Sequencing and the Size of the Budget: A Reconsideration
AbstractConventional wisdom argues that spending levels and, by extension, budget deficits will be higher for governments using bottom-up instead of top-down methods of budgeting. Ferejohn and Krehbiel (1987) appear to debunk this argument. They indicate that the superiority of one method over the other in lowering the size of the budget depends on the distribution of the spending preferences of the policy-makers. These authors do not consider two problems that top-down budgeting is intended to solve: policy-makers who value a large budget as a goal in itself; and policy-makers who do not consider fully the cost of the spending programmes they support, which leads to the ‘common pool problem’. We add such players to a framework meant to parallel Ferejohn and Krehbiel’s model. We find that, contrary to conventional wisdom, bottom-up produces smaller budgets than top-down if players seek to maximize dimensions of spending relevant to their constituents and if their ideal budgets are close to one another. At the same time, the order of the vote per se does not reduce the size of the budget when there exists a common pool problem. An agenda setter can provide the necessary coordination to force politicians to consider the full tax implications of their spending decisions. Supporters of top-down budgeting may therefore confuse added centralization with the order of the vote on the budget. The second part of this paper provides a reinterpretation of the US budgeting experience in the post-war era based on this insight.
Download InfoIf you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.
Bibliographic InfoPaper provided by C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers in its series CEPR Discussion Papers with number 1589.
Date of creation: Mar 1997
Date of revision:
Contact details of provider:
Postal: Centre for Economic Policy Research, 77 Bastwick Street, London EC1V 3PZ
Phone: 44 - 20 - 7183 8801
Fax: 44 - 20 - 7183 8820
Find related papers by JEL classification:
- D71 - Microeconomics - - Analysis of Collective Decision-Making - - - Social Choice; Clubs; Committees; Associations
- H61 - Public Economics - - National Budget, Deficit, and Debt - - - Budget; Budget Systems
- H62 - Public Economics - - National Budget, Deficit, and Debt - - - Deficit; Surplus
You can help add them by filling out this form.
CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
- António Afonso & Peter Claeys & Ricardo M. Sousa, 2009.
"Fiscal Regime Shifts in Portugal,"
2009/39, Department of Economics at the School of Economics and Management (ISEG), Technical University of Lisbon..
- António Afonso & Peter Claeys & Ricardo M. Sousa, 2009. "Fiscal Regime Shifts in Portugal," NIPE Working Papers 25/2009, NIPE - Universidade do Minho.
- António Afonso & Peter Claeys & Ricardo M. Sousa, 2009. "Fiscal Regime Shifts in Portugal," IREA Working Papers 200921, University of Barcelona, Research Institute of Applied Economics, revised Oct 2009.
- Perotti, Roberto, 1998. " The Political Economy of Fiscal Consolidations," Scandinavian Journal of Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 100(1), pages 367-94, March.
- Perotti, Roberto & Kontopoulos, Yianos, 2002. "Fragmented fiscal policy," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 86(2), pages 191-222, November.
- Dharmapala, Dhammika, 2006. "The Congressional budget process, aggregate spending, and statutory budget rules," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 90(1-2), pages 119-141, January.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: ().
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.