Managerial Accounting in the Implementation of Deliverology Using the Example of Ukraine

• Autorzy: Andrii Y. Buriachenko , Tetiana V. Zhyber , Tetiana Paientko
• Języki publikacji: EN

Abstrakty

EN

The article is devoted towards the application of managerial accounting for deliverology development at the local government level in countries and comparing them to the stage of fiscal decentralisation implementation in Ukraine. The aim of the article is to show how the application of the managerial accounting approach in the public sector can contribute to the introduction of deliverology at the local level using Ukraine as an example. The methodology is based on the application of Difference in Difference method for the implementation of deliverology at the local government level. It has been proved that the use of multi-criteria decision-making methods in the analysis of the performance of budget programmes at the local level will contribute to the improvement of public services delivery. The main contribution of this study is to provide the basis for developing recommendations for the use of a single or uniform standard of electronic databases on regional development indicators and local budgets. This will help to ensure operational control over deviations of actual indicators from planned ones, as well as identify regions where local authorities are using resources inefficiently. (original abstract)

Słowa kluczowe

EN

Local budget; Decentralization; Local government

PL

Budżet lokalny; Decentralizacja; Samorząd terytorialny

• Czasopismo: Ekonomia / Uniwersytet Warszawski
• Rocznik: 2020
• Tom: 7
• Numer: nr 54
• Strony: 72--83

