美國與台灣的預算改革檢討

Study of Budget Reforms of the US. and Taiwan

10.30087/APEMR.200809.0002

徐仁輝；Thomas P. Lauth

政府預算 ； 預算制度 ； 績效評估 ； 計畫 ； 績效基礎預算 ； Governmental Budget ； Budget System ； Performance Evaluation ； Program ； Performance-based Budgeting

亞太經濟管理評論

12卷1期（2008 / 09 / 01）

23 - 36

繁體中文

預算改革一般而言可以分為兩種，一種是為了重新架構制度性關係，另一種是為了獲得不同資訊用於決策過程。美國較早的制度性改革係加強行政首長在預算過程的角色，爾後的改革目標則在強化國會在預算過程中的角色。 每一改革皆帶來一些改變，但為什麼結果卻少於開始時預期的戲劇性改變？可能的解釋是若行政改革對於行政過程做出過度要求或威脅到政治現狀，是不可能成功的。這不是規避改革努力的理由，而是提醒我們最好對於判斷預算改革成功與否有較實際的預期。若成功的標準是對資源配置有較大的重新組合，那麼大部分改革是不成功的；但若成功的標準是對預算過程的行政予以改進，則多數的改革是有明顯的成就。 在過去四分之一世紀，美國州政府的預算改革試圖將預算的重心由控制細目支出（投入）改變為對計畫成果（結果）的評量，目的在改進政府作業流程和更大的課責。從過去美國州政府實施預算改革所獲得的經驗，設計一種可以讓行政體系和政治體系所兼容的改革。若預算改革要成功，它必須不能對行政過程作出不可能的要求，同時必須為政治過程所包容。喬治亞州的支出移轉大致上是成功的，因為它遵守了此二信條。而成果基礎預算大致上是失敗的，因為各部門對於確定可測量的計畫結果有困難，同時州議會堅持按投入編預算，因為相較按結果編列預算，容易控制。 台灣歲出額度制基本上是成功的，因為它並未造成行政的過度負擔，並為政治上可接受。近年來推動的各機關施政績效評估，並希望用於預算決策，仍需要各機關積極的配合，缺失尚待克服。

Budget reform is a special case of administrative reform. In the United States, budget reforms generally have been of two kinds, those that seek to restructure institutional relationships and those that seek to introduce different kinds of information into the decision making process. Early institutional reforms were about strengthening the role of the chief executive in the budget process; later reforms aimed at strengthening the role of Congress in the budget process. Each reform has brought about some changes, but probably less dramatic results than initially expected. Why? Administrative reforms are not likely to be successful if they make excessive demands on the administrative process or if they threaten the political status quo. These are not reasons to eschew reform efforts, rather they are reminders that it is better to have realistic expectations when judging the success or failure of budget reforms. If the standard of success is major realignment in the allocation of resources, most reforms have not been successful; if the standard of success is improvement in the administration of the budget process, there have been significant achievements. During the past quarter century, budget reforms in the American states have sought to shift the focus of budgeters from controlling line-item expenditures (inputs) to assessing program results (outcomes) in an effort to streamline government and achieve greater accountability to citizens. If budget reforms are to achieve success, they must not make impossible demands upon the administrative process and must be compatible with the political process. Using the state of Georgia as an illustration, budget ”redirection” in the late 1990s was mostly a success because it adhered to these tenets. Results Based Budgeting in the middle 1990s mostly failed because departments had difficulty in identifying measurable program outcomes and the state legislature insisted on focusing on inputs, which they could control, rather than on outcomes. Taiwan's expenditure ceiling is a success because it doesn't make extra burden to administrative system and is acceptable by the legislative system. The performance evaluation system and performance-based budget in recent years still demands some improvements for the administration. It is early to say it is successful.

