on OMB’s website (Joyce, 2011; Willoughby & Benson, 2011); More performance communication between OMB and agencies (GAO, 2005; Jones & McCaffery, 2010)	OMB developed cross-agency priority (CAP) goals while agencies developed agency priority goals (GAO 2005); Quarterly reporting on priority goals on a publicly available website (GAO 2011); Create the position of Chief Performance Officer in charge of government-wide performance and performance liaisons coordinating cross-agency program performance; Recommend to reduce agency funding due to inadequate performance; Identify and focus on high priority performance goals; More power decentralized to agencies to decide measures and targets; Commit time and resources to detailed program evaluations and cost benefit analyses (Joyce, 2011; Willoughby & Benson, 2011); Require OMB and agencies to consult with relevant legislative committees about performance to improve congressional decision making (GAO 2011)
Legislation or Executive Initiative	- The 3rd Plenary Session of the 16th CCP Central Committee (2003); - Interim Measures for the Performance Evaluation of Fiscal Expenditures, issued by Ministry of Finance (2009); - Guiding Opinions on the Advancement of Performance Budgeting, issued by Ministry of Finance (2011); - Framework of Common Performance Indicators for performance budgeting (2013) - Work Plan on Performance Budgeting (2012–2015) issued by Ministry of Finance	- New Budget Law (2014); - The Decision on Deepening the Reform of Budget Management System, issued by State Council (2014)	- Opinions on Comprehensive Implementation of Performance Budgeting, issued by CCP Central Committee and State Council (2018)
Periods	Led by the Ministry of Finance (2003–2013)	Relevant Law and State Council (2014)	Led by CCP Central Committee and State Council (2018)
China Characteristics	Initiate to establish a system of budget performance evaluation (The Third Plenary Session of the 16th Central Committee 2003); Set forth guiding principles of performance measures and evaluations, focusing on economy, efficiency, effectiveness, transparency and relevancy, driven by Ministry of finance and individual agencies (Ministry of Finance 2009); Place heavy emphasis on the role of budget/finance office in promoting the scientific and refined management of finance across various levels of government; specific key tasks include performance target establishment, progress tracking, evaluation and its use in management and budgeting; increase performance awareness and strengthen institutions governing the responsibility and efficiency of budget expenditures, (Ministry of Finance 2011); Strengthen the spirit of instruction of Performance budgeting and the overall requirements for improving government performance (Work Plan on Performance Budgeting 2012–2015); Improve the uniformity and authority of performance evaluation (Framework of Common Index System for performance budgeting 2013; Zheng et al., 2017)	A historic move to stipulate “performance” in budget laws for the first time, which appeared six times in the full text (Budget Laws 2014); Elevate the importance of performance to be part of governance capacity of state building; emphasize budget performance as one of seven pillars of deepening budget reforms; and institutionalize performance budgeting; actively promote budget accountability (State Council 2014)	Set in motion the implementation of a performance budgeting reform that aims to be fully standardized, transparent, comprehensive and effective, and that holds subnational governments and agencies accountable for performance. (The report of the 19th National Congress of the Communist Party of China 2017); The emphasis is on its comprehensive integration with the budget process, identifying performance with all agencies’ use of funds, throughout all phases of the budget cycle, covering all kinds of fund categories and tightening the accountability link between funds and performance. The comprehensive implementation is deemed as an inherent requirement to promote the modernization of the national governance system and state capabilities (The Central Committee of the Communist Party of China and the State Council Issued Opinions on Comprehensive Implementation of Performance Budgeting 2018); A new turning point in performance budgeting reform from being led by the Ministry of Finance to being promoted at a higher level (i.e., state council) with implications for the entire government (P. Y. Gao, 2018; He et al., 2019; Z. C. Wang, 2018)

Table 2. States/Provinces with performance budgeting components in Law/Government Guidelines

Performance Budgeting Components		U.S.		China		Divergence
		Number of States with the component	Percentage of States with the component	Number of provinces with the component	Percentage of Provinces with the component	Percentage Difference
Measurement	a1. Number and type of measures	31	62%	31	100%	38%
	a2. Frequency of performance information updates	28	90%	31	100%	10%
	a3. Technical oversight of agency measures	15	30%	31	100%	70%
	a4. Benchmarks or targets	18	36%	31	100%	64%
	Measurement Index (Average Value)		55%		100%	45%
Integration	b1. State/provincial strategic plan links with budget	5	10%	4	13%	3%
	b2. Agency strategic plan links with state/provincial strategic plan	11	22%	0	0%	−22%
	b3. Agency strategic plan links with budget	19	37%	31	100%	63%
	b4. Performance measures link with agency strategic plan	24	48%	31	100%	52%
	Integration Index (Average value)		30%		53%	23%
Accountability	c1. Incentives for reaching performance goals	7	14%	31	100%	86%
	c2. Sanctions for not meeting performance goals	6	12%	31	100%	88%
	c3. Role of citizens specified	8	16%	31	100%	84%
	Accountability Index (Average value)		14%		100%	86%
Culture	d1. Responsibility for state strategic plan	11	22%	0	0%	−22%
	d2. Responsibility for developing performance measures	37	74%	31	100%	26%
	d3. Evaluation of measures and performance reports	23	46%	31	100%	54%
	Culture Index (Average value)		47%		67%	20%

Figure 2. Divergence in measurement, integration, accountability and culture, measured by the percentage of subnational governments with specified components in each Country.

Figure 3. Percentage of States/Provinces adopting performance budgeting from 1993–2019.

GAO. (1997). Performance budgeting: Past initiatives offer insights for GPRA implementation No. GAO/AIMD-97-46.

 Google Scholar

Willoughby, K., & Benson, P. (2011). Program evaluation, performance budgeting and PART: The U.S. Federal government experience. Working paper 11-12. International Studies Program.

 Google Scholar

Joyce, P. G. (2011). The Obama administration and PBB: Building on the legacy of federal performance-informed budgeting? Public Administration Review, 71(3), 356–367. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2011.02355.x

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Jones, L. R., & McCaffery, J. L. (2010). Performance budgeting in the U.S. federal government: History, status and future implications. Public Finance and Management, 10(3), 482–523.

 Google Scholar

GAO. (2005). Performance budgeting part focuses attention on program performance, but more can be done to engage congress No. GAO-O6-28.

 Google Scholar

Zheng, F. H., Liao, Y. E., & Lu, Y. F. (2017). Financial performance evaluation: Concept, system and practice. Social Sciences in China, 4, 84–108.

 Google Scholar

Gao, P. Y. (2018). 40 years of China’s fiscal and taxation reform: Basic track, basic experience and basic rule. China Finance, 26(2), 60–71. https://doi.org/10.1111/cwe.12238

 Google Scholar

He, W. S., Du, L. N., & Cai, Z. S. (2019). The evolution of the concept of budget governance from the perspective of national governance modernization. Journal of Shanghai Administration Institute, 20(6), 10–21.

 Google Scholar

Wang, Z. C. (2018). Budget performance management: The realization path of comprehensive performance management in the new era. Chinese Public Administration, 4, 6–12.

 Google Scholar