Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rcrh6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T20:49:27.706Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

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

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 November 2008

Christopher Hood ,
Meg Huby  and
Andrew Dunsire
Christopher Hood
Affiliation:
Department of PoliticsUniversity of Glasgow
Meg Huby
Affiliation:
Department of PoliticsUniversity of York
Andrew Dunsire
Affiliation:
Department of PoliticsUniversity of York
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

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.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Public Policy , Volume 4 , Issue 3 , August 1984 , pp. 163 - 179
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1984

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Appropriation Accounts, 1971–1972 to 1982–3. London: HMSO.Google Scholar
Alt, J. and Chrystal, K. A. (1983) Political Economics. Brighton: Wheatsheaf.Google Scholar
Beck, M. (1976) The expanding public sector: some contrary evidence, National Tax Journal, 29, 15–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Breton, A. (1974) The Economic Theory of Representative Government. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
British Imperial Calendar and Civil Service List, 1971 to 1973. London: HMSO.Google Scholar
Civil Service Statistics, 1971 to 1983. London: HMSO.Google Scholar
Civil Service Yearbook, 1974 to 1983. London: HMSO.Google Scholar
Economic Trends, 1971 to 1982. London: HMSO.Google Scholar
Heald, D. A. (1983) Public Expenditure. Oxford: Martin Robertson.Google Scholar
Hood, C. C. and Dunsire, A. (1981) Bureaumetrics. Farnborough: Gower.Google Scholar
Kogan, M. (1973) Comment on Niskanen's ‘Bureaucracy Servant or Master?’. London: Institute of Economic Affairs.Google Scholar
Kristensen, O. P. (1980) The logic of political bureaucratic decision-making as a cause of government growth: or why expansion of public programmes is a private good and their restriction is a ‘public good’, European Journal of Political Research 8, 249–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lynn, J. and Jay, A. (1981) Yes Minuter, vol. I. London: BBC.Google Scholar
Memorandum by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury on the Supply Estimates, 1971–1972 to 1983–4. London: HMSO.Google Scholar
National Income and Expenditure, 1971 to 1982. London: HMSO.Google Scholar
Niskanen, W. A. (1971) Bureaucracy and Representative Government. Chicago: Aldine Atherton.Google Scholar
Peacock, A. T. (1983) Public X-inefficiency: informational and institutional constraints. In Hanusch, H. (ed.), Anatomy of Government Deficiencies, Berlin/Heidelberg, Springer-Verlag, 125–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pommerehne, W. W. and Frey, B. S. (1978) Bureaucratic behaviour in democracy: a case study, Public Finance, 33, 98–112.Google Scholar
Self, P. (1972) Administrative Theories and Politics. London: Allen and Unwin.Google Scholar
Wagner, R. E. (1973) The Public Economy. Chicago: Markham.Google Scholar
Williamson, O. (1975) Markets and Hierarchies. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
Young, R. G. (1974) The administrative process as incrementalism [Part 3 of‘Approaches to the Study of Public Administration’]. In Public Administration Block II D331, part of Social Sciences: A Third Level Course. Milton Keynes: Open University.Google Scholar