APPROACHES AND

TECHNIQUES IN BUDGETING:
THE PHILIPPINE
EXPERIENCE
Public Fiscal
Administration

JOHNNY A. GERARDO, LL.B, MPA

 INTRODUCTION
ORIENTATION IN BUDGETING
a. Control Orientation
b. Management Orientation
c. Planning Orientation
LINE-ITEM BUDGETING
PERFORMANCE BUDGETING
a. Components
1. Functional and Activity Classifications
2. Performance Measurements
3. Performance Reports
 b. Attitude Towards Performance Budget
c. Philippine Experience in Performance
Budgeting Problem
1. Lack or Absence of Performance Measures
2. Problems on Personnel
3. Organization
4. Legislative
PLANNING, PROGRAMMING AND
BUDGETING SYSTEM
a History and Development
b. Specific Features
c. PPBS: The Philippine. Experience
d. An Assessment of PPBS
 ZERO-BASE BUDGETING
a. Introduction and definition
b. Features and Objectives
c. Basic ZBB Terms
d. The ZBB Process
e. ZBB in the Philippines
f. An Appraisal of ZBB
CONCLUSION
 INTRODUCTION
American-introduced, American-installed,
and for a while American supervised
American influence in local fiscal
administration is most apparent in the
area of budgeting
American themselves set-up the
administrative system in the Philippines
when the latter was still a colony of the
United States.
This system was largely unchanged even
after the granting of the independence
and our transition from the various
regimes to the present Republic.
back
 ORIENTATION IN
BUDGETING
The stages in the evolution of the
United States federal government
budget are characterized, according
to Allen Schick, by three major
orientation: control, management
and planning.
back
CONTROL ORIENTATION
It is the process of enforcing
limitations and conditions set in the
budget and in appropriations, and
of securing compliance with the
spending restrictions imposed by
central authorities.

back
 Management
Orientation

It involves the use of budgetary

authority at both agency and central
levels to ensure the efficient use of
staff and other budgeting, the focus
is on agency activities

back
PLANNING ORIENTATION
It is the process of determining public
objectives and the evaluation of alternative
programs. To use the budget for planning,
central authorities must have information
concerning the purposes and effectiveness of
programs. They must also be informed of
multi-year spending plans and of the
linkage between planning, spending, and
public benefits.
Three Important developments influenced the
evolution from a management to a planning
orientation (Schick)
Economic analysis- the emergence of macro
and micro analysis has had an increasing
part in the shaping of fiscal and budgetary
policy;
The development of new information and
decision technologies has enlarged the
applicability of objective analysis to
policymaking; and
There has been a gradual convergence of
planning and budgetary processes.
 Characteristics Control Managements Planning

Personnel Skill Accounting objects Administration Economics

Information focus Execution Activities Purposes

Key budget stage (central) Discrete Preparation Discrete/ Preparation

Activities

Breath of measurement Fiduciary Efficiency Comprehensive

Role of Budget agency Upward aggregative Upward aggregative Policy Downward

disaggregate
Decisional-flow Incremental Incremental Teletic

Type of Choice Control Central Operating Operating

Responsibility
Management Responsibility Dispersed Central Supervisory

Planning Responsibility Dispersed Dispersed Central

Budget-Appropriations Same Same Different

classifications
Appropriations-organizational Direct Direct Crosswalk
link
 LINE-ITEM BUDGET
APPROACH
Gives emphasis on listing of objects for itemized
expenditures-supplies, personnel, equipment-
without much regard for the purposes of
programs for which such items are proposed.
Also called Item of Expenditure Approach
Manifestation of process budgetary, incremental,
fragmented, non-programmatic and sequential.
Little explicit consideration of objectives and
policies and almost no search for alternatives.
 According to Robert Golembiewski,
(Percolate-up characteristics)

