Access to this full-text is provided by SAGE Publications Inc.
Content available from SAGE Open
This content is subject to copyright.
Original Research
SAGE Open
April-June 2024: 1–15
ÓThe Author(s) 2024
DOI: 10.1177/21582440241262859
journals.sagepub.com/home/sgo
Myanmar Budget Dynamics and Their
Effect on Multiple Performances of Public
Service Delivery: A Multilevel Approach
Win Thiri Myaing
1
and Seunghoo Lim
1,2
Abstract
A public budget consists of financial input for implementing governmental operations. It is generally expected that financial
resources will increase organizational performance because they can be used to obtain other types of resources. This study
aims to make a theoretical contribution to the punctuated equilibrium theory literature by examining how the different pat-
terns of budget changes affected the competing dimensions of public service performance (3Es: efficiency, effectiveness, and
equity) before and after the Myanmar budget reform in 2011. We collected a two-level dataset including budget allocation
data at the ministry level and public service providers’ perceptions of performance at the individual level and employed multi-
level modeling. Our results show that the effectiveness of public services can be improved by increasing a significant amount
of budget allocation (positive punctuations), but this has no effect on efficiency or equity. However, any level of budget reduc-
tion can decrease the efficiency and equity of public services.
Keywords
Myanmar budget reform, budget punctuations, public service performance, punctuated equilibrium theory, hierarchical linear
model
Introduction
The allocation of public funds is crucial for a country’s
socioeconomic and multisectoral development and strate-
gic goals, especially in developing countries (Khujamkulov,
2024). In addition to thinking of public budgeting as an
annual financial arrangement, such planning has evolved
into a multiyear financial and development process. To
comply with macroeconomic policies, budgetary actions
are also being developed. Governments implement a series
of budget reforms with the goal of making public budget-
ary systems more rational and sustainable (Willoughby,
2014). The most important goal is to effectively manage
the finite public budget to successfully implement projects
and deliver public services to citizens efficiently, effectively,
and equitably.
Incorporating performance information into budget
documents is critical for strengthening public bureau-
crats’ accountability for outputs and outcomes based on
the budget inputs appropriated to them. These perfor-
mance data can be used to assess how inputs are con-
verted to outputs (efficiency), the level at which stated
objectives are achieved (effectiveness), and whether the
results of budget allocations are fair (equity) (Oh et al.,
2014). This study aims to analyze Myanmar’s budget
dynamics and their effect on multiple performances of
public service delivery. Several theoretical perspectives
assume a positive relationship between financial resources
measured as a static concept and organizational perfor-
mance (Boyne, 2003; Fisher, 2007; Walker et al., 2024;
Williamson, 1999). However, a budget is one of the mea-
surements of organizational size, and changes in organi-
zational size have different effects on performance
1
Public Management and Policy Analysis Program, Graduate School of
International Relations, International University of Japan, Minamiuonuma,
Niigata, Japan
2
Graduate School of Business, Rikkyo University, Toshima-ku, Tokyo, Japan
Corresponding Author:
Seunghoo Lim, International University of Japan, Main Building Room #313,
777 Kokusai-Cho, Minamiuonuma, Niigata 949-7277, Japan.
Email: seunghoo.lim@gmail.com
Data Availability Statement included at the end of the article
Creative Commons CC BY: This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License
(https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) which permits any use, reproduction and distribution of
the work without further permission provided the original work is attributed as specified on the SAGE and Open Access pages
(https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/open-access-at-sage).
outcomes. Therefore, a budget should be viewed as a
dynamic rather than a static aspect (Walker et al., 2024).
This study also assumes that budget changes may have
different magnitudes and directions and that these differ-
ent changes lead to different performance outcomes.
Therefore, this study makes a theoretical contribution to
the punctuated equilibrium theory (PET) literature by
defining the different patterns of budget changes (i.e.,
positive, negative, or no punctuation).
Most previous studies have analyzed the impact of
financial resources on the quality of public services with-
out differentiating the dimensions of public service per-
formance (Chen & Flink, 2022; Flink & Molina, 2021).
