Mitigating inefficiencies in budget spending: evidence from an explorative study

Abstract

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to investigate whether a greater flexibility in the budget time-structure, which allows for shifting budgetary funds beyond the budget year, does, in fact, mitigate inefficiencies in budget spending. Traditional budgets are usually tied to a finite time span, e.g. one year, and are heavily criticized both for hampering efficient resource allocation and also for encouraging dysfunctional budget spending behaviours such as wasteful spend-downs at the end of the budget year and inappropriate holding back of funds early on. Design/methodology/approach – A research framework is proposed which draws on critical perspectives developed in prior research and an analytical model put forward by Pollack/Zeckhauser that is adopted as the basis for the development of the hypotheses. In an explorative study, data from an empirical questionnaire survey administered to 219 practitioners, mainly managers, from Austria are then used to substantiate the hypotheses. Findings – Finite-period budgets and fully flexible budgets, which allow subordinates both to save unspent funds beyond the budget year and also to borrow funds from future budgets, cause inefficiencies in budget spending. Subordinates who are allowed to spend and save funds at their discretion without being threatened by the loss of funds or imminent debts seem to spend their budgets most efficiently. Originality/value – The present paper contributes to the management accounting literature by investigating a heavily criticized but rather underexplored area of budgeting and by subjecting theoretical propositions from prior research to explorative empirical testing. Enhanced understanding of the temporal effects of the budget cycle structure will help practitioners improve budget spending and should encourage further research.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 11 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.