【正文】 部門超過主要目標(biāo)部分可能難以在實踐中達(dá)到協(xié)調(diào)。 對 政府政策的 不透徹的 理解是一個動態(tài)的支出預(yù)算管理的普遍障礙。 根本性 變化 幾乎不 可能 年年發(fā)生 。 政府討論和建立分段性任務(wù)（尤其在中期階段）的政策階段為預(yù)算過程提供了結(jié)構(gòu) 。這種趨勢不必直接影響預(yù)測，但這可能是政府官員不愿意呈現(xiàn)壞消息的結(jié)果。 從這個角度看，設(shè)定總開支限額可以被視為一個極具思想性的決定?，F(xiàn)存秩序的任何改革，當(dāng)且僅當(dāng)政府要員在某個有影響的領(lǐng)域中增加損失而在其他領(lǐng)域中的影響得 以補(bǔ)償?shù)那闆r下，才可以接受。然而，這項研究的第二個結(jié)果是復(fù)雜的是昂貴的，而且規(guī)模支出數(shù)量的增加（即更多的預(yù)算項目）和更少的信息需要更多輪投票來達(dá)到一種均衡。首先，研究構(gòu)建 綜合指數(shù)，這個指數(shù)包含一些體制方面的問題 ,并測試它們與財政狀況的關(guān)系所形成的結(jié)果 , 因此不可能區(qū)分自上而下流程作出的貢獻(xiàn)。哈根的研究擴(kuò)展到包括東亞九個國家在內(nèi)，沃證實了這些制度安排和財政成果之間的牢固關(guān)系。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 a fiscally sustainable budget. A topdown approach to the preparation of the budget requires procedures for establishing the aggregate expenditure level and the sectoral allocation of the budget. It also changes the focus and dynamics of the negotiations between the ministry of finance and line ministries. A stylized characterization of the budget process is valuable for analyzing factors that are relevant for how government finances evolve over time. The use of such abstractions of reality should not lose sight of the fac