However, the assessment of the performance of public
organizations can be approached through various dimen-
sions by incorporating perceptions from different stake-
holders and utilizing diverse data sources and types
(George et al., 2019). Therefore, this study focuses on
diverse aspects of public service performance. That is,
the impacts of budget allocation changes on public ser-
vice delivery are assessed in terms of competing public
values such as efficiency, effectiveness, and equity (the
3Es). Based on these assumptions, we aim to analyze the
impact of different magnitudes and directions of budget
changes on the three competing dimensions of public ser-
vice performance (the 3Es) in the context of Myanmar.
The Myanmar government has been implementing a
fiscal reform process since 2011, including decentralizing
the budget process, improving budget transparency,
implementing public financial management (PFM)
reform, and so on. According to budget decentralization
processes, state and regional governments should prepare
their own budgets in line with local citizens’ preferences.
As different states and regions have different demands
and needs, allowing state and regional governments to
control public spending to supply local goods and ser-
vices may lead to improved efficiency, effectiveness, and
equity (Shotton et al., 2016). Some scholars have exam-
ined Myanmar’s budget system, processes, and proce-
dures and made recommendations for improving them
(Deshpande, 2017; Shotton, 2019); others have discussed
budget decentralization and the role and budgeting pro-
cesses of state and regional governments (Dickenson-
Jones et al., 2015; Kyaw, 2015; Nixon & Joelene, 2014;
Robertson, 2017; Shotton et al., 2016). Still others have
provided an overview of and recommendations for the
public finance management system (Oo et al., 2015;
PEFA, 2020). However, there are only a few empirical
studies on the impact of budget allocation on public ser-
vice delivery performance after the Myanmar budget
reform began in 2011. This study intends to fill this gap
in the existing PET literature by providing useful infor-
mation about budget allocation and evaluation. To
answer the research question, ‘‘Have changes in budget
allocation made after the Myanmar budget reform of
2011 improved the efficiency, effectiveness, and equity of
public service delivery?,’’ we examine the annual budget
changes in 18 ministries over a 14-year period that
includes years before and after the budget reform. Most
of the previous public service performance studies have
been based on the service recipients’ perceptions and
indices that measure the quality of outputs in only a par-
ticular sector. However, this study conducted a multilevel
analysis based on a two-level dataset using hierarchical
linear modeling (HLM). At the ministry level, we used
budget allocation data from several ministries, while at
the individual level, we used individual public service
providers’ perceptions of how the changes in budget allo-
cation caused by the policy change (i.e., budget reform)
affected service performance.
The subsequent sections of this study are structured
as follows. Section ‘‘Budget Changes and Public Service
Performance’’ presents an overview of the existing litera-
ture on budget changes and public service performance
in terms of efficiency, effectiveness, and equity. Section
‘‘Hypotheses’’ outlines the hypotheses of the study.
Section ‘‘Data and Methodology’’ describes the data and
methodology utilized in our analysis. Section ‘‘Results’’
offers a discussion of the empirical findings. Lastly, final
section concludes with policy implications, research lim-
itations, and suggestions for future research endeavors.
Budget Changes and Public Service
Performance
A public budget is critical for providing public services
because public organizations cannot function or produce
services without it (Willoughby, 2014). Therefore, the
budget itself is considered a policy input for delivering
efficient and effective public services, which is the basic
purpose of governmental operations (Chen & Flink,
2022). As a policy tool, public budgeting allocates a
society’s limited financial resources among numerous
conflicting interests and competing problems (Wang,
2002). It is also an economic tool used to promote a
country’s economic growth and development (Bartle &
Shields, 2008). As an administrative tool, a public budget
provides the methods and means by which public ser-
vices are delivered, as well as the criteria used to evaluate
and review those services (He, 2011; Lim & Oh, 2016).
According to non-incremental social demands and
changes, the budget allocation model reflects a dynamic
system that changes from year to year. In the twentieth
century, budget decisions were made rationally based on
the problems faced by organizations and the potential
solutions to those problems (Reddick, 2003). According
to Baumgartner and Jones (1993), punctuated equili-
brium indicates a transition from stable to unstable
2SAGE Open
conditions, and instability occurs when a stable system is
shaken by organized activities (or mobilizations). Budget
punctuations can be caused by changes in external cir-
cumstances, such as shifting public attention, striking
and compelling new information, or changes in policy
decision-makers (True et al., 2007, p. 165).
