本文關(guān)鍵詞： 美國(guó)績(jī)效預(yù)算改革 效果評(píng)價(jià) 原因分析 預(yù)算改革定位　出處：《復(fù)旦大學(xué)》2013年碩士論文　論文類型：學(xué)位論文

【摘要】：20世紀(jì)80年代,隨著新公共管理改革的興起,公共預(yù)算制度也隨之發(fā)生了重大變革。為了優(yōu)化公共資源配置并且提高政府的管理效率,以英國(guó)、美國(guó)、澳大利亞、新西蘭等為代表的OECD國(guó)家普遍建立起了“績(jī)效預(yù)算”的制度框架和運(yùn)行機(jī)制,績(jī)效預(yù)算的理論和實(shí)踐從此得到深化和發(fā)展�！翱�(jī)效預(yù)算”是將資源分配與可評(píng)價(jià)結(jié)果相聯(lián)系的預(yù)算模式。它通過制定戰(zhàn)略目標(biāo)、按完成目標(biāo)的工作量撥付預(yù)算資金、并通過對(duì)績(jī)效指標(biāo)的測(cè)量和對(duì)目標(biāo)完成情況的評(píng)價(jià),實(shí)現(xiàn)對(duì)預(yù)算過程和公共資源使用效率的有效監(jiān)督。 績(jī)效預(yù)算的有效性可以從“過程維度”和“決策維度”來進(jìn)行評(píng)價(jià)。“過程維度”僅僅強(qiáng)調(diào)績(jī)效信息在績(jī)效預(yù)算過程中的作用發(fā)揮,而“決策維度”則要求資源分配必須完全取決于績(jī)效結(jié)果。從美國(guó)績(jī)效預(yù)算在聯(lián)邦政府和州、地方政府的運(yùn)行狀況來看,績(jī)效預(yù)算在“過程維度”之下是有效的,而在“決策維度”之下是相對(duì)無效的。有效的原因在于美國(guó)相關(guān)法律的建立落實(shí)在制度上和程序上為績(jī)效預(yù)算的實(shí)行保駕護(hù)航,有效的績(jī)效評(píng)價(jià)框架和工具也有助于績(jī)效信息的充分發(fā)揮和利用。而相對(duì)無效的原因在于各種政治因素、文化因素、以及美國(guó)支出結(jié)構(gòu)的不斷固化分解了績(jī)效對(duì)于預(yù)算的決定性作用。 績(jī)效預(yù)算在“過程維度”之下的有效性和在“決策維度”之下的無效性最終引發(fā)對(duì)績(jī)效預(yù)算改革的定位思考。公共預(yù)算的本質(zhì)是政治的,是沖突,在其本質(zhì)之下,績(jī)效預(yù)算如果作為一種“管理工具”和“決策參考”應(yīng)用于政治過程,它將發(fā)揮積極作用并最終走向成功。但是如果一味將其定位于一種“決策工具”以去改變現(xiàn)有的政治過程,那么它將注定失敗。 對(duì)美國(guó)績(jī)效預(yù)算改革的效果評(píng)價(jià)、原因分析以及對(duì)績(jī)效預(yù)算改革的理性定位給我國(guó)的預(yù)算改革帶來諸多啟示。但我國(guó)的預(yù)算管理制度在預(yù)算組織結(jié)構(gòu)和預(yù)算程序上與美國(guó)具有較大差異。因此,應(yīng)以國(guó)情出發(fā),針對(duì)我國(guó)的預(yù)算管理薄弱環(huán)節(jié)以及績(jī)效預(yù)算改革所面臨的共性問題進(jìn)行借鑒和學(xué)習(xí)。建議包括：健全預(yù)算法律體系、構(gòu)建績(jī)效指標(biāo)和績(jī)效評(píng)價(jià)框架、培養(yǎng)專業(yè)預(yù)算人員、理清績(jī)效與預(yù)算之間的關(guān)系、以及管理好對(duì)績(jī)效預(yù)算改革的期望。
[Abstract]:In 1980s, with the rise of new public management reform, the public budget system also underwent major changes. In order to optimize the allocation of public resources and improve the efficiency of government management, to the United Kingdom, the United States, Australia, The OECD countries, such as New Zealand, have generally established the institutional framework and operating mechanism of "performance budget". The theory and practice of performance budgeting are thus deepened and developed. "performance budgeting" is a budget model that links the allocation of resources to evaluable results. Through the measurement of the performance indicators and the evaluation of the achievement of the target, the effective supervision of the budget process and the efficiency of the use of public resources is realized. The effectiveness of performance budgeting can be evaluated from "process dimension" and "decision dimension". "process dimension" only emphasizes the role of performance information in the performance budget process. The "decision dimension" requires that the allocation of resources must be completely dependent on the performance results. From the performance budget in the federal government, state, and local governments, performance budget is effective under the "process dimension." The effective reason is that the establishment and implementation of relevant laws in the United States, in terms of system and procedure, is a guarantee for the implementation of the performance budget. Effective performance evaluation frameworks and tools also contribute to the full use and utilization of performance information. And the constant solidification of the spending structure of the United States decomposes the decisive role of performance in the budget. The effectiveness of the performance budget under the "process dimension" and the ineffectiveness under the "decision dimension" ultimately lead to the orientation of the reform of the performance budget. The nature of the public budget is political, conflict, under its essence. When performance budgeting is applied as a "management tool" and "decision reference" in the political process, It will play a positive role and eventually succeed. But if it is positioned as a "decision-making tool" to change the existing political process, it will be doomed to failure. Evaluation of the effectiveness of the performance Budget Reform in the United States, The reason analysis and the rational orientation to the performance budget reform bring a lot of enlightenment to the budget reform of our country. However, the budget management system of our country is quite different from that of the United States in budget organization structure and budget procedure. Therefore, we should proceed from the situation of our country. Aiming at the weak link of budget management in our country and the common problems faced by the reform of performance budget, the suggestions include: perfecting the legal system of budget, constructing the performance index and performance evaluation framework, training the professional budget personnel. Clarify the relationship between performance and budget and manage expectations for performance budget reform.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：復(fù)旦大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2013
【分類號(hào)】：F817.12