It is the chief executive issues a call for estimates

which are generated from below
Line item is the product of many factorings
beginning at low organization levels whose requests
were aggregated and perhaps trimmed as they rose
through an hierarchy.
Lessens the top executives control over planning
and programming
Fait accompli, by the time it reaches the top
executive.
Adopted through the enactment of Commonwealth
Act No. 2546, --Budget Act of 1937.
 Advantages of Line-Item budget
approach (Schick)
It enables central authorities to control inputs; that is, to
control the cost of inputs before the expenditure is made or
obligated.
It provides external control by legislators and central
monitors who are not beholden to a particular agency.
Line-item control is especially effective for salaries and
purchases, which together account for the bulk of state
government spending, perhaps 90 percent or more in some
instances.
Control is uniform.
Control is comprehensive.
Control is exact.
 There are multiple opportunities to
control.
Both aggregate and detailed control
are promoted.
Line-item controls establish the basis
for budget cutting.
Why do agencies, despite frequent
disclaimers, prefer the line-item budget even with
the introduction of the performance budgeting type
in the 1950s?
Line item budgeting gives agencies plenty of
opportunities to manipulate the facts to their
advantage and considerable leeway in estimating
the projected benefits of proposed activities.
Agencies are able to express their subjective
interpretation of anticipated benefits without being
encumbered by analytical instruments. Nor are they
required to weigh in a systematic and uniform
manner the cost effectiveness of their proposals.
Budgeting by object obtains the best care for the
agency.
Philippine Experience of line-
item budget
During the legislation or authorization
phase of the line-item budget, the
legislature wielded so much influence
on agencies of their choice.
Through the line-item budget, the
lawmakers were able to pinpoint
objects of future choice especially
those referring to new positions.

back
 PERFORMANCE
BUDGETING
Known as activity or functional
budgeting, the Hoover Commission
succeeded in creating a feeling of
novelty and excitement for the
post-war generation of public
administrators.
The objects of expenditures are
deemed as significant factors in
relation to what they are used for
and not in relation to their specific
character.
Hoover Commission Report to US
Congress in February 1949 explained
the meaning of performance budgeting
We recommended that the whole budgetary
concepts of the Federal Government should be
refashioned by the adoption of a budget based
upon function, activities, and projects, this we
designate as a performance budget.
Such an approach would focus attention
upon the general character and relative
importance of the work to be done, or upon the
service to be rendered, rather than upon the
things to be acquired such as personal
services, supplies, equipment, and so on. The
latter objects, are after all, only the means to
an end. The all important thing in budgeting is
the work or service to be accomplished, and
what that work or service will cost.
The salient features of a performance
budget and its basic differences from the
traditional line-item budget are depicted
in this comprehensive definition of the
concept. A performance budget is one
which states:
The short term and long term goals in
the major functional areas for which
funds are requested;
The programmes in each function and
activities or projects in each programme
proposed for the accomplishment of the
goals in the various functional areas;
The cost of the programs and activities
or projects proposed;
The qualitative and quantitative data for
the program and activities proposed;
The organization units responsible for
carrying out the programmes;
The sources and amount of all money
receipts and expenditures; and
The units of work measurement which
measure the results of programs,
projects and activities.
A performance budget is in
essence a work-plan of the
government which specifies
the concrete proposals to be
established during the
financial year.
These systems serve as a
continuous check on actual
performance in terms of work
as well as of expenditure
against the approved budget.
back
 COMPONENTS
Performance Budget Techniques. Like all other
budget approaches, performance budgeting
has its distinctive methods. While these have
not been described comprehensively in the
literature, the main elements can be inferred
from the practices of governments and the
proposals of reformers. The common
components of performance budgeting systems
are: activity classifications, performance
measurements, and performance reports.
back
 FUNCTIONAL and
ACTIVITY
CLASSIFICATIONS
Performance budgeting places considerable
emphasis on redesigning expenditure accounts
and grouping expenses into functional and activity
categories. In performance budgeting technology,
a function refers to a group related activities for
which a governmental unit is responsible.
Functions such as public safety, health, and
transportation, are divisible into specific groupings
of work and expenditures. Ex. the health activities
of government include food inspection, the
licensing of doctors, and the operation of clinics.

back
 PERFORMANCE
MEASUREMENTS
Measurement is essential to the success of
performance budgeting. Performance measurements
generally are derivatives of cost accounting and
scientific management. Adopted from cost
accounting are methods of measuring the total or
partial cost of each unit of production or service;
from scientific management, techniques for relating
units of input (such as labor) to quantities of output.
In its application to government, cost accounting is
more often used for ascertaining than for controlling
costs.
Scientific management- measures the effort
Cost accounting- measures the cost
back
 PERFORMANCE
REPORTS
Reports are a special type of performance
measurement, a retrospective assessment of what
as accomplished with budgeted resources. The
performance report can either be an interim-audit
or a post-audit of work and costs. It compares the
actual cost and accomplishment with what was
projected in the project. A performance report may
show deviations thereby prodding managers or
budgeters to take corrective actions. A report may
lead to a reappraisal of performance.
Advantages of the new budgetary
system (Hoover Commission)
It gives more comprehensive and reliable
information to the chief executive, the
legislative body and the general public on
the policies of government;
It helps individual legislators to understand what
the government is doing and what the costs are;
It improves legislative examination of
budgetary requirements and enables the
legislative committees to decide more easily
the basic expenditure issues each year;
 It makes possible the submission and
consideration of the budget for a shorter
length of time;
It enables the administration to place
responsibility upon subordinate officials for
the clear execution of the provisions made
by the legislative;
It permits effective performance in reporting
on budgeting and management.