While PET is generally employed within policy
agenda-setting contexts to explain the decision-making
process and dynamic theoretical aspects, in budgetary
decision-making contexts, it is utilized to examine budget
dynamics and conduct empirical analyses (Peng & Cao,
2023). Many studies on public budgeting have employed
PET to examine and explain the occurrence of budget
punctuations across diverse circumstances. For example,
studies have investigated budgetary changes in demo-
cratic and highly centralized political systems across four
distinct countries (Baumgartner et al., 2017), examined
Nepalese budget punctuation patterns under various
political changes and economic challenges (Guragain &
Lim, 2019), analyzed Macao’s budgetary punctuation
patterns before and after its transition to Chinese control
(Li et al., 2022), discussed how the Eurozone crisis and
the pandemic acted as triggers for Italian budget punc-
tuation (Cavalieri, 2023), and extended the PET litera-
ture to explore the impacts of political and institutional
changes on the directions and frequencies of budget
punctuation (Myaing & Lim, 2023). This study also uses
PET to examine how the different patterns of budget
changes affected public service performance before and
after Myanmar’s budget reform.
Resource allocations decided by public authorities
that are in line with citizens’ preferences tend to improve
the quality of public services (Kahkonen & Lanyi, 2001).
Therefore, understanding how organizational perfor-
mance changes as a result of budget changes is absolutely
critical. Generally, an increase in budget is expected to
improve organizational productivity and performance
(Andersen & Mortensen, 2010; Boyne, 2003; Carpenter,
1996). Some research empirically shows that budget allo-
cation changes have an impact on public organization
performance. For instance, Andersen and Mortensen
(2010) investigated how resource allocation patterns
affected organizational performance. They used multile-
vel models to assess the impacts of resource stability and
incremental changes on student performance by control-
ling for individual-, school-, and municipal-level vari-
ables. According to their findings, budget does matter
for performance outcomes, but incremental increases
have a more favorable effect on performance outcomes
than higher levels of increases. The reason why incre-
mentalism matters in the result is that a long period of
incremental budget changes provides schools with more
economic security, allowing them to focus on education
itself rather than on the economy. Other scholars have
extended the PET literature by incorporating the litera-
ture on organizational performance to examine how bud-
get changes affect organizational performance. For
example, Flink (2018) also examined the effects of differ-
ent magnitudes of budget changes on organizational per-
formance. She broke down budget changes into five
categories: large negative (below 233%), large positive
(above 35.5%), medium negative (233% to 22%),
medium positive (10% to 35.5%), and incremental
(22% to 10%) changes. The findings show that different
magnitudes of budget changes have different perfor-
mance outcomes (i.e., large and medium positive budget
changes are expected to increase performance achieve-
ment by 9% and 12% over small positive budget change,
respectively, while large and medium negative budget
changes lead to a decrease in performance achievement
by approximately 3% and 3.5% over small negative bud-
get changes, respectively). However, performance
changes are smaller than budget changes. With negative
shocks to budgets, organizations experience only a small
decrease in performance. This means that organizations
can maintain some consistency in their performance even
when their budgets are unstable. However, according to
Chen and Flink (2022), large or medium budget increases
do not result in significant performance improvements
for state transportation agencies since agency managers
may not commit all fund increases to the enhancement
of road qualities or may just spend the funds on nonpro-
ductive events. In previous studies, public performance
was mainly assessed based on a singular dimension that
typically focused on the output quality of a specific pub-
lic sector.
Brewer and Selden (2000) proposed an organizational
performance measurement in terms of three competing
administrative values: efficiency, effectiveness, and fair-
ness. The 3 Es—efficiency, effectiveness, and equity—
have been used as critical criteria with which to evaluate
the performance of multiple systems, programs, and
organizations in diverse contexts. For example, the 3Es
have been used to evaluate organizational performance
(Davis et al., 2013), assess research impacts (Hinrichs-
Krapels & Grant, 2016), monitor the policy development
of inclusive education systems (Watkins & Meijer, 2016),
and evaluate the system performance of humanitarian
logistics location strategies (Liu et al., 2021).
