Article Sidebar

Download
PDF
Statistic
Read Counter : 432 Download : 300

Main Article Content

Abstract

Purpose: This study evaluates the strengths and limitations of traditional and innovative budgeting approaches and their impact on resource allocation efficiency in public and private organizations. The research seeks to identify how hybrid budgeting systems can address the challenges of traditional methods while enhancing flexibility, accountability, and responsiveness in financial management.


Research Design and Methodology: A qualitative systematic literature review (SLR) was conducted to synthesize insights from relevant studies on traditional and innovative budgeting frameworks, including Performance-Based Budgeting (PBB) and Zero-Based Budgeting (ZBB). The research draws from peer-reviewed academic articles, case studies, and financial management reports to comprehensively understand budgeting practices across various organizational contexts.


Findings and Discussion: The findings reveal that traditional budgeting provides stability and control but lacks adaptability in dynamic environments due to its reliance on historical data and fixed expenditure categories. In contrast, innovative approaches such as PBB and ZBB enhance resource allocation efficiency by linking budgets to performance outcomes and encouraging critical evaluation of expenditures. However, these methods face challenges related to technological infrastructure, managerial readiness, and internal resistance. The discussion highlights the potential of hybrid systems that combine traditional approaches' stability with innovative methods' flexibility to create more adaptive financial management systems.


Implications: This study offers valuable insights for policymakers and practitioners by recommending adopting hybrid budgeting approaches supported by cloud-based financial systems and comprehensive training programs. By fostering a culture of accountability and transparency, organizations can enhance resource allocation, improve financial performance, and build resilience to economic and policy changes.

Keywords

Budgeting Resource Allocation Efficiency Performance-Based Budgeting Zero-Based Budgeting Financial Management Reform

Article Details

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

How to Cite
Sunaryo, D., Yanti, N. M., Amrulloh, R., & Lestari, T. (2025). Evaluation of Traditional and Innovative Budget Approaches in Improving Resource Allocation Efficiency. Advances in Applied Accounting Research, 3(1), 55–68. https://doi.org/10.60079/aaar.v3i1.457
Download Citation
Endnote/Zotero/Mendeley (RIS)
BibTeX