back
 ATTITUDE TOWARDS
PERFORMANCE BUDGET
Throughout the performance budget era, there as
persistent confusion over the meaning of performance
budgeting and program: and others considered the
program budget to be a step beyond the performance
budget.
Performance budgeting meant the elevation of
management concerns to central prominence.
Performance budgeting also meant abandoning control
traditions which the budget examiners had strong
interests and over which they serve as guardians.
Performance budgeting was castigated as too radical
and too complicated, particularly with its over-
refinement in details, which could obscure the prime
purpose of an agencys program to the point that
budgeting becomes a mere exercise in accounting.
Expressing faith in common sense in contrast to scientific
budgeting traditional budgeters, asserted that
budgeting is 90 percent common sense and dont let
anybody tell you anything else.
Never before was the evolution the Philippine budgetary
system as colorful and memorable as with the countrys
experience in performance budgeting.
back
 The Philippine
Experience in
Performance Budgeting
Cognizant of the lag in the development of public
fiscal management in the field of budgeting in the
early 1950s.
The budget, accounting and auditing
modernization project was launched in July 1954
in collaboration of US management.
Like other reform projects implemented under the
broad US technical assistance program in the
Philippines, budgetary improvements represented
an attempt to initiate requisite changes in an area
relatively neglected in the past.
 However, it differed from other program in that in
involved a technique that was untested in other
jurisdictions: performance budgeting.
The performance budgeting introduced in the
Philippines as part of the package of reforms
during the incumbency of late President
Magsaysay by the Economic Survey Mission
headed by Daniel Bell in 1950.
The purpose of the reforms, including the
modernization of fiscal administration, was to help
the government cope with severe social, economic,
and political problems.
 The passage of R.A. No. 992 or the Revised Budget
Act on June 4, 1954, formally launched the
establishment of performance budgeting in the
Philippines. This act required that the whole
budgetary concept be based on the triad of functions,
projects, and activities defined in terms of expected
results.
For the part of executive agencies, they pointed out
two factors which they believed made performance
budgeting unsuccessful: indifference in the execution
of programs, and lack of understanding on the part of
key operating officials.

back
LACK or ABSENCE of
PERFORMANCE
MEASUREMENTS
Units of work measurement characterize
performance budgeting. While line-item
budgeting merely lists the items of
expenditures, performance budgeting is
based on programs, projects and activities.
The formulation of precise and accurate
units of work measurement is the most
critical problem.
 The DBM has been in an endless search for
exact work measurement units on which to
base the financial requirements of
governmental agencies. The unit of work
measurement is the very essence of
performance budgeting as it measures the
results of agency programs and activities.
The attainment of accurate work
measurement units depends largely on a
common understanding and framework
between the central budget agency and the
operating agencies. back
PERSONNEL
Performance budgeting is hampered
by the lack or absence of personnel
processing necessary technical skills
and competencies such as management
and cost accounting. The responsibility
for preparing the budget shifts from
the accountants to the manager who
has to express his agencys plans in
terms of programs and projects.
back
ORGANIZATION
Performance budgeting demanded no less than a
restructuring of the governments organizational
system.
Out of 50 plans presented in the Congress in
1955, only one was approved and out of 53 plans
in 1956, 20 were rejected.
For those plans which were passed into law,
complicated problems led to an overweight,
overstaffed, and sufficient bureaucracy.
Such frustrations in streamlining the
governments organizational structure impeded
the success of performance budgeting which
requires logical, rational, and efficient
organizational structure. back
LEGISLATIVE
Lack of congressional support added to the
unsuccessful implementation of performance
budgeting. Initial support leading to R.A. No.
992 eventually changed to downright hostility on
the part of the Congress.
A leading authority on Philippine budgeting,
remarked that the most depressing reason for
the present superficial adoption of performance
budgeting in the government is the complete
reversal of Congress with respect to performance
budgeting.

