The theory of the budgetary process in an era of changing budgetary roles FY48-FY84

James Malachowski, Samuel Bookheimer, David Lynn Lowery

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

2 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

The dominant theory of the budgetary process Fenno, 1966; Wildavsky, 1964 emphasized stable budgetary roles in the making of incremental choices over time. But while the traditional theory has been unusually successful, at least two major problems have developed over the last decade. First, recent empirical research has reconsidered the role of partisanship in the budgetary process. And second, more recent descriptive analyses of the appropriations process have suggested that the institutional roles identified by Fenno and Wildavsky changed to a considerable degree during the 1970s. What, then, is the status of the traditional theory of the budgetary process? We analyze this question by updating Fenno's analysis of the tie period FY48 through FY84 and examining both the changing nature of institutional roles and the influence of partisanship in the play of those roles over time. The analysis is used to reinterpret the traditional theory—especially the traditional interpretations of the roles of advocate, guardian, and appeals court as well as the influence of partisanship—in light of events that have occurred since the original development of Wildavsky and Fenno's model.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)325-354
Number of pages30
JournalAmerican Politics Research
Volume15
Issue number3
DOIs
StatePublished - Jan 1 1987

Fingerprint

empirical research
appeal
interpretation
event
time

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Sociology and Political Science

Cite this

Malachowski, James ; Bookheimer, Samuel ; Lowery, David Lynn. / The theory of the budgetary process in an era of changing budgetary roles FY48-FY84. In: American Politics Research. 1987 ; Vol. 15, No. 3. pp. 325-354.
@article{a9980d356cdd4488a1b48f3611ce9711,
title = "The theory of the budgetary process in an era of changing budgetary roles FY48-FY84",
abstract = "The dominant theory of the budgetary process Fenno, 1966; Wildavsky, 1964 emphasized stable budgetary roles in the making of incremental choices over time. But while the traditional theory has been unusually successful, at least two major problems have developed over the last decade. First, recent empirical research has reconsidered the role of partisanship in the budgetary process. And second, more recent descriptive analyses of the appropriations process have suggested that the institutional roles identified by Fenno and Wildavsky changed to a considerable degree during the 1970s. What, then, is the status of the traditional theory of the budgetary process? We analyze this question by updating Fenno's analysis of the tie period FY48 through FY84 and examining both the changing nature of institutional roles and the influence of partisanship in the play of those roles over time. The analysis is used to reinterpret the traditional theory—especially the traditional interpretations of the roles of advocate, guardian, and appeals court as well as the influence of partisanship—in light of events that have occurred since the original development of Wildavsky and Fenno's model.",
author = "James Malachowski and Samuel Bookheimer and Lowery, {David Lynn}",
year = "1987",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1177/004478087015003002",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "15",
pages = "325--354",
journal = "American Politics Research",
issn = "1532-673X",
publisher = "SAGE Publications Inc.",
number = "3",

}

The theory of the budgetary process in an era of changing budgetary roles FY48-FY84. / Malachowski, James; Bookheimer, Samuel; Lowery, David Lynn.

In: American Politics Research, Vol. 15, No. 3, 01.01.1987, p. 325-354.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - The theory of the budgetary process in an era of changing budgetary roles FY48-FY84

AU - Malachowski, James

AU - Bookheimer, Samuel

AU - Lowery, David Lynn

PY - 1987/1/1

Y1 - 1987/1/1

N2 - The dominant theory of the budgetary process Fenno, 1966; Wildavsky, 1964 emphasized stable budgetary roles in the making of incremental choices over time. But while the traditional theory has been unusually successful, at least two major problems have developed over the last decade. First, recent empirical research has reconsidered the role of partisanship in the budgetary process. And second, more recent descriptive analyses of the appropriations process have suggested that the institutional roles identified by Fenno and Wildavsky changed to a considerable degree during the 1970s. What, then, is the status of the traditional theory of the budgetary process? We analyze this question by updating Fenno's analysis of the tie period FY48 through FY84 and examining both the changing nature of institutional roles and the influence of partisanship in the play of those roles over time. The analysis is used to reinterpret the traditional theory—especially the traditional interpretations of the roles of advocate, guardian, and appeals court as well as the influence of partisanship—in light of events that have occurred since the original development of Wildavsky and Fenno's model.

AB - The dominant theory of the budgetary process Fenno, 1966; Wildavsky, 1964 emphasized stable budgetary roles in the making of incremental choices over time. But while the traditional theory has been unusually successful, at least two major problems have developed over the last decade. First, recent empirical research has reconsidered the role of partisanship in the budgetary process. And second, more recent descriptive analyses of the appropriations process have suggested that the institutional roles identified by Fenno and Wildavsky changed to a considerable degree during the 1970s. What, then, is the status of the traditional theory of the budgetary process? We analyze this question by updating Fenno's analysis of the tie period FY48 through FY84 and examining both the changing nature of institutional roles and the influence of partisanship in the play of those roles over time. The analysis is used to reinterpret the traditional theory—especially the traditional interpretations of the roles of advocate, guardian, and appeals court as well as the influence of partisanship—in light of events that have occurred since the original development of Wildavsky and Fenno's model.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84965599818&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84965599818&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1177/004478087015003002

DO - 10.1177/004478087015003002

M3 - Article

VL - 15

SP - 325

EP - 354

JO - American Politics Research

JF - American Politics Research

SN - 1532-673X

IS - 3

ER -