Budget execution system

From CEOpedia | Management online
Jump to: navigation, search

Budgetary execution system is a refinement of budget resolution required for the elaboration of annual financial plans inside budgetary units. Adopted budgets take into account the minimum information necessary but are not able to ensure the proper implementation of the tasks in entities operating within the budgets.

These budgets are, too vague and only express the will of a body of government entities: sources of revenue and expenditure breakdown for individual areas of activity. With such budgets, however, it is not possible to quantify precisely the amount of funds needed for a specific budgetary units or subsidiary.

The obligation to draw up the budgetary execution system

It is the responsibility of the implementing bodies of the units of local government shall, within 21 days from the adoption of the budget. It specifies planned revenue and expenditure in the budget in detail, what measures were planned for it in the budget and what amounts should be transferred to central budget of state.

Refinement of the revenues and expenditures of the budget, within the framework of the budgetary execution system is done through the classification of funds in sections, chapters and paragraphs of budgetary classification, and then to all entities affiliated in any way with the budget.

Budget changes made in the course of the year should be accompanied with the subsequent change of the budgetary execution system to be properly entered into the annual financial plans. There can be layout changes that do not even need to change the budget.

See also:

References

  • Nigro, F. A., & Nigro, L. G. (1965). Modern public administration. Harper & Row.
  • Rhodes, R. A. (2000). Governance and public administration (pp. 54-90). Debating governance: authority, steering and democracy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Peters, B. G., & Pierre, J. (1998). Governance without government? Rethinking public administration. Journal of public administration research and theory, 8(2), 223-243.