Define—then compare and contrast—line item budgeting, performance budgeting, planning programming budgeting (PPB), incremental budgeting, and zero base budgeting (ZBB). What are the features, advantages, and disadvantages of each? Which do you think should be used today?

Explain the connection between budgeting and the types of federalism (dual federalism, cooperative federalism, creative federalism, and new federalism). Which model is commonly used today and what purpose do bureaucrats have in administering the public's will through stewardship of public funds? How does your world view influence your perspective

 

1.

Line item budgeting: A budget item is a type of presentation by department or cost centre of clusters that proposes expenses. This aggregation approach shows more easily growing divisions and cost centres consume the bulk of the funds of the entity.

Features:

1.    It is the presentation of expenses.

2.    It is the aggregation approach.

Advantages:

1.    It is easy to develop.

2.    It is simple to interpret and figure out.

3.    It is easy to allocate expenses.

4.    It has simple justification.

Disadvantages:

1.    It is difficult to adjust.

2.    it is not the best budgetary model.

Performance budgeting: A budget for success represents both the resources and services input for each unit of an organization. The objective is to define and calculate relative output on the basis of the target for the results stated.

Features:

1.    This budgeting is for long term purpose.

2.    The management tools are used in this.

3.    For making decisions costs and benefits are analysed.

Advantages:

1.    The purpose and objectives are clearly stated.

2.    The performance of units is improved in the continuous manner.

3.    In the formulation of budget process there is transparency.

4.    It is very helpful in decision making process.

5.    It integrates three different processes.

 

 

 

Disadvantages:

1.    It has only focus on quantitative evaluation.

2.    If there is no proper and systematic system then the system is ineffective.

3.    The social benefits are difficult to quantify.

4.    There is difficulty in estimation of budgets.

Planning programming budgeting: Planning, programming and budgeting (PPBS), in effect, incorporates a variety of techniques into the planning and budgeting process, to define, expense and delegate a resource complexity for setting goals and objectives in a major program, as well as for calculating expenses, costs and milestones within or over the span of the immediate financial year.

Features:

1.    The variety of techniques are incorporated.

2.    The projects are according to priority basis.

Advantages:

1.    The priority of projects is determined.

2.    It will help in future to prepare and manage service delivery.

3.    It tracks and decides how resources are committed to a project and how they fulfil the organization's objectives.

4.    It leads to the discovery of areas in which cost reduction and savings can be applied.

5.    It helps to recognize areas that need higher funding.

6.    It gives the company more responsibility. Because each project has its budget, it is possible to monitor success and create firm accountability.

Disadvantages:

1.    A program budget needs much details, and the exact financial resources needed can take a long time to decide. Furthermore, it becomes very difficult, throughout the year to achieve a balanced budget if some shift in resources is necessary.

2.    Overlapping often triggers different budgetary adjustments. For example, the municipality may include in the budget expenditures related to the energy repair, which might or might not be involved. This leads to double spending budgeting.

3.    If the budget for the program is wrong, the cost will increase.

4.    The budget for the program often makes it hard to measure the project's success. Many levels of managers control a project, so it can be a difficult job to find out the actual success of any boss.

Incremental budgeting: Incremental budgeting is a conventional budgeting approach under which the budget is generated on the basis of budget or actual results of the current period and the new budgetary period is then supplied with incremental quantities.

Features:

1.    It is a conventional budgeting.

2.    It is a simplified process.

Advantages:

1.    This have simplicity.

2.    There is consistency and operational stability.

3.    There is stability in funding.

4.    The internal rivalry is reduced.

Disadvantages:

1.    The unnecessary spending is promoted.

2.    The innovation is discouraged.

3.    The accounting of changes is not appropriate.

4.    There is no incentive.

Zero based budgeting: Zero-based budgeting (ZBB) is a budgeting technique, where all spending for each new cycle must be justified. The zero-budgeting process begins with a "zero base," and each role within an entity is evaluated according to its needs and costs.

Features:

1.    In this the spending are justified.

2.    The evaluation is according to needs and costs.

Advantages:

1.    It is efficient.

2.    It is accurate.

3.    It is according to budget inflation.

4.    There is proper coordination and communication.

Disadvantages:

1.    The manpower turnover is high.

2.    It is time consuming.

3.    There is lack of expertise.

Incremental budgeting should be used in today's scenario according to me.

 

2.

The authority of the various branches and the levels of government to interpret the Constitution of the United States is fundamental to the American political system, as at different times in history federalism has been described in various ways:

1.    Dual federalism (1790s to 1930s): Dual federalism is a structure that exists independently between the two levels of governments, and is also known as layer cake federalism. The standard concept is almost a bog of what the framers were meant to view it. In order to keep a balance between the two, government powers are divided between federal and state levels.

2.    Co-operative federalism (around 1930 to 1960): this system, sometimes referred to as marble cake federalism, means that federal and state governments share power equally such that common issues can be resolved jointly, and was prevalent during the Great Depression, World War II, Cold War and throughout the 1960s. The two levels of government needed to work together through these test periods. Under this approach the distinctions between the authorities of the two governments are blurred.

3.    Creative federalism (around 1960 to 1980): Creative federalism, also known as picket fence, enables the federal state to determine what the states need and then provide it with the money. The power transfer to the federal government and the social and welfare reforms in the Johnson administration in the 1960s indicate that federal government support for states relied on a set of federally defined goals.

4.    The Modern Federalism (1980-2001): New federalism requires the reaffirmation of powers that go back to state and local governments in order to build a new balance between them in reaction to the nation's loss of authority under imaginative federalism. One of the key means of this change was to abolish the conditionality of federal block subsidies, so that States could determine what to spend on.

5.    Bush federalism from 2001 to 2008: While not a form of federalism in technical terms, Bush federalism is showing an ever-greater degree of interfering federalism in government matters. The promotion of national security justified growing federal jurisdiction over U.S. citizens

6.    Progressive federalism (2009 - 2009): Claimed by the Obama administration as a scheme, progressive federalism grants states more power over previously federal government-determined problems such as environmental and consumer protection. It supports the state adaptation of federal rules in those regions, for example the tighter regulations adopted by California on vehicle emissions. In fact, the federal government sets a benchmark to comply with and the state can then decide for more.