•  
  •  
 

Bulletin of Chinese Academy of Sciences (Chinese Version)

Keywords

national S&T budget,performance evaluation,evolution trajectory

Document Type

Theory and Practice of S&T Performance Budgeting Evaluation

Abstract

Government performance evaluation in the US dates back to the early twentieth century, in which the performance evaluation of the US federal government S&T budget also follows its pattern and experiences historical evolution. Looking into the historical trajectory of performance evaluation of the US federal government S&T budget, this study divides its transformation into 3 phases, namely exploration stage, formation stage, and development stage. The study first analyzes the major traits and evaluation methods of each individual stage, and further gives out a general conclusion of the whole development trajectory based on a comprehensive analysis. Finally, based on the current status quo, the study puts forward some implications towards the performance evaluation of national S&T budget in China.

First page

230

Last Page

240

Language

Chinese

Publisher

Bulletin of Chinese Academy of Sciences

References

1 United States The Commission on Organization of the Executive Branch of the Government. Budgeting and Accounting, A Report to Congress, Michigan:University of Michigan Library, 1949:8.

2 Ho A T K, De Jong M, Zhao Z. Performance Budgeting Reform:Theories and International Practices. Routledge:New York, 2019:53-70.

3 赵学文, 龚旭. 科学研究绩效评估的理论与实践. 北京:高等教育出版社, 2007.

Zhao X W, Gong X. Theory and Practice of Scientific Research Performance Evaluation. Beijing:Higher Education Press, 2007. (in Chinese)

4 United States Government Publishing Office. A brief history of the national performance review.[2023-01-06]. https://govinfo.library.unt.edu/npr/library/papers/bkgrd/brief.html.

5 赵路, 聂常虹. 西方典型国家政府绩效考评的理论实践及其对中国的启示. 宏观经济研究, 2009, (3):82-89.

Zhao L, Nie C H. Theorical practice of government performance evaluation in western countries and its enlightenment to China. Macroeconomics, 2009, (3):82-89. (in Chinese)

6 Shea R J. Performance budgeting in the United States. OECD Journal on Budgeting, 2008, 8(1):1-13.

7 Executive Office of the President Office of Management and Budget. The president's management agenda.[2023-01-06]. https://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/omb/budget/fy2002/mgmt.pdf.

8 Gueorguieva V, Accius J, Apaza C, et al. The program assessment rating tool and the government performance and results act:Evaluating conflicts and disconnections. The American Review of Public Administration, 2009, 39(3):225-245.

9 阿儒涵, 程燕林, 李晓轩, 等. 关于财政绩效评价综合打分制方法的思考. 中国科学院院刊, 2020, 35(12):1439-1447.

Aruhan, Cheng Y L, Li X X, et al. Thoughts on comprehensive scoring method in fiscal performance evaluation. Bulletin of Chinese Academy of Sciences, 2020, 35(12):1439-1447. (in Chinese)

10 Cozzens S E. Are new accountability rules bad for science?. Issues in Science and Technology, 1999, 15(4):59-66.

11 龚旭, 夏文莉. 美国联邦政府开展的基础研究绩效评估及其启示. 科研管理, 2003, 24(2):1-8.

Gong X, Xia W L. U.S federal evaluation on performance and results of public-funded basic research. Science Research Management, 2003, 24(2):1-8. (in Chinese)

12 U.S. Government Publishing Office. Program Assessment Rating Tool.[2023-01-06]. https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/BUDGET-2006-PART/pdf/BUDGET-2006-PART-1.pdf.

13 National Science Foundation. FY 2010-FY 2011 priority goal report. (2012-02-13)[2023-01-06]. https://www.nsf.gov/about/budget/fy2013/FY2010-FY2011PriorityGoalReport.pdf.

14 National Science Foundation. FY 2013 NSF budget request to congress.[2023-01-06]. https://www.nsf.gov/about/budget/fy2013/pdf/25-Performance_fy2013.pdf.

15 National Science Foundation. FY 2010-FY 2011 Priority goal report.[2023-01-06]. https://www.nsf.gov/about/budget/fy2013/FY2010-FY2011PriorityGoalReport.pdf.

16 National Science Foundation. FY 2021 annual performance report.[2023-01-06]. https://www.nsf.gov/about/budget/fy2023/pdf/92_fy2023.pdf.

17 中国财政科学研究院课题组. 美国研发预算管理体制:做法与借鉴. 经济研究参考, 2017, (22):7-17.

Chinese Academy of Fiscal Sciences. American research and development budget management system:practices and lessons. Review of Economic Research, 2017, (22):7-17. (in Chinese)

18 American Association for the Advancement of Science. Senate Testimony:Federal R&D budget, Dr. Albert H. Teich. (1999-04-15)[2023-01-06]. https://www.aaas.org/resources/senatetestimony-federal-rd-budget-dr-albert-h-teich.

19 American Association for the Advancement of Science. 2020 AAAS annual report.[2023-01-06]. https://www.aaas.org/sites/default/files/2021-07/2020_AAAS_AnnualReport_DIGITAL.pdf?adobe_mc=MCMID%3D13518897273226702170722557134510465396%7CMCORGID%3D242B6472541199F70A4C98A6%2540AdobeOrg%7CTS%3D1672280882.

20 Ling J G, Hand M A. Federal funding in materials research. Science, 1980, 209:1203-1207.

21 Leopold A. Effective Funding. (1982-04-16)[2023-01-06]. https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.216.4543.244.

22 Lewison J G G. Government funding of research and development. Science, 1997, 278:878-880.

23 Brookings Institution.A. Alfred Taubman Forum on Improving Government Performance. (2010-03-22)[2023-01-06]. https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/20110322_panel_one_transcript.pdf.

Download
Request a Copy

Share

COinS