back
 PLANNING,
PROGRAMMING
and BUDGETING
SYSTEM

back
 HISTORY and
DEVELOPMENT
It was originally developed by the Rand
Corporation in Sta. Monica, California, for use
by the US Air force. PPBS was adopted in
1961 by the Defense Secretary MacNamara for
his departments operations.
President Johnson issued an executive order on
August 1965 instructing all executive
departments to adopt PPBS: thus making this
system the decision-making and financial tool
of the federal government.
 PPBS is a result of three distinct but closely related
current thoughts in budget-making: economic
planning, efficiency in government, and management
of national economies to control cyclical fluctuations.
PPBS also offers an answer to the classical question:
how does the government allocate resources
appropriately and rationally without resorting to a
hit-and-miss procedure? PPBS respond to the
question by eclectically corporating in the system
three distinct administrative processes, namely:
strategic planning, management control, and
operational control.
 PPBS aims to specify (and where
possible to quantify) the objectives or
output of government's spending
programs and then to minimize the
costs. To do so requires the systematic
use of analysis in connection with
budget formulation, planning, program
development and evaluation.
 Smithies defines the purpose : a. to improve the
basis for major program decisions; b. to subject
decision about resources allocation to
systematic analysis, comparing alternative
courses of action in a framework of rational
objectives clearly and especially stated; c. to use
the rule of efficiency in choosing the
alternative that optimizes the allocation of
public resources; and d. to help responsible
officials make decisions while taking into
account that PPBS is not a mechanical
substitute for the good judgments, political
wisdom and leadership of those officials. back
 SPECIFIC FEATURES
Specifications of objectives to be achieved
through government spending and
expenditures;
Existence of a multi-year planning and
programming process which incorporates and
uses an information system to present data in
meaningful categories essential to major
executive decisions, thus a budget system which
is future and planning-oriented.
 Selection of a decision from various
alternatives to achieve program objectives
where the choice is arrived at using economic
method of analysis such as cost-benefit
analysis and feasibility studies which leads o
minimization of costs and comparison of costs
and benefits, especially when benefits can be
quantified.
Existence of analytic capability used by the
agencys by permanent specialized staffs to
meet objectives.
 Existence of a budgeting process which
can take broad program decisions,
translate them into more refined
decisions in a budget context, and present
the appropriate program and financial
data for presidential and legislative
action; and
Systematic use of analysis throughout the
process, hence holistic and integrative in
approach requiring economic and
planning skills. back
 PPBS: THE PHILIPPINE
EPERIENCE
The introduction of PPBS brought a damaging gap
between publicity and performance. In the US,
agencies went through the motions of preparing
PPBS documents.
In the Philippines, after the declaration of Martial
Law in September 1972, P.D No. 1 called for the
reorganization of the entire government system in
accordance with the Integrated Reorganization Plan
recommended by the Presidential Commission on
Reorganizationformulate short term and long term
development plans and to monitor.
 The same P.D. provided for the creation of the
NEDA chaired by the president himself. The
Philippine Navy attempted to work out a
PPBS model for entire Department of
National Defense in 1976.
As a result of PPBS, Filipino scholars and
experts read papers in seminars on the possible
usefulness of PPBS in the Philippine setting.
Philippine Association of Government Budget
Administration (PAGBA) devoted several
conferences to a discussion merits of PPBS.
 Even the Career Executive Service
Development Program undertaken by the
Development Academy of the Philippines
invariably included an overview of the
PPBS in its course modules.
Likewise, course syllabi in fiscal
administration, organization and
management, and management planning
and control courses in the NCPAG
included assessments of PPBS.
 Early proponents of PPBS in the
Philippines avoided using the term to
minimize negative reactions to another
imported technique. They preferred to
call it the IBS or the Integrated Budget
System. Despite such Incognito, it was
implied that IBS or PPBS, like the
performance budget, was the same
animal, only much bigger this time
 Local budget officials were very careful about
openly advocating PPBS, perhaps due to the
earlier experiences with performance
budgeting. However, they admitted the
usefulness of the system in this sense:
a. PPBS provides a clear linkage between
planning and budgeting; and
b. PPBS offers techniques which might help
solve the problem of resource allocation and
setting of positions.
back
 AN ASESSMENT OF
PPBS
Compared to the critics of performance
budgeting, the critics of PPBS are more
outspoken and emphatic in their assessment of
PPBS implementation.
Topping the list is Aaron Wildavsky whose
appraisal of PPBS and politics of the budget
process may now be considered a classic and
from whom a lot of scholars on government
budgeting owe a lot.
A positive view of PPBS is noteworthy.
Although presenting no panacea, PPBS
offers a logical, objective approach to
planning and budgeting. Potentiality,
PPBS allows administrators to evaluate
the anticipated results of proposed
programs and systems alternatives, and to
compare results from different proposals
in search of a best or satisfying
alternative.
 With that, one should recognize the
fact that PPBS is only a tool for
budgetary forecasting, planning and
programming. The tool never makes
decision; decision-makers who use
the data derived from the tool make
the choice.

