There are various types of budgeting in government, line item budgeting was one of the first formats used by our government and is arguably the simplest form of budgeting, this approach links the inputs of the system. These budgets typically appear in the form of accounting documents that express minimal information regarding purpose an explicit object within the system. During this stage of executive budgeting BOB (Bureau of the Budget) that had been the center of coordination and control was transferred to the new Executive Office of the President.
Then there was the Planning-Programming Budgeting as the name implies it was geared toward developing programs, this was a change from the previous budget approaches as they all created agencies. It facilitated assessments of agency resources and its activities, as well the effects of those activities. With this there was a shift back toward BOB, which later became known as OMB. This also led to increased centralization, so views said that was what was needed and others said it was what was being avoided. Program Planning Budgeting System—is the link between the line item and program budgets and the more complex performance budget.
As opposed to the more simple program budget, this decision making tool links the program under consideration to the ways and means of facilitating the program. This is meant to serve as a long-term planning tool so that decision makers are made aware of the future implications of their actions. These are typically most useful in capital projects. The planning portion of the approach seeks to link goals to objects or expected outcomes from specific outputs, which are then sorted into programs that convert inputs to outputs; finally, the budgeting of PPBS helps determine how to fund the program.
A leader in the promotion of PPBS was Robert McNamara’s use in the United States Government’s Department of Defense in the 1960s. Congress did not want this change because it was viewed as simplifying budgets that were complex and based on consensus and comprise to a system that was geared toward being rational. Then there was Zero-Base budgeting developed by Texas Instruments, Inc. First their need’s to be identification of the decision entities, and then analysis of those entities made by an identifiable manager with the authority to establish priorities and prepare budgets for all activities within that administration.
This included making estimates of agency output at various funding levels and assessing cost effectiveness. There were then Top-Down Budgeting, which centered its focus on control and attainment of a single system mission that had mission specific inputs as well as mission specific effects. Presently Budgeting for Results has been used, where the focus is on management, more so Budgeting for Outcomes makes leaders to set the price of government, find out what outcomes people want, prioritize tax dollars to purchase those results, and reorganize the way their agencies go about providing and funding them.