Twórcy

autor

Andrii Y. Buriachenko

• Kyiv National Economic University named after Vadym Hetman

autor

Tetiana V. Zhyber

• Kyiv National Economic University named after Vadym Hetman

autor

Tetiana Paientko

• Kyiv National Economic University named after Vadym Hetman

Bibliografia

• Agyemang, G. (2004). Responsibility and accountability without direct control? Local education authorities and the seeking of influence in the UK schools sector. Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, 22(5), 762-788.
• Aidemark, L.-G. (2001). Managed health care perspectives: A study of management accounting reforms on managing financial difficulties in a health care organization. European Accounting Review, 10(3), 545-560.
• Aidt, T. S., Veiga, F. J., & Veiga, L. G. (2010). Election results and opportunistic policies: A new test of the rational political business cycle model. Public Choice, 4, 1-24.
• Alford, J., & O'Flynn, J. (2012). Rethinking public services: Managing with external providers. Basingstoke, England: Palgrave Macmillan.
• Alonso, J., Clifton, J., & Diaz-Fuentes, D. (2011). Did new public management matter? An empirical analysis of the outsourcing and decentralization effects on public sector size. COCOPS Working Paper, No.4, European Commission, Brussels.
• Andrews, M. (2008). Good government means different things in different countries. Faculty Research Working Paper Series, RWP08-068. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA. Bald, J. (2016). Deliverology - A science? Retrieved from http://johnbald.typepad.com/language/2013/07/ deliverology-a-science.html (Accessed December 20, 2019).
• Barber, M. (2008). Instruction to deliver: Fighting to transform Britain's public services. London, England: Methuen Publishing Ltd.
• Barber, M. (2017). How to deliver improved outcomes for schools. Retrieved from https://www. wise-qatar.org/2017-wise-research-improvedoutcomes-school-systems/ (Accessed January 26, 2020).
• Barber, M., Kihn, P., & Moffit, A. (2011b). Deliverology: From idea to implementation. McKinsey on Government, 6, 32-39.
• Barber, M., Moffit, A., & Kihn, P. (2011a). Deliverology 101: A field guide for educational leaders. Corwin PC, Thousand Oaks, USA.
• Barton, A. D. (2006). Public sector accountability and commercial-in-confidence outsourcing contracts. Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, 19(2), 256-271.
• Birch, L., Jacob, S., & Baby-Bouchard, A. (2019). The Trudeau government's legislative agenda: Election promises and a dual mandate. In L. Birch & F. Pétry (Eds.), Assessing Justin Trudeau's Liberal government: 353 promises and a mandate for change (pp. 27-42). Quebec, QC: Presses de l'Université Laval.
• Bjornenak, T. (2000). Understanding cost differences in the public sector: A cost drivers approach. Management Accounting Research, 11(2), 193-211.
• Blum, J. R., Manning, N., & Srivastava, V. (2012). Public sector management reform: Toward a problem-solving approach. Economic Premise, No. 100. Washington, DC: World Bank.
• Booth, D. (2014). Aiding institutional reform in developing countries: Lessons from the Philippines on what works, what doesn't, and why. Working Politically in Practice Series, Case Study No. 1. London, England: The Asia Foundation and the ODI.
• Bouchal, P., Kidson, M., Norris, E., & Rutter, J. (2014). Doing them justice: Lessons from four cases of policy implementation. London, England: Institute for Government.
• Bouckaert, G., & Halligan, J. (2008). Comparing performance across public sectors. In W. Van Dooren, & S. Van de Walle (Eds.). Performance information in the public sector. London, England: Palgrave Macmillan, 71-82.
• Box, R. C. (1999). Running government like a business: Implications for public administration theory and practice. The American Review of Public Administration, 29(1), 19-43.
• Boyne, G. A. (2002). Public and private management: What's the difference? Journal of Management Studies, 39(1), 97-122.
• Brown, R., & Sprohge, H.-D. (1987). Governmental managerial accounting: What and where is it? Public Budgeting and Finance, 7(3), 35-46.
• Budget Code of Ukraine. (2010). Retrieved from https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/2456-17 (Accessed February 10, 2020).
• Callaway, B., & Sant'Anna, P. (2018). Difference-indifferences with multiple time periods and an application on the minimum wage and employment. Working Paper.
• Cavalluzzo, K. S., & Ittner, C. D. (2004). Implementing performance measurement innovations: Evidence from government, accounting. Organizations and Society, 29(3-4), 243-267.
• Cleary, S. (2007). The Prime Minister's Delivery Unit (PMDU), 2005-2007: What impact did the machinery of government and leadership changes have on the PMDU? BA undergraduate thesis, p. 1.
• Da Veiga, M., & Major, M. (2019). Governance as integrity: The case of the internal oversight at the United Nations through the lens of public and private bureaucracies transaction cost economics. Journal of Public Budgeting, Accounting & Financial Management, 32(1), 67-91.
• de Bruijn, H., & van Helden, G. J. (2006). A plea for dialogue driven performance-based management systems: Evidence from the Dutch Public Sector. Financial Accountability and Management, 22(4), 405-423.
• Fedosov, V., & Paientko, T. (2018). Government financial accountability: Key problems and main trends in post-communist countries. Zeszyty Teoretyczne Rachunkowości, 99(155), 25-39.
• Fedosov, V., & Paientko, T. (2019). Opportunistic government behaviour: How controlling approaches in public management can prevent it. Zeszyty Teoretyczne Rachunkowości, 104(160), 37-54.
• Freeguard, G., & Gold, J. (2015). Data-driven delivery: Lessons from the O'Malley administration of Maryland. Maryland: Institute for Government.
• Gash, T., Hallsworth, M., Ismail, S., & Paun, A. (2008). Performance art: Enabling better management of public services. London, England: Institute for Government.
• Haws, E. (2018). Oft critiqued Liberal mandate tracker to become "more useful," says government "deliverology" chief. The Hill Times. Retrieved from https://www.hilltimes.com/2018/01/24/liberalsmandate-letter-tracker-great-conversationgettingrefresh-momentarily-mendelsohn/131770.
• Holt, J., & Manning, N. (2014). Fukuyama is right about measuring state quality: Now what? Governance, 27(4), 717-728.
• Jakobsen, M. L., Baekgaard, M., Moynihan, D. P., & van Loon, N. (2018). Making sense of performance regimes: Rebalancing external accountability and internal learning. Perspectives on Public Management and Governance, 1(2), 127-141. doi: org/10.1093/ppmgov/
• Jarvinen, J. (2009). Shifting NPM agendas and management accountants' occupational identities'. Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, 22(8), 1187-1210.
• Lægreid, P., Roness, P. G., & Rubecksen, K. (2008). Performance information and performance steering: integrated system or loose coupling? In: W. Van Dooren & S. Van de Walle (Eds.), Performance information in the public sector (42-57). London, England: Palgrave Macmillan.
• lo Storto, C. (2014). Benchmarking website performance in the public sector: a non-parametric approach. Journal of Computers, 9(3), 636-643.
• Majette, G. R. (2019). Controlling health care costs under the ACA - Chaos, uncertainty, and transition with CMMI and IPAB. The Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics, 4, 857-861.
• Ouda, H., & Klischewski, R. (2019). Accounting and politicians: A theory of accounting information usefulness. Journal of Public Budgeting, Accounting & Financial Management, 31(4), 496-517.
• Shepherd, R. P. (2018). Expenditure reviews and the federal experience: Program evaluation and its contribution to assurance provision. Canadian Journal of Program Evaluation, 32(3), 347-370. doi: 10.3138/ cjpe.43180
• ter Bogt, H. J., & van Helden, G. J. (2000). Accounting change in Dutch government: Exploring the gap between expectations and realizations. Management Accounting Research, 11(2), 263-279.
• Watkins, K. (2013). Jim Kim's science of delivery: what role for politics? Overseas Development Institute (ODI). Retrieved from http://www.odi.org/comment/7703- jim-kims-science-delivery-role-politics (Accessed December 20, 2019).
• Wooldridge, J. M. (2009). Difference-indifferences estimation. Quantile, 6, 25-47.

Identyfikatory

DOI

DOI: 10.2478/ceej-2020-0003