Finance, Public

Most of the debate within public budgeting has centered on whether the incremental or non-incremental approach is best. In a theoretical context, little attention has been paid to the actual execution of an entity's budget. Specific theoretical objectives must be met for execution to take place: the objectives have been arranged in different ways, yet the basic requirements have remained constant. The dissertation compared these established theoretical objectives with actual budget execution; it concentrated on whether actual budgeting practice met the requirements of budget execution as depicted in normative theory. The research question asked to what extent is practice consistent with theory. The reality of budget practice was determined through survey responses. The questions were based on the procedures required for carrying out the theoretical objectives of execution. Surveys were sent to budget practitioners within the two-county area in southeast Florida. These individuals are responsible for public sector budgeting within their various entities on a state, county, and local level. The survey asked for the respondents perceptions of actual practice as it related to budget execution within their entity. The individual responses were evaluated and analyzed. Factor Analysis was used to determine the loading of eleven specific objectives. The patterns created by the factor loading were explored; it established how the objectives were viewed and whether there was a monolithic approach to execution. The results of the factor loading suggested that, in practice, budget objectives are not recognized as a cohesive process. Theory failed to match actual budget execution. Established procedures found in theory are only partially recognized by those who practice budgeting. A chi-square analysis of the survey results were examined to establish internal validity of the survey instrument and determine whether the responses were influenced by the independent variables. The results of the chi-square failed to note any influence on the responses.

Public asset management is a critical component of the financial integrity of government. However, in practice, problems exist in the field of public asset management at different levels of government in the United States. This research explores the management of public fixed assets owned, controlled and used by state governments in America. It attempts to answer two major questions: (1) What are the characteristics of a modern public asset management system based on the available literature? and (2) How do public asset management practices at the U.S. state government compare to the system standard described in the first question? Based on systems theory and current research on public asset management and public procurement systems, this research develops an intellectual framework of a public fixed asset management system. This system is composed of six interdependent cornerstones, including legal and regulatory requirements, organization structure, management process throughout th e life cycle of assets, human capital strategies, information and technology resources, and monitoring, integrity, and transparency. Each cornerstone consists of a number of components that reveal the underlying working principles of the relevant cornerstone and together determine the standards of fixed asset management in the relevant area. Survey results demonstrate that state governments fundamentally satisfy the standards identified in the fixed asset management system. However, certain problems obviously exist in the area of each cornerstone. In addition, survey results reveal that the six cornerstones of fixed asset management system are interrelated with one another. In most states, when a management element in the area of one cornerstone is widely implemented, the relevant management elements in areas of other cornerstones are employed and vice versa.