20世纪90年代以来,世界范围内将预算改革焦点集中在绩效预算,从发达国家推行绩效预算改革的实践来看,绩效预算对提高公共资金使用效率、改进政府部门绩效等方面取得了明显效果。

Making performance budgeting reform work : a case study of Korea

ABSTRACT

Performance budgeting is considered one of the essential elements of public financial management reform and has been adopted in many countries. However, it continues to present a significant challenge within the budget process. This case study draws from change management theories to tell the inside story of performance budgeting reform in the Republic of Korea, including the background of the reform, the formation of the reform team, and how the team overcame resistance among stakeholders to implement and institutionalize the performance budgeting system. Policy implications include the importance of (1) strong support from top decision makers and (2) customization of the performance budgeting system to accommodate a country's cultural and socio-economic characteristics. The Korean case also demonstrates that stable, sustainable performance budgeting reform requires capacity building of relevant stakeholders and, sometimes, significant restructuring of organizations to accommodate the new systems. 

 

Conclusion: Leadership and Change

Perhaps the most important component of PB success was effective leadership throughout the change. After the demise of the first reform, the Korean government developed a vision and strategy, based on several case studies commissioned to external public research institutes. Top administrators understood that PB reform would require not only administrative capacity but also analytical capacity within leading and line ministries. Thus they assigned these research institutes an important role in supplementing and developing this capacity. Over time, ministries have built up in-house capacity and knowledge regarding PB processes. Because bureaucratic turnover is low, this information is transferable to from administration to administration.

In addition, the Korean government created a sense of urgency among the line ministries and scaled up the reform program as quickly as possible. The Ministry of Planning and Budget stipulated in the budget draft guideline that at least a 10 percent budget cut should be considered for “ineffective” programs. This shocked line ministries into quick action. Another incentive for bureaucrats was public pressure. PB review results were made available to the public, and the media called attention to underperforming organizations. This publicity motivated government officials to honor the new system and, at the same time, helped the reform gain social acceptability among civil society organizations and citizens.

Establishing a dedicated reform team consisting of budget officials and policy researchers from the public institutes allowed reformers to merge expertise on practical and theoretical issues. The team came up with innovative solutions to integrate performance management into the actual budgeting process. The public institutes hosted many workshops and meetings to build consensus on policy direction and coalition among various stakeholders, and at the same time also provided training and consulting services to support line ministries.

Communication with stakeholders is a key element of successful change management. To facilitate additional communication with line ministries, a workshop was held every year to collect their feedback, and their opinion was reflected, as much as possible, in the next year’s PB process.

In part because of effective change management, the second reform program did gain the support of middle managers, often the strongest opponents of change, as well as high-level officials. Soon the legislature wanted a say in the reforms, as well. With the National Finance Act of 2006 and revisions to that act in 2009, PB is in Korea to stay.

GlocalWin对该文观点不作置评(GlocalWin does not intend to make any judgments as to the legal or other status of this Article

2013年03月08日

世界银行推介绩效预算(Performance Budgeting)—韩国经验

发布时间:

本网站由阿里云提供云计算及安全服务