A Rejoinder to Danziger's Comment
| Author | C. R. Hinings,S. Ranson,Royston Greenwood |
| DOI | 10.1111/j.1467-9248.1978.tb01526.x |
| Date | 01 March 1978 |
| Published date | 01 March 1978 |
| Subject Matter | Article |
A
REJOINDER
TO
DANZIGER’S
COMMENT
ROYSTON GREENWOOD,
C.
R. HININGS,
AND
S.
RANSON
University
of
Birmingham
DANZIGER has raised a number of interesting points. Many
of
them add
substantially to
our
stock of ideas and have enabled us to analyse that data at
our
disposal (only a small part of which appeared in the Politics of the Budgetary
Process in English Local Government).
In
response to Danziger’s comments
we
treat below his main points, taking each in turn, taking care to acknowledge
where we accept his suggestions, but also to raise what appear to be slight
misinterpretations.
Before doing
so
it is worth stressing that Danziger’s comments relate mainly
to the results presented in the paper, rather than with the conceptual framework
from which we intend to construct a theory of the budgetary process. In that
our
purpose in the paper was to develop a conceptual framework more able to
capture the important phenomena of budgeting, we are sufficiently rewarded
that he refers to that framework as ‘richly suggestive’. Having said that, let
us
turn to his more detailed comments.
1.
Rationality and Reallocation.
It is important to grasp the nature of the
puzzle: it is, to explain why both ‘rationality’ and the ‘parameters of budgetary
review’ are
each
negatively associated with budgetary reallocation. Quite rightly,
Danziger chides
us
for dismissing the association between parameters of review,
and reallocation, as ‘spurious’.
Our
defence is that we could not, and still cannot,
construct a theoretical linkage for this empirical observation; and, given that the
data presented is only a small share
of
that which will be subsequently available,
it
seemed unnecessary to force an explanation upon the data. Obviously
if
the
association remains when data is available
for
the full sample of
27
authorities
over a period of three years, then we will have to think much harder. In other
words, we remain rebuked but unrepentant, and hope to satisfy the criticism as
our fuller results appear.
What is noticeable is that Danziger himself fails to offer any alternative
explanation. Despite considerable discussion of the association between
‘rationality’ and ‘reallocation’ there
is
virtually no consideration of the associ-
afion between ‘parameters of review’ and ‘reallocation’-except of course, to say
that
we
did not discuss it. We are not alarmed at this lacuna (although we might
gently return the rebuke) except that it may illustrate how easy it is to blend
together, either by omission (as in Danziger’s case)
or
confusion (Wildavsky),
the separate dimensions of the budgetary process. One of the interesting findings
of
our
research is that ‘rationality’ and ‘parameters of review’ are unrelated
empirically.
Danziger’s comments on the relationship between ‘rationality’ and ‘realloca-
Politid Studiea,
Vol.
XXVI,
No.
l(116-118).
To continue reading
Request your trial