Goals and the state planning and budgeting process : the Kentucky example

Using a literature review and case study, this thesis investigates the effects of merging planning and budgeting into a unified agency within the executive branch of state government under the control of the Governor. This merger's beneficial effects should be to enhance the control of the Governor over the state executive branch, to help in coordinating state programs, and to help stimulate line agency planning. A literature review is conducted looking at the general theory of planning and budgeting systems. A case study is carried out in Kentucky, looking at that state's efforts at establishing a unified planning budgeting function.

Basically, the conclusion of this study is that there is a developed theory of planning and budgeting systems at the state level. However, there may not actually be much similarity between the theory and the reality as observed in Kentucky. Because of the extreme strength of the Governor, the indifference of the Office for Policy and Management, and the extreme weakness of the Legislature, planning is occurring only sporadically in the line agencies. The budget is not founded on a planning system but only on a refinement of incremental budgeting. For a planning-budgeting system to be implemented, it must be strongly supported and encouraged by those with power, in Kentucky's case, the Governor. The budget agency will, if allowed, let the day-to-day problems of control get in the way of planning. The line agencies, if not pushed, will only carry out planning when they desire to do so. In a case where those with power do not support and encourage a planning-budgeting system, no system will surface.