A. Micro Essays
Define and identify the significance to U.S. public budgeting & finance of five out of the six terms/concepts/cases below in about 1/2 to 1 page each. [1 point each; 5 total]
1. politics 4. revenue bond
2. incrementalism 5. rational choice model of decision making
3. continuing resolution 6. executive budget system
B. Major Integrative Essays Answer TWO of the following questions with as much detail as you can, using as many examples as you can. [10 points each; 20 points total]
7. Public budgeting scholars often extol the merits of the data produced by alternatives to the line-item budgeting system traditionally used in the U.S. Define, describe, compare and contrast line-item budgeting, performance budgeting, program budgeting, and zero-based budgeting in terms of ease of use, clarity, transparency, strengths, weaknesses, and any other criteria you find valuable. If the alternatives to line-item budgets provide good data, why are they not utilized more often? Discuss at length.
8. Compare and contrast the public budgetary process of the U.S. national government with that of at least one other nation over time in great detail. Give your estimation of the economic outlook/prospects for each.
9. Compare and contrast the budgetary processes of the Classical Era and today in the U.S., in great detail.
10. Discuss in great detail capital budgeting in the U.S. compared with at least one other country. Be sure to talk about whether each nation has a capital budget or not, as well as the decision-making processes used to decide what kinds of projects are undertaken and how much of the national economy (GDP) is accounted for by national-level capital spending.
11. Pick an agency (government or nonprofit). Describe the agency and its function, and then give concrete examples of inputs, outputs, and outcomes relevant to the core function of this agency. Which of these three elements does a traditional line-item budget focus on? What kinds of performance measures (outcomes or outputs) will the agency tend to propose? Why? Which (outputs or outcomes) will the principal funder (legislative, executive, or other funder in the case of a nonprofit) attempt to compel the agency to use? Why? Discuss at length.
Since its introduction to the world, British TV has been always developing, advancing to suit the necessities and, all the more as of late, tastes of its watchers. What began off as a couple of open administration channels broadcasting just at specific circumstances amid the day turned into a 24 hour benefit with many projects from which to browse. Numerous elements have added to this continuous development, however in this exposition I will take a gander at the impact globalization has had on this flourishing industry, seeing Britain as both a merchant and exporter of organizations on the worldwide market. To begin with, the expression "globalization", as characterized by the Oxford English Dictionary, signifies "the procedure by which organizations or different associations create worldwide impact or begin working on a universal scale, generally thought to be to the detriment of national personality." In TV terms, this implies a telecaster chooses to offer, on the worldwide market, the configuration of effectively famous shows with the end goal for them to be reproduced in different nations. Along these lines, a show initially delivered in Britain, for instance, can be adjusted in some other piece of the world by following the organization control sold by the makers. In his book Copycat TV; Globalization, Program positions and Cultural character (1998), Albert Moran clarifies that "like a cooking formula, the guide distinguishes both the fixings and the grouping and way of their blend that will deliver an adjustment". On one hand, Britain has dependably been a noteworthy merchant of outside shows. Indeed, even now, in the event that we turn on our TV, odds are we will in the long run discover a rerun of a mainstream American sitcom, for example, Friends, How I met your mom or The Big Bang Theory, to list a couple. There are two noteworthy explanations behind this, the first being that the telecasters require projects to round out the vacancies. Since the 1980s, the pace of progress in the broadcast business has quickened. The presentation of 24-hour broadcasting brought the requirement for new projects, a request that was best met by cheap imports or neighborhood varieties of universally designed communicates. These future disclosed at either off-top hours of the day or between two long running, prominent shows, amplifying the quantity of watchers. The other explanation behind buying abroad shows is the expenses. As a rule, putting resources into an effectively fruitful show would be less expensive that delivering a show locally, however Moran recommends that this system does not really ensure great appraisals or include incomes. Cleanser musical dramas, or just cleansers, could be viewed as the go-to time fillers for TV in the UK, as well as everywhere throughout the world. The main cleansers were shoddy to create, bringing about scarcely average substance. They were supported by American makers of family cleaning items, for example, Procter and Gamble, and owed the expression "musical show" in their title to the unreasonably passionate and emotional nature of their substance. What genuinely changed the class, as inferred by Renée Dickason's article The Popular on British Television: Global Perspectives, National Priorities, Local Preferences, was the dispatch of Coronation Street on British TV in 1960, which adopted a more genuine strategy by going for exclusive requirements of acting and scriptwriting. The show spoke to vast groups of onlookers and pulled in an unbelievable measure of watchers, motivating American organizations to put additional time and cash in their own substance, along these lines driving by implication to the worldwide achievement of Peyton Place and Dallas. Notwithstanding the way that bringing in and airing whole shows is the most effortless approach to furnish the watchers with amusement day and night, numerous nations, including the UK, incline toward delivering their own forms of remote projects, adjusting them to their country's way of life and inclinations. "A privately created adaptation of Wheel (alluding to the American diversion demonstrate Wheel of Fortune) will be more costly than the foreign made form at the same time, with neighborhood candidates, has, inquiries and references, prizes et cetera, it is probably going to have more national interest and is subsequently prone to accomplish better evaluations. Positively (… ) that is by all accounts borne out by some long haul investigations of the procedure of import-substitution of TV programs", shows Albert Moran in his before said book. One of the most punctual cases of universal arranging is the situation of the celebrated board test amusement What's My Line which initially circulated July sixteenth 1951 on BBC. Because of all its obviously household components, for example, having a famous Irish moderator, woman specialists in night dress and their male partners in supper coats, barely any watchers presumed that it wasn't a unique British program, however an adjustment of an American radio show for which the BBC paid its makers the regal aggregate of 25 guineas for every scene (Brunt, 1985, p 28). In spite of this, R. Brunt still considers that the show has a "naturalized Britishness" to it, elucidating that "the selection of candidates bids to a Britishness which 'the greater part of us' are accepted to share: a satisfaction in unusualness and a capacity to chuckle at ourselves – as transmitted and supported by one of Britain's most loved Irishmen." (Brunt, 1985, 'What's my Line?'). Worldwide TV groups are intended to be effortlessly adjusted in different nations or locales and in this manner have no broadly particular attributes, making it reasonable why the vast majority don't worry about them being foreign made. A later case is ITV1's Take Me Out, a dating show propelled by London Weekend Television's Blind Date. At a first look it doesn't appear to be something besides a quintessentially British show, yet in actuality it was created in France by Fremantle Media. To start with it was publicized in Australia, where it didn't profit by gigantic achievement, a while later being sold to Japan, the Netherlands, Denmark, Finland, Indonesia, Spain and Sweden and ITV1, as an article on The Guardian's site states. >GET ANSWER