Generally, efficiency is concerned with obtaining the
most outputs from inputs (Goddard, 1989; Mamokhere
et al., 2022; Muda et al., 2023) or utilizing resources to
achieve an organization’s objectives (Daft, 2015). In pub-
lic service, inputs are easily defined and assessed as bud-
geting or labor, while the outputs of some public services
are difficult to measure, necessitating the use of numer-
ous measurements (Jo
¨rden et al., 2024; Savas, 1978). For
example, a city’s police department cannot be said to be
Myaing and Lim 3
inefficient because no one has been arrested (i.e., no out-
put in this case) as a result of there being no crime within
a jurisdiction during a certain period. Effectiveness refers
to obtaining the expected results from the outputs
(Mamokhere et al., 2022) and measures how well an
organization achieves its own goals or how an organiza-
tion’s output engages with the economy and society
(Daft, 2015; Jo
¨rden et al., 2024; Rainey, 2003). It also
refers to the degree to which unwanted negative conse-
quences are avoided (Savas, 1978). The effectiveness of
public services can be measured by the level of citizen
satisfaction (Savas, 1978; Shi et al., 2023) or the success-
ful execution of major public policies or programs
(Andrews et al., 2017). Equity is characterized by a dis-
tributional principle that aims to achieve an equal alloca-
tion of resources, benefits, and public services to all
individuals, including underserved groups in society
(Andrews et al., 2017; Guo et al., 2017; Swe & Lim,
2019). Moreover, it is crucial to recognize the diverse
standards of equity in service provision. While certain
services, such as waste collection and water quality,
require equal treatment for fairness, other services must
be prioritized to address unfair consequences caused by
disparities in initial conditions. This includes historical
inequities that affect disadvantaged groups such as
women, people of color, individuals with disabilities, and
others (Mamokhere et al., 2022). However, when the
government allocates limited resources for multiple-
dimensional public services, there may be trade-offs
made among different sectors, groups, or regions (possi-
bly producing winners and losers in a society). Such
situations indicate that if one type of public service
requires more funding due to urgent economic, policy,
or environmental concerns, then allocations for other
types of public services will be sacrificed.
While financial resources are a key parameter for pre-
dicting performance, there are other parameters that
should be considered as well. Caiden and Sundaram
(2004) argued that simply increasing budget allocations
will not guarantee better development outcomes for tar-
get populations in the absence of improved delivery and
administration procedures. Boyne (2003) derived five sets
of variables for public service improvement, namely,
resources, regulation, markets, organization, and man-
agement, based on five critical theoretical viewpoints on
the sources of improvement. In particular, governance
structures are changing along with evolving governance
paradigms in the public sector. Harlow (2001) stated that
it is no longer possible for central governments to rely on
command-and-control tools; instead, they must adopt
market-based tools and build strong partnerships with
organizations in other sectors. Mauro (2021) discussed
the key governance structures in three different para-
digms, namely, public administration (PA), new public
management (NPM), and new public governance (NPG).
In the PA paradigm, hierarchy is a key governance struc-
ture. In contrast, the NPM paradigm focuses on marketi-
zation or more business-like practices to deliver public
services. Finally, the NPG emphasizes that a network
developed through collaboration with internal and exter-
nal stakeholders can enhance the level of responsiveness
to citizens’ needs, thereby increasing the efficiency, effec-
tiveness, and equity of public services. Yoo and Kim
(2012) discussed these three ideal types of governance
modes—hierarchy, market, and network—as service
delivery mechanisms. In this study, these three govern-
ance modes were considered control variables to deter-
mine public service performance.
Hypotheses
Several theoretical perspectives, including economic,
voter, and managerial perspectives, support the idea that
financial resources and organizational performance have
a positive relationship. First, Fisher (2007) stated that
public sector theory is inseparable from the body of eco-
nomic theory and highlighted that the production pro-
cesses of the government and private sectors are very
similar. In the government production process, budget
allocation is the main input for producing public services
(outputs). Economists also view a budget as a tool for
achieving the basic goals of government and society
(Khan & Hildreth, 2002). Therefore, from the perspec-
tive of the theory of economics, public spending can
enhance the outcomes of public services.
Since voters are interested in the final service results
provided by public agencies, public spending effective-
ness is used to describe the results of public resource utili-
zation (Burkhead & Miner, 2007; Fisher, 2007). To fulfill
the demands of voters, governments try to improve pub-
lic service performance. Therefore, from the voters’ per-
spective, the utilization of public financial resources is
expected to enhance the quality of public services.
