IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/jnlpup/v4y1984i03p163-179_00.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Bureaucrats and Budgeting Benefits: How do British Central Government Departments Measure Up?

Author

Listed:
  • Hood, Christopher
  • Huby, Meg
  • Dunsire, Andrew

Abstract

Many economics-based theories of bureaucracy build on the assumption that public bureaucrats reap utility from a large budget. This article examines what evidence may be marshalled for bureaucratic appropriation of budgetary funds, by reference to measurable changes in British central government departments from the early 1970s to the early 1980s, both at the civil-service-wide level and at the level of departments taken separately and severally. This evidence indicates that, while the budget/utility approach cannot be dismissed entirely, the link between budgetary increases and bureaucratic utility is neither clearly demonstrable nor universally applicable. At the least, a more refined type of budget/utility theory seems to be called for.

Suggested Citation

  • Hood, Christopher & Huby, Meg & Dunsire, Andrew, 1984. "Bureaucrats and Budgeting Benefits: How do British Central Government Departments Measure Up?," Journal of Public Policy, Cambridge University Press, vol. 4(3), pages 163-179, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:cup:jnlpup:v:4:y:1984:i:03:p:163-179_00
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S0143814X0000218X/type/journal_article
    File Function: link to article abstract page
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Lindemann, Henrik, 2015. "Budgetary Interests and the Degree of Unbundling in Electricity Markets - An Empirical Analysis for OECD Countries," Hannover Economic Papers (HEP) dp-543, Leibniz Universität Hannover, Wirtschaftswissenschaftliche Fakultät.
    2. Schnapp, Kai-Uwe, 2000. "Ministerial bureaucracies as stand-in agenda setters? A comparative description," Discussion Papers, Research Unit: Institutions and Social Change FS III 00-204, WZB Berlin Social Science Center.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cup:jnlpup:v:4:y:1984:i:03:p:163-179_00. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Kirk Stebbing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cambridge.org/pup .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.