References

  1. Abdelkader, E. M., Moselhi, O., Marzouk, M., & Zayed, T. (2021). Integrative evolutionary-based method for modeling and optimizing budget assignment of bridge maintenance priorities. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 147(9), 4021100. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0002113
  2. Adobor, H. (2024). How organizations can benefit from volatility: The promise of antifragility and some cautionary notes. Organizational Dynamics, 101098. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.orgdyn.2024.101098
  3. Bogsnes, B. (2016). Implementing beyond budgeting: Unlocking the performance potential. John Wiley & Sons.
  4. Bosse, D. A., & Phillips, R. A. (2016). Agency theory and bounded self-interest. Academy of Management Review, 41(2), 276–297. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2013.0420
  5. Bourne, M., Melnyk, S., & Bititci, U. S. (2018). Performance measurement and management: theory and practice. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 38(11), 2010–2021. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJOPM-11-2018-784
  6. Burton, R. M., & Obel, B. (2018). The science of organizational design: fit between structure and coordination. Journal of Organization Design, 7(1), 5. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41469-018-0029-2
  7. Daovisan, H., & Chamaratana, T. (2020). Resistance to change in the financial management of small family-owned firms: a grounded theory of family firms in Laos. Journal of Accounting & Organizational Change, 16(3), 497–514. https://doi.org/10.1108/JAOC-05-2020-0063
  8. de Campos, C. M. P., & Rodrigues, L. L. (2016). Budgeting Techniques: Incremental Based, Performance Based, Activity Based, Zero Based, and Priority Based BT - Global Encyclopedia of Public Administration, Public Policy, and Governance (A. Farazmand (ed.); pp. 1–10). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-31816-5_2263-1
  9. de Campos, C., & Rodrigues, L. L. (2016). Budgeting techniques: incremental based, performance based, activity based, zero based, and priority based. Global Encyclopedia of Public Administration, Public Policy, and Governance, Springer, Cham, Doi, 10, 973–978.
  10. De Vries, M. S., Nemec, J., & Špaček, D. (2019). Performance-based budgeting in the public sector. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-02077-4
  11. Di Francesco, M., & Alford, J. (2016). Balancing control and flexibility in public budgeting: A new role for rule variability. Springer.
  12. Ellström, D., Holtström, J., Berg, E., & Josefsson, C. (2022). Dynamic capabilities for digital transformation. Journal of Strategy and Management, 15(2), 272–286. https://doi.org/10.1108/JSMA-04-2021-0089
  13. Goda, D. R., Vadiyala, V. R., Yerram, S. R., & Mallipeddi, S. R. (2023). Dynamic Programming Approaches for Resource Allocation in Project Scheduling: Maximizing Efficiency under Time and Budget Constraints. ABC Journal of Advanced Research, 12(1), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.18034/abcjar.v12i1.722
  14. Hoppe, E. I., & Schmitz, P. W. (2013). Contracting under Incomplete Information and Social Preferences: An Experimental Study. The Review of Economic Studies, 80(4), 1516–1544. https://doi.org/10.1093/restud/rdt010
  15. Ibrahim, M. M. (2019). Designing zero-based budgeting for public organizations. Problems and Perspectives in Management, 17(2). https://ssrn.com/abstract=3402663
  16. Jadeja, N., Zhu, N. J., Lebcir, R. M., Sassi, F., Holmes, A., & Ahmad, R. (2022). Using system dynamics modelling to assess the economic efficiency of innovations in the public sector-a systematic review. PloS One, 17(2), e0263299. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0263299
  17. Jensen, M. C., & Meckling, W. H. (1979). Theory of the Firm: Managerial Behavior, Agency Costs, and Ownership Structure BT - Economics Social Institutions: Insights from the Conferences on Analysis & Ideology (K. Brunner (ed.); pp. 163–231). Springer Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-9257-3_8
  18. Jerab, D. (2023). The Effect of Organizational Structure on Corporate Governance. Available at SSRN 4549766. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4549766
  19. Kauppi, K., & van Raaij, E. M. (2015). Opportunism and Honest Incompetence—Seeking Explanations for Noncompliance in Public Procurement. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 25(3), 953–979. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mut081
  20. Khin, S., & Ho, T. C. F. (2020). Digital technology, digital capability and organizational performance. International Journal of Innovation Science, 11(2), 177–195. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJIS-08-2018-0083
  21. Khoo, S. V., Rahman, N. H. A., & Kamil, N. L. M. (2024). An evaluation of the influence of budgeting process on budget performance in Malaysia. Public Administration and Policy, 27(1), 31–44. https://doi.org/10.1108/PAP-03-2023-0035
  22. Kwarteng, A. (2018). The impact of budgetary planning on resource allocation: evidence from a developing country. African Journal of Economic and Management Studies, 9(1), 88–100. https://doi.org/10.1108/AJEMS-03-2017-0056
  23. Lozynska, O., & Chaikovskyi, V. (2023). Using the Analytic Hierarchy Process for Budget and Cost Control in IT Projects. 2023 IEEE 18th International Conference on Computer Science and Information Technologies (CSIT), 1–4. https://doi.org/10.1109/CSIT61576.2023.10324181
