Details

Autor(en) / Beteiligte

• LINDQUIST, KIRK LARS

Titel

BUDGET REDUCTION DECISIONS IN STATE GOVERNMENT: A CASE STUDY OF MICHIGAN, 1979-1983 (POLITICS, PUBLIC POLICY)

Ort / Verlag

ProQuest Dissertations & Theses

Erscheinungsjahr

1985

Quelle

ProQuest Dissertations & Theses A&I

Beschreibungen/Notizen

• Few studies of government budget crises have been done which might help explain how reduction decisions are made. If the effects of actual program cuts are not those expected by decision makers, it is difficult to determine the reason for the difference. A model is needed which can help explain the process of budget cutting. Before such a model can be proposed, it is first necessary to describe how these decisions are made. The purpose of this research is to establish a framework for analyzing reduction practices and to describe the budget reduction process. This case study describes and analyzes the process followed by the State of Michigan as it attempted to resolve its revenue shortfall problems during the budget years between 1979 and 1983. It also reviews the types of information requested by budget officials. An attempt has also been made to assess the relative influence of various budget officials. Information used in this case study of Michigan was gathered through personal interviews and a short survey. Each included open ended questions designed to shed light on the way that decisions were reached between 1979 and 1983. This study found that the reduction process used in Michigan did not correspond to any single pattern proposed by process, rational/comprehensive, or incremental theorists. As reduction plans were prepared, some agencies used program priorities and performance criteria to make their decisions while others distributed reduction targets on a fair share basis. Different groups of officials dominated at various points in the process. Agencies, the Department of Management and Budget, and the Legislature each directly influenced the content and consequences of program service cuts. No single person or group proved to be more influential than any other.