【正文】 算過(guò)程中更早得到尊重和遵守。因此 需要 在資源分 配階段， 實(shí)現(xiàn) 一定程度上政策承諾，并將其轉(zhuǎn)化為一個(gè)連貫的支出計(jì)劃。預(yù)算政策可以被重 新 定向，但明顯的成效可能需要較長(zhǎng)時(shí)間 才得以顯現(xiàn) 。從這個(gè)角度看 ， 因 為在這段時(shí)間內(nèi)財(cái)政 政策 需要制定，所以 確定預(yù)算分配的整體行業(yè)是一個(gè)重要的階段應(yīng)引起重視?？紤]到憲法 的規(guī)定及 公共部門的管理傳 統(tǒng)和政治條件的異質(zhì)性 ， 很難一概而論 該種 程序適用于所有情況。當(dāng)確定總開(kāi)支水平的時(shí)候， 從長(zhǎng)期預(yù)算平衡 角度，必須考慮到 暫時(shí) 性 偏差參數(shù)。 一個(gè)自上而下的方法所隱含的假設(shè)是全面的預(yù)算過(guò)程，也就是說(shuō)在一定意義上所有或至少大部分開(kāi)支政府預(yù)算都會(huì)涉及的。 平行于這兩種觀點(diǎn)是宏觀經(jīng)濟(jì)和財(cái)政預(yù)測(cè)不夠準(zhǔn)確的風(fēng)險(xiǎn)。預(yù)算的規(guī)模是提供商品、服務(wù)和社會(huì)保護(hù)承諾的反映，并提供大量的消費(fèi)、投資或融資的資源。 對(duì)于政府而言最重要決定是確定政府的規(guī)模。加強(qiáng)預(yù)算過(guò)程的自上而下的特征不得不考慮到角色和職責(zé)的重新分配，這在一個(gè)很大程度上是為了解決一系列的財(cái)政權(quán)力分散和集權(quán)的弊端。這種對(duì)現(xiàn)實(shí)抽象化的使用不應(yīng)忽視，實(shí)際上預(yù)算是在一個(gè)高度的政治環(huán)境中得以制定，在這種環(huán)境中經(jīng)常有壓力使其背離從集體角度看是最優(yōu)的東西。綜上所述，由于預(yù)算由一定量的撥款組成，信息收集的過(guò)程存在一個(gè)機(jī)會(huì)成本，即有一個(gè)為提交和通過(guò)預(yù)算所設(shè)定的最后期限，因此一個(gè)自上而下的方法會(huì)有更好的機(jī)會(huì)導(dǎo)致財(cái)政預(yù)算的可持續(xù)。在一系列可控制的試驗(yàn)中，他們表明預(yù)算結(jié)果的大小確實(shí)受到自下而上或自上而下的決策過(guò)程的影響，但對(duì)于自上而下的程序能生成較小預(yù)算而言卻沒(méi)有統(tǒng)一的趨勢(shì)。其次，正如以上所討論的， 它 實(shí)際上 是 對(duì) 一個(gè) 所謂的 預(yù)算 過(guò)程 問(wèn)題的解釋 ，這種預(yù)算過(guò)程 目前主要是自上而下或 自下而上的進(jìn)程 。保羅斯 (2020)他們構(gòu)建了預(yù)算過(guò)程中的程序性分化指數(shù)，該指數(shù)大致相當(dāng)于一個(gè)自上而下和自下而上的準(zhǔn)備過(guò)程。格雷 (2020)關(guān)注中東歐國(guó)家的編制預(yù)算草案和自上而下的議會(huì)決策程序的批準(zhǔn)過(guò)程。德哈恩與斯特姆 (1994)擴(kuò)大了研究范圍來(lái)控制政府組成和保持政府穩(wěn) 定，并驗(yàn)證了包括自上而下的預(yù)算程序在內(nèi)一定的預(yù)算機(jī)制與更穩(wěn)健的財(cái)政政策密切相關(guān)。在對(duì)十二個(gè)歐盟成員國(guó)的國(guó)家預(yù)算程序的開(kāi)創(chuàng)性研究中，馮outinen (2020), also studying Central and Eastern European countries, includes criteria on the decision making sequence in budget preparation and the order of the approval procedure in parliament, thus confirming earlier results. Against these studies stands Perotti and Kontopoulos (2020) who construct an index of the procedural fragmentation of the budget process, broadly corresponding to a topdown and a bottomup preparation process. Although they demonstrate that a lower level of fragmentation (., a more topdown oriented process) is associated with a lower deficit, lower expenditure and lower revenue, the relationship is found to be weak. While supportive of the hypothesis that topdown budgeting is conducive to aggregate fiscal discipline, there are some limitations to these studies, however. First, the studies construct posite indices, consisting of several institutional aspects, and test their relationship with fiscal performance to arrive at these results. It is, therefore, not possible to separate out the contribution of the topdown procedure. Second, as discussed above, it is in practice a matter of interpretation of defining a budget process as being predominantly topdown or bottom up. The dividing line may be drawn differently by different studies. Third, these studies have to rely on formal institutions, while the budget process in reality may well be governed by a multitude of informal practices. Ehrhart et al. (2020) take a different approach when testing the impact that the sequence of decisions have on the oute of a budget process. In a series of controlled laboratory trials, they demonstrate that the size of the budget is indeed affected by changing from a bottomup to a topdown decisionmaking procedure, but that there is no general tendency for a top down procedure to produce a smaller budget. Strictly speaking, the objective of the budget process is to avoid excessive deficits and ensure a sustainable fiscal position, rather than minimize spending levels. The result is, therefore, neither an argument for, nor an argument against, topdown budgeting. However, a second result of the study is that plexity is costly, and that an increase of the number of spending dimensions (., more budget items)— and less information, require more voting rounds to reach an equilibrium. As argued above, with a budget consisting of a large number of appropriations, a process where information gathering has an opportunity cost, and where there is a set deadline for submitting and passing the budget, a topdown approach has a higher chance of leading to