Johann Seiwald and Tobias Polzer
Crises constitute stress tests for public sectors, with public financial management (PFM) systems having to respond to emergency needs. In this study, the authors analyze (1) what…
Abstract
Purpose
Crises constitute stress tests for public sectors, with public financial management (PFM) systems having to respond to emergency needs. In this study, the authors analyze (1) what elements of the Austrian PFM system have been affected by the COVID-19 pandemic and (2) what mechanisms have been applied to close identified gaps in the PFM system and to ensure alignment with budget principles. The authors then reflect on these PFM measures.
Design/methodology/approach
The research departs from the pre-crisis configuration of the Austrian PFM system. Making use of a data triangulation strategy, the paper analyses draft laws and regulations with corresponding explanatory notes and impact assessments, transcripts from debates in the federal Parliament and articles and commentaries issued by various stakeholders.
Findings
The analysis of five areas relevant to the reconfiguration of the Austrian PFM system shows that the pandemic has caused an external shock, but at the same time, the current system has not been challenged in substance and has been utilized to react to the pandemic—resulting in (ad hoc) modifications. The system has proved robust and crisis responsive; however, in a reactive pattern, emerging ad hoc elements have been integrated, with a number of defensive mechanisms ensuring compliance with budget principles. In addition, in some areas, more proactive actions have been taken for closing system gaps (e.g. risk disclosure).
Originality/value
The authors evaluate the likelihood of (proposed, decided and implemented) emerging elements or revisions to a PFM system being embedded into the existing PFM system, alongside reflecting on results and necessary further adjustments.
Details
Keywords
Isabella M. Nolte, Tobias Polzer and Johann Seiwald
Gender budgeting aims to include a gender perspective at all stages of the budgetary process. Emerging economies (EEs) face different challenges in gender equality to high-income…
Abstract
Purpose
Gender budgeting aims to include a gender perspective at all stages of the budgetary process. Emerging economies (EEs) face different challenges in gender equality to high-income economies–with larger informal economic sectors that typically employ a larger proportion of women and weaker political accountability. We analyse the literature on gender budgeting in EEs and derive avenues for future research.
Design/methodology/approach
Adopting a systematic literature review, we investigate the focus of research on gender budgeting in EEs and analyse how the literature has developed over the last decade.
Findings
Our results show that gender budgeting is a relevant topic in EEs. The literature focuses on overall rationales for employing gender budgeting and its theoretical implementation. However, many studies remain explorative, reviewing existing content without collecting new and potentially more suitable data. The evidence on the success of gender budgeting initiatives is mixed. While a number of studies present positive experiences regarding certain aspects of gender budgeting, other studies discuss a decoupling between adopted instruments and their actual use, as well as projects not being further pursued or developed when donors retreat.
Originality/value
Given the identified lack of studies reporting on actual implementation experiences, future research should address gender budgeting from an accounting and accountability perspective and focus on the reform impacts.
Details
Keywords
Tobias Polzer, Renate E. Meyer, Markus A. Höllerer and Johann Seiwald
Despite an abundance of studies on hybridization and hybrid forms of organizing, scholarly work has failed to distinguish consistently between specific types of hybridity. As a…
Abstract
Despite an abundance of studies on hybridization and hybrid forms of organizing, scholarly work has failed to distinguish consistently between specific types of hybridity. As a consequence, the analytical category has become blurred and lacks conceptual clarity. Our paper discusses hybridity as the simultaneous appearance of institutional logics in organizational contexts, and differentiates the parallel co-existence of logics from transitional combinations (eventually leading to the replacement of a logic) and more robust combinations in the form of layering and blending. While blending refers to hybridity as an “amalgamate” with original components that are no longer discernible, the notion of layering conceptualizes hybridity in a way that the various elements, or clusters thereof, are added on top of, or alongside, each other, similar to sediment layers in geology. We illustrate and substantiate such conceptual differentiation with an empirical study of the dynamics of public sector reform. In more detail, we examine the parliamentary discourse around two major reforms of the Austrian Federal Budget Law in 1986 and in 2007/2009 in order to trace administrative (reform) paradigms. Each of the three identified paradigms manifests a specific field-level logic with implications for the state and its administration: bureaucracy in Weberian-style Public Administration, market-capitalism in New Public Management, and democracy in New Public Governance. We find no indication of a parallel co-existence or transitional combination of logics, but hybridity in the form of robust combinations. We explore how new ideas fundamentally build on – and are made resonant with – the central bureaucratic logic in a way that suggests layering rather than blending. The conceptual findings presented in our paper have implications for the literature on institutional analysis and institutional hybridity.