back
 ZERO-BASE
BUDGETING (ZBB)
APPROACH

back
 INTRODUCTION AND
DEFINITION of the
CONCEPT
The zero-base approach
revolutionized" the budgetary
systems in both developed and
developing countries. As usual, the
trend-setter was the US, and its
gospel was echoed and adopted by
many developing countries.
 According to Phyrr, zero-base
budgeting is an operating,
planning and budgeting process
which requires each manager to
justify his entire budget request
in detail, and shifts the burden of
proof to each manager to justify
why he should spend any money.
 ZBB is a management and budgeting
process which necessitates each
manager responsible for a major
activity, cost center or function to
justify fully his budget proposal
following a systematic method of
identifying, analyzing, evaluating,
and ranking present and new
projects.
 The term zero-base refers to the yearly
analysis, evaluation, and justification of
each activity, program or project starting
from a zero performance level.
For the uninitiated, the term zero in
budgeting connotes a negative impression.
However, zero-base really means the
analysis of the entire budget from a
starting point of zero or from scratch.
back
 FEATURES and
OBJECTIVES of ZBB
It is a total budget approach.
It is a budget based on need, not
want.
It reallocates resources.
It identifies alternative ways and
levels of performance and
funding.
 In effect, ZBB system
hopes to achieve the
following objectives:

Strengthen the present

performance budgeting
system

Eliminate or reduce the

funding of low-priority
activities
Improve the quality of
Management and Budget
information

Encourage the application

of improved or new
performance measurements
back
BASIC ZBB TERMS
Decision Unit is a major activity,
group of related activities, cost center or
organizational unit which requires significant
managerial decisions on performance and
funding levels.
Decision Level is the level of the
organization responsible for analyzing,
reviewing, ranking, and grouping activity
justification document. Each division,
regional office, and bureau are required
to analyze and rank activities.
 Three parts of Levels of
Performance and Funding

Current Level (CL)- level of

performance and funding that is
required to carry on the years
service or output level without
major policy changed, also
referred to as BUSINESS AS
USUAL level.
ACVITY JUSTIFICATION and
DOCUMENT (AJD) DECISION
PACKAGE is a document that
identifies and describes a specific
operation in a manner that enables
management to evaluate and rank
it against other operations
competing for limited resources
and to decide whether to approve
or disapproved it.
Minimum Level (ML)- level
of performance and funding
below which an activity is not
feasible to operate because it
cannot make a constructive
contribution towards
fulfilling an objective.
ENHANCEMENT LEVEL (EL)-
level performance and funding
above the current level wherein
increased output and service will
warrant the service review of higher
management; the enhancement level
may be divided into EL(1) and EL(2)
is higher than EL (1) and is closer to
attaining completely the objective of
an Activity.
Levels of Performance
and Funding besides the
following information

Objectives

Description of activity

Alternative methods considered

Output performance measurement

RANKING is the process by
which higher level managers
evaluate an array activity
levels (as shown in the
decision packages) in
descending order of priority.
back
THE ZBB PROCESS
8 steps necessary to
establish in agency
Development and issuance of agency
planning assumption and policy
guidelines;
Identification of decision units;
Identification of objectives for each
decision unit;
Identification and evaluation of
alternative methods of accomplishing
objectives;
 Analysis of different levels of
performance and funding;
Preparation of justification documents
or decision packages;
Ranking of activities at various
performance and funding levels; and
Consolidation of activity justification
documents and accomplishment of
standard budget preparation forms.
 2 major steps
(simplified ZBB
PROCESS)
Development of decision
packages

