성과주의 예산개혁의 비교제도분석 (A Comparative Institutional Analysis of Performance Budget Reforms)

서지정보

· 발행기관 : 한국국정관리학회
· 수록지 정보 : 현대사회와 행정 / 25권 / 1호 / 161 ~ 191페이지
· 저자명 : 하연섭

초록

다른 모든 개혁과 마찬가지로 성과주의 예산제도 또한 제도적 진공 상태에서 도입･운용되는 것이 아니다. 각 국가에서 고유하게 나타나는 정치적･제도적 맥락이 성과주의 예산제도의 구체적인 모습과 활용 패턴에 중대한 영향을 미칠 수밖에 없다. 이러한 측면에서, 본 연구는 비교제도접근법을 활용하여 미국, 영국, 스웨덴, 호주 등 4개국에서 나타나고 있는 성과주의 예산개혁의 다양한 모습을 설명하고 있다. 그리고 이러한 비교연구를 바탕으로 향후 우리나라 성과주의 예산제도의 발전방향에 대한 함의를 도출하고 있다.

영어초록

Performance budget reforms are intended to transform public budgeting systems from the control of inputs to a focus on outputs or outcomes in the interest of improving operational efficiency and promoting results-oriented accountability. Most studies on performance budgeting and performance budget reform have focused almost exclusively on the instrumental and technical aspects of budgeting. The most widely studied topics in the circle of public budgeting scholars include the measurement of outputs and outcomes, the specification of performance indicators, methods for the verification of performance information, and the utilization of performance information in budget decision-making. By focusing only on the technical aspects, these studies have limitations in explaining the diverse experiences of performance budgeting in OECD countries.




While many countries have adopted performance budgeting, how it has been instituted varies from country to country. Performance budgeting is not adopted and implemented in institutional vacuum. The political and institutional context significantly affects the specific features and utilization patterns of performance budgeting. In this respect, this study attempts to apply the comparative institutional approach to explain the diverse experiences of performance budget reforms in the following four countries: the United States, the United Kingdom, Sweden, and Australia. This study specifically focuses on different institutional arrangements and their effects on the adoption, implementation, and results of performance budgeting initiatives. The starting point of this study is that, in order to be relevant and successful, budget reform cannot rely on a “one model fits all” approach, but must consider the country’s broader political and institutional arrangements.

참고자료

· 없음