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前7條

1 劉繼東;美國(guó)聯(lián)邦政府推行績(jī)效預(yù)算的歷程及啟示[J];管理現(xiàn)代化;2004年05期

2 朱芳芳;;西方發(fā)達(dá)國(guó)家公共預(yù)算管理改革及其趨勢(shì)[J];經(jīng)濟(jì)社會(huì)體制比較;2008年03期

3 牛美麗;美國(guó)公共預(yù)算改革:在實(shí)踐中追求預(yù)算理性[J];武漢大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào)(社會(huì)科學(xué)版);2003年06期

4 晁毓欣;;美國(guó)聯(lián)邦政府項(xiàng)目評(píng)級(jí)工具(PART):結(jié)構(gòu)、運(yùn)行與特征[J];中國(guó)行政管理;2010年05期

5 宋健敏;丁元;;績(jī)效評(píng)估對(duì)政府預(yù)算決策的作用與局限——對(duì)布什政府項(xiàng)目評(píng)級(jí)工具(PART)的實(shí)證分析[J];中國(guó)行政管理;2010年09期

6 李燕,王宇龍;論績(jī)效預(yù)算在我國(guó)實(shí)施的制度約束[J];中央財(cái)經(jīng)大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào);2005年06期

7 邢天添;;績(jī)效預(yù)算改革的現(xiàn)狀及其方向[J];中央財(cái)經(jīng)大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào);2006年10期

相關(guān)博士學(xué)位論文 前1條

1 董振海;在我國(guó)推行績(jī)效預(yù)算的理論與實(shí)踐思考[D];財(cái)政部財(cái)政科學(xué)研究所;2010年

，

本文編號(hào)：1554674