Ranking

back
 Development of
decision packages
For decision units, take activities that
are not so low or detailed as to focus
too limited options for decision-
making, and not so high or broad as to
hide major activities and
commitments. Consider the time
required for analysis and amount of
paper work needed.
Set objectives for each activity.
They must be operational,
measurable and related to the
agencys what (response to
issue or problems), how much
(rate of response) and when.

back
 RANKING
This is done at levels in the
organization. Phyrr stresses that the
ranking process has to be started by
the manager who directly supervises
the operation. Then the manager above
him reviews the ranking and
consolidates the ranking and
consolidates the ranking of all the
packages of managers below him.
 The ranking is repeated upward until a
final ranking is produced at some
appropriate organizational level.
TWO routes are suggested for this
ranking process:
1. Based on the organizational structure
and
2. By functional groupings of activities
even if such activities cut across
present organizational boundaries
Fundamental questions
associated with the
ranking processes
Who will do the ranking?
How will it be done?
What will be the basis for ranking?
What ranking methods will be used?
How will the results be presented?

-Well defined and objective answers to these

questions will rationally lead to a meaningful
ranking process
The heart of ZBB is the ranking
process
All decisions are listed in the
order of decreasing benefit by
the managers in charge of them.
Package has a price tag
attached, there is a cumulative
cost as the list proceeds in
descending order.
back
ZBB in the PHILIPPINES

Introduced in the Philippines in

1977 during the preparation of
the Calendar year 1978 national
budget.
The legal basis of adopting
ZBB is found in Section 8 of PD
1177 (Budget Reform Decree).
 Establish bench
marks for outlays
category:

Personal services
Maintenance and
operating expenses, and
Equipment
It is better that a bench
mark be established for
each category rather
than proceed to
evaluate requests equal
to or in excess of
previous limits.
Justifications for adopting ZBB in
the Philippine Budget system:
reasons advanced by the Office of
Budget and Management
Lack of managerial involvement in
budgeting
Limited priority setting of projects and
activities
Lack of performance measurements
and cost benefit analysis
Unnecessary spending
Weak planning and
budgeting linkage
Inadequate probing
organization and methods of
operation
Ineffective allocation
resources
back
An Appraisal of ZBB

Benefits claimed after the

implementation of ZBB: (Texas)
No. of budget forms were reduced

ZBB provided a procedure for

focusing evaluation of resources only
for those activities with the highest
contribution to profit.
In Georgia:

The establishment of a financial

planning phase before the budget was
prepared
Greater involvement in the budgetary
process by personal in the lower
organizational levels of state
government.
Negative side in New Jersey:

Problems were encountered in

different areas:
Resistance to the system

Lack of understanding of the basic

concepts of ZBB
Poor quality of information
submitted
Weakness or constraints in full implementation of
ZBB in the Philippine system

Support from top management

Translation of concepts
Management of system
Claudio has added certain requirements:
Clear-cut organizational structure which defines
duties and responsibilities of each manager
Clearly stated functions and objectives of the
department or bureau
Competent managers
Well defined outlines and planning assumptions
Defects or weaknesses in the
execution of ZBB
Insufficient training of agency personnel
on the intricacies of implementing ZBB.
Lack of guidance in implementing ZBB,
especially in the ranking system;
Lack of central staff fully trained in ZBB so
as to guarantee an effective reecho or
orientation to agency budget and planning
personnel;
 Lack of appreciation and real support
from dept heads and officials
Emphasis on forms or too much
paperwork
Difficulty of translating the ZBB
concepts to more comprehensible,
concrete terms which are socially
digestible and palatable to end-users
back
 Conclusion:
The Philippine experience in applying
various approaches to budgeting has been
described.
These were adopted from approaches
developed in the united states- starting
with the line item budget, then the
performance budget, on to the PPBS and
ZBB
 What budget approach are we actually
using in the Philippine budgeting at
present:
The chief of the financial management
office of a leading agency, when
confronted with this question, answered:
at the agency level, we are actually
subjected to all these approaches. In
budget preparation, we are enjoined to use
ZBB; in budget authorization and
accountability, it is performance budgeting
which sets the standards.
 Few Observations on
budgeting Approaches
used in the Philippines
These are from the United States.
It cannot be claimed with great confidence
that these approaches have been
completely successful in making the
budget an effective instrument of fiscal
policy.
These approaches are premised on
rationality.
 Reference:

Briones, L. Public Fiscal Administration. UP-

NCPAG