自上而下编入预算—一个加强预算管理的工具外文翻译(可编辑)

自上而下编入预算—一个加强预算管理的工具外文翻
译
外文翻译
原文
Top-Down Budgeting?An Instrument to Strengthen Budget Management Material Source: 2009 International Monetary Fund Author: G?sta Ljungman
INTRODUCTION
Budgeting is essentially a process aimed at imizing benefits from public spending given available resources. The budget process is not always able to meet these objectives, however; budget allocations may not fully reflect current priorities, and spending may not necessarily be contained at a sustainable level The importance of institutions in shaping budget outcomes has been extensively explored over the past decades. These studies show that the organization of, and the division of fiscal powers in, preparing and approving the budget matter for how public finances develop over time. Among various institutional reforms, strengthening the top-down character of the budget process can be particularly effective in promoting sound and sustainable policies. In essence, this consists of ensuring that the total level, and overall
allocation, of expenditure are determined before detailed items in the budget are negotiated.
In practice, all budget processes have to contain both top-down and bottom-up elements. Introducing top-down budgeting is, therefore, an issue of shifting the balance of the budget process with the aim of ensuring that budget decisions at all stages properly reflect aggregate fiscal policy priorities.
Top-down budgeting is not a tool for limiting the discretionary powers of democratic institutions to propose and approve any size or allocation of the budget. Neither does it eliminate the difficult and conflict-ridden process of choosing which programs nor should activities receive additional funding, which should remain at previo us year’s level, and where cuts should be made. However, a top-down process highlights the trade-offs that have to be made, and brings clarity as to how the process of prioritization will be resolved.
Thus far, the discussion on the merits of top-down budgeting has primarily focused on advanced countries. This is unfortunate, as a structured process for preparing and approving the government’s budget is essential, regardless of the income level or policies of a country. Strengthening the budget process should be high on the agenda in low-income countries, emerging economies and high income countries alike.
TOP-DOWN VERSUS BOTTOM-UP
A top-down budget process means that a binding decision on budget aggregates is taken before allocating expenditure within that aggregate. In concrete terms this means that decisions are taken in a cascading manner: a total expenditure level is determined before the allocation between main policies or sectors is made, and sect oral ceilings are set before the detailed division of expenditure within each sector is discussed and decided. In each step of the budget process, the allocation of expenditure is subject to the constraints that have been set at the previous stage. The fact that the sequence in which budgetary decisions are taken matters for the outcome is perhaps best illustrated by a stylized description of two contrasting approaches to budget preparation: bottom-up and top-down.
A Bottom-Up Process
In an unconstrained?or perhaps better described: expenditure-driven?budget process, the first stage consists of a collection of expenditure proposals from line-ministries and spending agencies. Such proposals will, inevitably, argue for increases on top of a continuation of current year’s allocations. The ministry of finance then negotiates bilaterally with each main budget entity, with the objective of trying to contain expenditure growth to some reasonable level. Once the negotiations are concluded, total expenditure is consolidated and compared to projected revenue. If the deficit is considered excessive, the minister of finance will either be given the task of initiating a new
round of negotiations, or required to produce proposals on how to increase revenue. Such a budget process can be characterized as bottom-up, indicating that total expenditure is determined residually in a process that, to a large extent, centers on discussing and establishing the details of the budget.
In a situation where there is no point of reference in terms of an expenditure limit for each sector, the focus of budget discussions will primarily be on the urgency of expanding government programs and activities, and the merits of the proposed measures. As the individual impact on aggregate expenditure from each new proposal may well be trivial?or at least insignificant compared to the budget as a whole?those who advocate an expansion of government activities are at an advantage. Even if the ministry of finance has a well developed capacity to scrutinize budget submissions from line ministries and quickly update the total expenditure level, it cannot refer to an agreed level of expenditure in the negotiations. The fact that aggregate expenditure concerns are brought in at the end of the process?and at a stage where numerous expenditure decisions have already been taken?can also reduce decision makers’ understanding and appreciation of fiscal sustainability issues.
The inherent incremental nature of a bottom-up process also makes significant reallocations between or within sectors unlikely. Without a phase where the composition of the budget according to broad sect oral
is defined, interpreting policy reprioritizations into budget lines becomes procedurally difficult. Within sectors, line ministries or spending agencies have virtually no incentive to identify and propose savings that can be used to finance new initiatives. From their perspective, budget negotiations are a one-sided exercise of trying to preserve existing levels of funding, and hopefully seize some additional resources.
Strengthening Fiscal Discipline through a Top-Down Process
In order to escape the situation outlined above, where the dynamics of the budget process adversely affect the possibility to ensure sound and sustainable policies, budgeting can be organized as a top-down process. In this approach, the starting point of budget preparation is a decision on total expenditure. Rather than being the sum of a large number of individual spending decisions, aggregate expenditure is determined through an autonomous consideration of the size of the budget. Following this, total expenditure is allocated to a number of key sectors, a phase which culminates in the determination of sector ceilings. Only at a final stage are the details of the budget?in terms of individual appropriations?brought into the discussions, and then within the framework of the established sector ceilings. There is, consequently, an institutionalized separation between the decisions regarding aggregate expenditure and overall allocation, and the process of deciding on
individual programs and activities, and their corresponding budget lines.
In a top-down approach to budget preparation, the role of the ministry of finance becomes focused on establishing and monitoring total expenditure levels, rather than negotiating the operational details of individual spending proposals. The division of available resources under each sector ceiling can be left open for discussion, and the responsible line minister be given substantial freedom to propose changes in the allocation within the sector, provided that the sector ceiling is not exceeded. Although the introduction of hard sector ceilings changes the character of budget negotiations, there is still a need for the ministry of finance to scrutinize the credibility of expenditure projections. By underestimating expenditure, line ministries may try to circumvent ex ante budget restrictions and squeeze programs and activities under the ceiling that cannot be rescinded once the budget has been approved.
译文
自上而下编入预算?一个加强预算管理的工具
资料来源: 国际货币基金组织2009作者:G?sta Ljungman
介绍
本质上编入预算是一个针对公众开支利益给予资源最大值的程序。

