Searching for dialogue in public sector budgeting research: the case study of the JPBAFM

Abstract

PurposeThis paper aims to respond to the recent calls to discover the research developments in the field of public budgeting. Particularly, it explores whether and how research dialogue unfolds within the public budgeting field over time and how to stimulate it further, by investigating the case of a specific journal oriented to budgeting topics.Design/methodology/approachApplying a case study strategy, this paper reviews previous studies on public budgeting published in one specific journal, the Journal of Public Budgeting, Accounting and Financial Management (JPBAFM), from its “online inception” in 1994 to 2020. Borrowing ideas from dialogue literature, the authors analyse 108 selected papers according to a multi-dimensional framework for exploring research dialogues taking into account the year of publication, authorship (and affiliation), research setting, method and theoretical approach, and, above all, research topics on budgeting.FindingsThe findings illustrate that whilst public budgeting research has been fluctuating over time in the JPBAFM, there is a growing interest in the topic over the last several years (2015–2020). Yet, the journal illustrates a limited dialogic development of the field of public budgeting, where produced knowledge has been significantly North America-oriented, normative and quantitative-dominated. Until recently, only a limited role has been given to dialogue formation between researchers and practitioners, but the current debate is increasingly being enriched by new perspectives and a wider range of experiences. Finally, public budgeting has been addressed from multiple perspectives over time, with a significant impact determined by performance and participatory budgeting. Although multiple topics are receiving growing attention, it is still under-developed in the inter-dialogue formation between topics and theories, despite the more recently growing use of different theoretical approaches and empirical and analytical rigour.Research limitations/implicationsThe research is limited to one journal as a case study and does not claim to provide an overall reflection of public budgeting research and related empirical generalisations. Instead, the authors strive for a theoretical generalisation of multi-dimensional dialogue importance in the field.Originality/valueThe value of the research lies in a comprehensive analysis of research dialogue formation within public sector budgeting over time in an international journal that has actively engaged with public sector issues and, specifically, with budgeting. By so doing, this paper adds a critical stand on the value of dialogue in fostering inter-contextual and inter-disciplinary research in the field of public budgeting.