  24. Masuya, K., & Yoshida, E. (2021). Multidimensional performance evaluation styles: budget rigidity and discretionary adjustments. Pacific Accounting Review, 33(1), 64–80. https://doi.org/10.1108/PAR-07-2019-0089
  25. Mat, T. Z. T., Roslan, N. A., & Fahmi, F. M. (2023). Role of Governance in Outcome-Based Budgeting Implementation Towards Accountability in the Malaysian Public Sector. IPN JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND PRACTICE IN PUBLIC SECTOR ACCOUNTING AND MANAGEMENT, 13(1), 101–127. https://myjms.mohe.gov.my/index.php/jrpam/article/view/22656
  26. Matinheikki, J., Kauppi, K., Brandon–Jones, A., & van Raaij, E. M. (2022). Making agency theory work for supply chain relationships: a systematic review across four disciplines. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 42(13), 299–334. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJOPM-12-2021-0757
  27. Moses, M. (2022). Conventional Budgeting Solutions BT - The Municipal Financial Crisis: A Framework for Understanding and Fixing Government Budgeting (M. Moses (ed.); pp. 53–62). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-87836-8_4
  28. Murdoko, B. D. (2024). Analisis Perilaku Managerial dalam Perencanaan Anggaran Keuangan Perusahaan. BUDGETING: Journal of Business, Management and Accounting, 6(1), 532–542. https://doi.org/10.31539/budgeting.v6i1.12809
  29. Nemec, J., & de Vries, M. S. (2019). Effectuating Performance-Based Budgeting Takes Time BT - Performance-Based Budgeting in the Public Sector (M. S. de Vries, J. Nemec, & D. Špaček (eds.); pp. 257–269). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-02077-4_14
  30. Nkundabanyanga, S. K., Jayasinghe, K., Abaho, E., & Mugambe, K. (2023). Contingency factors and budget actors’ behaviour during COVID-19: the case of Uganda. Journal of Public Budgeting, Accounting & Financial Management, 35(3), 354–384. https://doi.org/10.1108/JPBAFM-03-2021-0058
  31. Oulasvirta, L., & Rönkkö, J. (2023). Public Financial Management: Budgeting, Accountability and Auditing BT - Finnish Public Administration: Nordic Public Space and Agency (E. Pekkola, J.-E. Johanson, & M. Mykkänen (eds.); pp. 111–126). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-34862-4_7
  32. Oyamaguchi, N., Tajima, H., & Okada, I. (2020). Model of multi-branch trees for efficient resource allocation. Algorithms, 13(3), 55. https://doi.org/10.3390/a13030055
  33. Petropoulos, T., Thalassinos, Y., & Liapis, K. (2024). Greek Public Sector’s Efficient Resource Allocation: Key Findings and Policy Management. Journal of Risk and Financial Management, 17(2), 60. https://doi.org/10.3390/jrfm17020060
  34. Quah, J. S. T. (2018). Government Budgeting and Expenditure Management: Principles and International Practice. Salvatore Schiavo‐Campo. Routledge, New York, 2017. 390 pp. $59.95. Wiley Online Library. https://doi.org/10.1111/gove.12335
  35. Raudla, R., & Douglas, J. W. (2022). Austerity and budget execution: control versus flexibility. Journal of Public Budgeting, Accounting & Financial Management, 34(2), 292–309. https://doi.org/10.1108/JPBAFM-01-2021-0018
  36. Rausch, A., & Wall, F. (2015). Mitigating inefficiencies in budget spending: evidence from an explorative study. Journal of Accounting & Organizational Change, 11(4), 430–454. https://doi.org/10.1108/JAOC-04-2013-0035
  37. Santos, A. G., Pessôa, L. A. M., Mota, C. M. de M., & Frej, E. A. (2023). A FITRADEOFF-BASED APPROACH FOR STRATEGIC DECISIONS ON MILITARY BUDGET. Pesquisa Operacional, 43(spe1), e262789.
  38. Seixas, B. V, Dionne, F., & Mitton, C. (2021). Practices of decision making in priority setting and resource allocation: a scoping review and narrative synthesis of existing frameworks. Health Economics Review, 11(1), 2. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13561-020-00300-0
  39. Seneviratne, C. P., & Martino, A. L. (2021). Budgeting as practice and knowing in action: experimenting with Bourdieu’s theory of practice: an empirical evidence from a public university. Asian Journal of Accounting Research, 6(3), 309–323. https://doi.org/10.1108/AJAR-08-2020-0075
  40. Sinnaiah, T., Adam, S., & Mahadi, B. (2023). A strategic management process: the role of decision-making style and organisational performance. Journal of Work-Applied Management, 15(1), 37–50. https://doi.org/10.1108/JWAM-10-2022-0074
  41. Sonjaya, Y. (2024). Exploring the Evolution of Budgeting Practices from Traditional to Technology. Advances in Management & Financial Reporting, 2(1 SE-Articles), 36–45. https://doi.org/10.60079/amfr.v2i1.265
  42. Suwarno, S., Fitria, F., & Azhar, R. (2023). Optimizing Budget Allocation: A Strategic Framework for Aligning Human Resource Investments with Financial Objectives and Business Goals. Atestasi: Jurnal Ilmiah Akuntansi, 6(2), 835–855. https://doi.org/10.57178/atestasi.v6i2.880
  43. Waruwu, E. P., Sitanggang, B. P., Simatupang, P. I., Sitorus, J. T., & Siallagan, H. (2024). Comparative Analysis Of Cost Calculation With Activity-Based Costing And Traditional Methods. Jurnal Multidisiplin Sahombu, 4(01), 197–200. https://doi.org/10.58471/jms.v4i01.5029
  44. Widianto, S., Lestari, Y. D., Adna, B. E., Sukoco, B. M., & Nasih, M. (2021). Dynamic managerial capabilities, organisational capacity for change and organisational performance: the moderating effect of attitude towards change in a public service organisation. Journal of Organizational Effectiveness: People and Performance, 8(1), 149–172. https://doi.org/10.1108/JOEPP-02-2020-0028
  45. Wildavsky, A. B. (1986). Budgeting: a comparative theory of the budgeting process. Transaction Publishers.