预算程序不是总能遇见这些目的,然而,预算配置可能不完全反映目前的优先事件,而且花费可能不被包含在一个合适的水平。

在过去数十年内,该机构在塑造预算成果的重要性已得到广泛的探索。

这
些研究表明在组织中,财政分权、编制和审批在公共财政预算中如何随时间发展。

在各种不同的制度改革之中,加强预算程序自上而下进行,特别是在促进健康和可持续政策中特别有效。

一般来说,在预算的详细项目被商议之前,就决定总体的开支分配。

在实践中,所有的预算过程必须同时包含自上而下和自下而上的元素。

介绍自上而下的预算,目的在于,以确保正确反映在任何阶段的预算决策和总的财政政策的重点以及在预算过程中的平衡问题。

自上而下的编入预算不是限制计划和赞同预算的大小或配置的民主机构任意权力的一个工具。

它也不排除选择的困难和冲突不断的过程,活动的方案也不应得到更多的资金,这应维持在去年的水平,或者应该削减。

然而,一个自上而下的过程突出了权衡,并带来了对如何确定优先次序的过程会得到解决的清晰度。

到目前为止,对自上而下的预算的优点的讨论主要集中于先进国家。

这是不幸的,当作准备而且赞同政府预算的一个结构化程序是必要的,不管收入水平或一个国家的政策。

加强预算程序应该在低收入国家的议程上提高,和出现经济高收入的国家一样。

自上而下的对自下而上的
一个自上而下的预算过程是指对预算总量约束力的决定是在该前总支出的分配采取的。

以具体的角度,这意味着,决定以很快的速度被做出:在主要的政策或者部门之间的配置,以及在每个部门里面开支的详细区分和分类被讨论而且决定之前,做出一个完全的开支水平的决定。

在预算程序的每个步骤中,开支的配置受制于在早先已经被设定的限制阶段。

在预算过程中作出决定是最好的,它有
两种截然不同的方法来编制预算:自下而上和自上而下的编入预算。

一个自下而上的程序
在一个无约束或可能更好地描述:以开支为导向的预算程序,第一个阶段有来自外部和开支代理商的一个开支提议的集合。

如此的提议将会不可避免的在现在的年度配置讨论中增加争论。

财政部与每个主要预算单位,在试图遏制开支的增长在一定合理的水平的目标进行磋商。

一旦谈判结束,总支出相比,进行统一编排并预计收入。

如果赤字被认为是过多,财政部长要么是考虑到发起新一轮的谈判,或须提出就如何增加收入的建议。

如此的一个预算程序可以表示为自下而上的,指出总数开支剩余在一个程序中,在很大程度上集中讨论而且建立预算的细节。

在没有提及每个部门的开支限额的情况下来看,预算讨论的焦点将会主要地集中在扩张政府计划和紧急活动以及被提议措施的功绩上。

对总支出的每一个新建议,从个人的影响可能是微不足道的,或者至少是微不足道的预算相比,但是作为一个整体,这些主张是扩大政府活动的一个优势。

即使财政部有发展完善的能力,来自职能部委审议的预算报告,并迅速更新总支出水平,但不能指向一个在谈判中商定的开支水平。

认为提请总支出的关注结束时,其实这个过程和在许多地方支出决定已经采取了,还可以降低在财政可持续性问题的阶段决策者的理解和赞赏。

固有的一个自下而上过程递增的性质也使得部门之间或部门内部重新分配不太显著。

根据预算的政策到广泛的被定义分类,解释政策再优先排序进入预算程序变得困难。

在部门,职能部委或支出机构几乎没有动力去确定和提出可以用来资助新举措。

从他们的角度来看,预算谈判是试图保持现有水平的资金,并希
望抢占一些额外的资源,是片面的工作。

透过一个自上而下的程序加强财政的纪律
为了逃避上述情况,对预算程序的动态产生不利影响的可能,以确保健全和可持续的政策,预算编制可以作为一个自上而下的过程组织概述。

在这种方法中,对预算编制的出发点是对总开支的决定。

更正确的说,整体开支是通过一个确定的预算规模自主考虑,而不是个别的一个大数目的总和开支决定。

在此之后,分配到开支总额的一些关键部门,在一个阶段内,确定部门的最高限额。

只有在最后阶段的预算拨款的个别方面,讨论既定的部门最高限额的框架细节。

还有就是,对于整体开支和总分配的决策之间,以及对个别方案和活动,以及确定相应的预算项目过程中制度化的分离。

在自上而下的预算编制方法中,财政部的作用变得集中在制订及监控总的支出水平上,而不是个别开支建议商讨的操作细节中。

根据在可用资源的上限,各部门可以进行分工讨论,部长和负责的人得到很大的自由,建议部门内配置的变化不超过该部门提供的上限。

虽然部门最高限额引入很难改变预算谈判性质,但仍是财政部审议开支预算公信力的需要。

藉由低估开支,当职能部门已经批准事前预算限制和挤压方案活动,职能部委可能会试图绕过最大限额而不能取消。