Every government engages in budgeting and public financial management to run the affairs of state. Effective budgeting empowers states to prioritize policies, allocate resources, and discipline bureaucracies, and it contributes to efficacious fiscal and macroeconomic policies. Budgeting can be transparent, participatory, and promote democratic decision-making, or it can be opaque, hierarchical, and encourage authoritarian rule. This book compares budgetary systems around the world by examining the economic, political, cultural, and institutional contexts in which they are formulated, adopted, and executed. The second edition has been updated with new data to offer a more expansive set of national case studies, with examples of budgeting in China, India, Indonesia, Iraq, and Nigeria. Chapters also discuss Brexit and the European Union's struggle to require balances budgets during the Euro Debt Crisis. Additionally, the authors provide a deeper analysis of developments in US budgetary policies from the Revolutionary War through the Trump presidency.

Much of what is written in this book is true and will probably shock and hurt those who loved James D. Edmiston but the names have been changed to protect both the innocent and the guilty. The ending of the book has been changed from what really happened and that is all I will say about that. As is often the case, the truth is stranger than fiction and it is unlikely people would accept what really happened and how his life really ended. This book tells the good and the bad and does not paint anyone out to be what they are not. It is first and foremost a story of vengeance on those who set out to ruin a good man's life.

Every government engages in budgeting and public financial management to run the affairs of state. Effective budgeting empowers states to prioritize policies, allocate resources, and discipline bureaucracies, and it contributes to efficacious fiscal and macroeconomic policies. Budgeting can be transparent, participatory, and promote democratic decision-making, or it can be opaque, hierarchical, and encourage authoritarian rule. This book compares budgetary systems around the world by examining the economic, political, cultural, and institutional contexts in which they are formulated, adopted, and executed. The second edition has been updated with new data to offer a more expansive set of national case studies, with examples of budgeting in China, India, Indonesia, Iraq, and Nigeria. Chapters also discuss Brexit and the European Union's struggle to require balances budgets during the Euro Debt Crisis. Additionally, the authors provide a deeper analysis of developments in US budgetary policies from the Revolutionary War through the Trump presidency.

Consistent with the literature on state building, failed states, peacekeeping and foreign assistance, this book argues that budgeting is a core state activity necessary for the operation of a functional government. Employing a historical institutionalist approach, this book first explores the Ottoman, British and Ba'athist origins of Iraq's budgetary institutions. The book next examines American pre-war planning, the Coalition Provisional Authority's rule-making and budgeting following the invasion of Iraq in 2003, and the mixed success of the Coalition's capacity-building programs initiated throughout the occupation. This book sheds light on the problem of 'outsiders' building states, contributes to a more comprehensive evaluation of the Coalition in Iraq, addresses the question of why Iraqis took ownership of some Coalition-generated institutions, and helps explain the nature of institutional change.

The Maastricht Treaty and the Stability Growth Pact demand that EU member states comply with their famous deficit and debt requirements of three and sixty per cent of GDP. Yet, how can the EU's leaders be certain that these targets are met? Is a three per cent deficit in Belgium equivalent to one in Italy or France? Making the EMU explores how the Treaty's budgetary surveillance procedure monitors member state budgetary policies, harmonizes their budgetary data, and effectively determines which member states qualified for member status and are subject to the Pact's sanctions. This book provides the first examination of how the EU entrusted the credibility of these critical budgetary figures to a relatively minor European Commission agency, and what effect the surveillance procedure has on the making of the EMU and the enforcement of Maastricht.

The Maastricht Treaty and the Stability Growth Pact demand that EU member states comply with their famous deficit and debt requirements of 3 and 60 per cent of GDP. Yet, how can the EU's leaders be certain that these targets are met? Is a 3 per cent deficit in Belgium equivalent to one in Italy or France?
Making the EMU explores how the Treaty's budgetary surveillance procedure monitors member state budgetary policies, harmonizes their budgetary data, and effectively determines which member states qualified for member status and are subject to the Pact's sanctions. This book provides the first examination of how the EU entrusted the credibility of these critical budgetary figures to a relatively minor European Commission agency, and what effect the surveillance procedure has on the making of the EMU and the enforcement of Maastricht.

Since the 1950s, the federal government has relied on the peer review system for funding academic science. Peer review, however, is under attack for being a biased system that helps rich research universities get richer. As a remedy for these biases, university presidents and members of Congress have turned to the earmarking of science projects and facilities in the federal budget. Funding Science in America explores both the pros and the cons of the academic earmarking issue and explains why this issue has caused a rift within the nation's science community.

Since the 1950s, the federal government has relied on the peer review system for funding academic science. Peer review, however, is under attack for being a biased system that helps rich research universities get richer. As a remedy for these biases, university presidents and members of Congress have turned to the earmarking of science projects and facilities in the federal budget. Funding Science in America explores both the pros and the cons of the academic earmarking issue and explains why this issue has caused a rift within the nation's science community.