1. Abney, G.,T. P. Lauth(1989).The Executive Budget in the States: Normative Idea and Empirical Observations.Policy Studies Journal,17(2),829-840.
2. Broom, C. A.(1995).Performance-Based Government Models: Building A Track Record.Public Budgeting & Finance,15(4),3-17.
3. Huckaby, H. M.,T. P. Lauth(1998).Budget Redirection in Georgia.Public Budgeting & Finance,18(4),36-44.
4. Jones, L. R.,J. L. McCaffery(1997).Implementing the Chief Financial Officers Act and the Government Performance and Results Act in the Federal Government.Public Budgeting & Finance,17(1),35-55.
5. Jones, L. R.,J. L. McCaffery(1993).Implementation of the Chief Financial Officers Act.Public Budgeting & Finance,13(1),68-76.
6. Jordan, M. M.,M. M. Hackbart(1999).Performance Budgeting and Performance Funding in the States: A Status Assessment.Public Budgeting & Finance,19(1),68-88.
7. Joyce, P. G(1993).Using Performance Measures for Federal Budgeting: Proposals and Prospects.Public Budgeting & Finance,13(4),3-17.
8. Joyce, P. G(1993).The Reiterative Nature of Budget Reform: Is There Anything New in Federal Budgeting.Public Budgeting and Finance,13(3),36-48.
9. Lauth, T. P.(1985).Performance Evaluation in the Georgia Budgetary Process.Public Budgeting & Finance,5(1),67-82.
10. Lauth, T. P.(1978).Zero-Base Budgeting in Georgia State Government: Myth and Reality.Public Administration Review,38(5),420-430.
11. Lauth, T. P.(1992).State Budgeting: Current Conditions and Future Trends.International Journal of Public Administration,15(3),1067-1096.
12. Lee, R. D.(1997).A Quarter Century of State Budgeting Practices.Public Administration Review,57(2),133-140.
13. Lee, R. D.(1991).Developments in State Budgeting: Trends of Two Decades.Public Administration Review,51(3),254-262.
14. Lee, R. D.,R. J. Staffeld(1977).Executive and Legislative Use of Policy Analysis in the State Budgeting Process: Survey Results.Policy Analysis,3(2),395-405.
15. Lee, R. D.,R.C. Burns(2000).Performance Measurement in State Budgeting: Advancement and Backsliding from 1990 to 1995.Public Budgeting & Finance,20(1),38-54.
16. McNab, R. M.,F. Malese(2003).Implementing the GPRA: Exploring the Prospects for Performance Budgeting in the Federal Government.Public Budgeting & Finance,23(2),73-95.
17. Melkers, J. E.,K. G. Willoughby(2001).Budgeters` Views of State Performance-Budgeting Systems: Distinctions across Branches.Public Administration Review,61(1),54-64.
18. Melkers, J. E.,K. G. Willoughby(1998).The State of the States: Performance Based Budgeting in 47 out of 50.Public Administration Review,58(1),66-73.
19. Stevens, J. M.,R. D. Lee(1981).Patterns of Policy Analysis Use for State Governments: A Contingency and Demand Perspective.Public Administration Review,41(6),636-644.
20. Willoughby, K. G.(2004).Performance Measurement and Budget Balancing: State Government Perspective.Public Budgeting & Finance,24(2),21-39.
21. Willoughby, K. G.,J. E. Melkers(2002).Implementing PPB: Conflicting Views of Success.Public Budgeting & Finance,20(1),85-120.
22. 石素梅(1998)。美國聯邦政府預算作業之研究。台北:財團法人孫運璿學術基金會。
23. 林嘉誠、行政院研究發展考核委員會主編(2004)。政府績效評估。台北:行政院研考會。
24. 柯承恩、賴森本(2002)。推動績效導向之審計制度。研考雙月刊，231，59-68。
25. 徐仁輝(2004)。歲出額度制對機關概算編列的影響。財稅研究，36(4)，55-62。
26. 徐仁輝(2002)。行政院國科會專題研究計畫。台北:

1. 黃劭彥、陳玲娜、卓佳慶(2017)。我國中央政府歲出預算執行率影響因素之研究。台灣管理學刊，17(2)，57-76。