INTRODUCTION
Authors Michael D. Cohen, James G. March and Johan P. Olsen theorized a model of organizational decision making called the Garbage Can (GC) model (Cohen, 1972). This model was developed to explain the way decision-making takes place in organizations that experience high levels of uncertainty, in what is described as organized anarchy (Ireland, n.d.). These organizational decisions are a result of random collisions between various elements thrown together with no regimented process or direction. Almost simultaneously within this GC model, problems arise within and outside the organization, solutions are being developed with no specific problem in mind, workers are spinning their wheels of productivity with no end goal to work toward and choices or options are generated for no specific party or question (Fioretti & Lomi, 2008). The organization is essentially a dumping ground where many streams and functions could collide or intersect resulting in decisions almost by accident. The ambiguous nature of this model makes it impossible to duplicate effective practices or eliminate those that hinder progress within the organization.
One example of this organized anarchy can be found in university systems. Their framework has most of the elements found in a GC model organization. Institutional goals are vague, conflicting, and rarely understood. Organizational processes are familiar, but not comprehensive. The major participants in the organization, the faculty and students, wander in and out of the process, participating in organizational activities and decision-making opportunities only until they find something better to do with their time (Giesecke, 1991). Individual schools within an organization have their separate goal...
... middle of paper ...
...ieved from http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CCkQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fcursos.campusvirtualsp.org%2Fmod%2Fresource%2Fview.php%3Fid%3D14919&ei=nBb4UvWfL8Ls0AGy3oGoBw&usg=AFQjCNFS2E_vWkrPkjlDSjjIsWduF0g6zw&sig2=mbsC64bz9EUVkv6rfL45dw&bvm=bv.60983673,d.dmQ
Bland, R. L. (2007). Budgeting for improved performance. In A budgeting guide for local government (2nd ed., pp. 127-145). Washington, D.C: International City/County Management Association.
Sielke, C. C. (1995). Budgetary Decision-Making: Is It Rational, Incremental or Garbage Can? Retrieved from Institute of Education Sciences website: http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED383048.pdf
Hill, K. (2014, February 5). School Districts and Garbage Cans | Experiential Continuum. Retrieved February 20, 2014, from http://experientialcontinuum.com/2014/02/05/school-districts-and-garbage-cans/
Wayne Swan 2010, ‘Budget Speech 2010-11’ Australian Government. Retrieved May 20th, 2010, from - http://www.budget.gov.au/2010-11/content/speech/html/speech.htm
For government budgeting to be effective, the process that guides it must be an evolving one. As the government gets bigger, it will most likely destabilize the existing method. Therefore, it must change to keep pace with the demands and growth of the country. The process must be capable of handling the complexity of our nation and its multifaceted needs so it will always need revisions and restructuring to face these new challenges. Its ultimate goal must be to reinforce the government and strengthen the country.
Gerson, Michael . "The real-world effects of budget cuts." The Washington Post 7 Apr.2011: n. pag. Print.
McManus, Doyle. “Drawing Budget Battle Lines.” Editorial. Los Angeles Times. Los Angeles Times, 14 Apr. 2011. Web. 5 June 2011. .
Schloss, P. J., & Cragg, K. M. (Eds.). (2013). Organization and administration in Higher Education. New York, NY: Routledge.
Boje, D. M. , Luhman, J. T. , and Cunliffe, A. L. “ A Dialectic Perspective on the Organization
In Savage Inequalities, Jonathan Kozol documents the devastating inequalities in American schools, focusing on public education’s “savage inequalities” between affluent districts and poor districts. From 1988 till 1990, Kozol visited schools in over thirty neighborhoods, including East St. Louis, the Bronx, Chicago, Harlem, Jersey City, and San Antonio. Kozol describes horrifying conditions in these schools. He spends a chapter on each area, and provides a description of the city and a historical basis for the impoverished state of its school. These schools, usually in high crime areas, lack the most basic needs. Kozol creates a scene of rooms without heat, few supplies or text, labs with no equipment, sewer backups, and toxic fumes. Schools from New York to California where not only are books rationed, but also toilet paper and crayons. Many school buildings turn into swamps when it rains and must be closed because sewage often backs up into kitchens and cafeterias.
Participative budgeting has the advantage of transferring information from the subordinate to their superior This knowledge is likely to be more reliable and accurate as the subordinate has direct contact with the activity and therefore is in the best position to make budget estimates. Participative Budgeting also gives subordinates the opportunity to discuss organisational issues with superiors, in which an exchange of information and ideas can help to solve problems and agree future actions (Nouri & Parker 1998). This transferral of information is important particularly when dealing with a matter of high task difficulty as, the more difficult a task, the greater the need for consultation with subordinates. Participative budgeting has a higher performance rate when dealing with more difficult and more volatile tasks than non consultative budgeting (Lau & Tan 1998)
Quantitative plans are called budgets. Budgets are prepared to impose cost controls on the activities of an organization (Chenhall, 1986).Budgets are then used to evaluate the performance of the management and budget itself is considered as a standard to evaluate the performance Solomon, 1956). The purpose of the budget is also to implement the strategy of the organization and communicate it to the employees of the organization Rickards (2006). The change in the external environment has led to the change in the budgeting approaches from the initial cash based budgets to the zerio based budgets (Bovaird, 2007).
An advantage of performance budgeting would be transparency; this type of budgeting allows stakeholders the ability to ascertain the amount of service delivered for the funded cost. Basically it measures to what extent does government agencies getting what they paid for. This type of budgeting also provides an avenue by which management and line staff can contribute feedback for the enhancement of a program’s success.
A traditional starting point is to look at what can be considered textbook definitions of efficiency. The broadest or most general meaning of efficiency as used in the public administration literature is that of technical efficiency, which concerns the ratio between resources and results, or input and output. One way or another, in all cases efficiency retains the general characteristics of input–output ratio outlined earlier, and all can be regarded as tokens of technical efficiency. The meaning of efficiency in public administration literature is almost without exception defined in terms of technical
Chaos can beat chaos … this should be the mantra for today’s organizations. But what is really meant by chaos? Is it complete madness to allow people whatever they want to do without particular objective in an organization or can there be any hidden underlying pattern in the making an organization ‘chaotic’? We’ll try to find answers of these questions and in this process we’ll try to reinforce our idea of how chaos can be a part of organization’s strategy to survive and beat uncertainties of harsh reality.
Pfiffner, J. P. (2004). Traditional Public Administration versus The New Public Management:Accountability versus Efficiency. Unied States: George Mason University.
Another reason for importance of participatory budgeting is that of enhancing transparency. There is an important inextricable link between budget public engagement and fiscal transparency. Participatory budgeting allows access of adequate information which cannot be provided by traditional political institutions, (WorldBank, 2003). When there is lack of transparency in the budgetary process bureaucrats tend to misuse public fund making policies choices that are exclusive to the citizens, (www.bidpa.bw,
It requires an adequate and sound organizational structure, that is, there must be a definite assignment of responsibility for each function of the enterprise. Budgeting compels all the members of management, from the top to bottom to participate in the establishment of goals and plans. Budgeting compels departmental managers to make plans in harmony with the other departments and of the entire enterprise. Budgeting helps the management to put down in figures what is necessary for a satisfactory performance. Budgeting helps the management to plan for the most economical use of labor, material and capital. Budgeting tends to remove the cloud of uncertainty that exists in many organizations, especially among lower levels of management, relative to basic policies and objectives. Budgeting promotes an understanding among members of management of their co-workers' problems. Budgeting force management to give adequate attention to the effects of general business conditions. Budgeting aids in obtaining bank credit as banks commonly require a projection of future operations and cash flows to support