In the literature on strategic management, the
resource-based view (RBV) is the dominant theory. This
theory argues that greater organizational resources can
lead to sustainable competitive advantages (S.-Y. Lee &
Whitford, 2013; Lim et al., 2017; Lubis, 2022;
Wernerfelt, 1984) and have a positive influence on the
growth and performance of the firm (Williamson 1999,
p. 1098). Public organizations also use a variety of
resources, including administrative, human, financial,
physical, political, and reputation resources, to achieve
their organizational goals and objectives (S.-Y. Lee &
Whitford, 2013).
From the perspective of public service improvement,
more public spending will increase the quantity and/or
quality of public services (Boyne, 2003). Kioko et al.
4SAGE Open
(2011) studied the effect of public financial resources on
public services based on two management perspectives,
namely, public financial management (PFM) and public
administration and management (PAM). According to
PFM, the use of public financial resources aims to
improve public services by assessing the cost and effec-
tiveness of outputs. According to PAM, the use of public
financial resources aims to achieve political gains by
offering public services that satisfy citizens’ preferences.
In the spirit of NPM, decentralization can enhance the
efficiency and effectiveness of public service performance
by dividing the duties and responsibilities across different
levels of government.
Previous research has examined how financial
resources affect public service performance, and their
analyses have shown mixed results. For example, in an
analysis of educational performance, Wenglinsky (1997)
indicated that there is no strong relationship between
school expenditure and students’ performance, while
Hedges et al. (1994) reported a positive relationship
between these factors. S.-Y. Lee and Whitford (2013)
examined how organizational resources affect federal
agencies’ performance (i.e., the level of goal achieve-
ment). Their analysis showed that financial resources
have a positive but nonsignificant effect on agencies’
effectiveness. Andersen and Mortensen (2010) and Flink
(2018) found that budgetary changes have a positive
effect on the effectiveness of organizational performance
by focusing on pupils’ standardized test rates or student
examination scores. By analyzing data from the public
education sector in the United States, Flink and Molina
(2021) discovered that increasing spending is associated
with improving performance. Xu and Flink (2022)
reported that severe budget cuts make minority represen-
tation at a managerial level of public schools more diffi-
cult and, as a result, reduce organizational performance.
Walker et al. (2024) stated that increased resources result
in improved services, but effective management is essen-
tial to ensure better services. To improve organizational
performance, it is obvious that we need to consider sev-
eral types of resources other than simply increasing
financial resources. However, in general, it can be
expected that financial resources will increase perfor-
mance, as financial resources can be used to obtain other
types of resources, including human resources, equip-
ment, advertising campaigns, and administrative and
technical capacities (Fernandez & Rainey, 2006; Fry
et al., 2004).
Since 2011, Myanmar has worked to decentralize its
budget to improve government agencies’ level of respon-
siveness, to increase the quality of its public services, and
to better align with residents’ preferences. Moreover,
Myanmar has implemented a PFM reform with the aim
of improving all aspects of PFM, such as the planning
and budgeting processes; budget execution; monitoring,
accounting, and reporting systems; and audit and exter-
nal scrutiny (Oo et al., 2015, p. 35). After 2011, as
Myanmar began its transition to democracy, voters’ per-
spectives became more important in elections. To fulfill
the voters’ desires, more efforts were made to spend the
public budget more effectively. Since necessary financial
management reforms have been implemented, we can
expect that these increases in the budget have led to bet-
ter public services. Moreover, according to the above-
mentioned theoretical and empirical discussions, we can
expect that more financial resources have enhanced out-
comes for public services. Therefore, this study hypothe-
sizes that a positive relationship will be found between
the utilization of financial resources and public service
performance after controlling for other variables such as
the public governance modes of hierarchy, market, and
network, as proposed in the following hypotheses:
Hypothesis 1: Positive public budget changes are asso-
ciated with positive changes in the efficiency, effec-
tiveness, and equity of public service delivery.
Hypothesis 2: Negative public budget changes are
associated with negative changes in the efficiency,
effectiveness, and equity of public service delivery.
Data and Methodology
The impact of budget changes on the quality of public
services was examined in this study using both hard and
soft data. In most previous studies, the performance of
public services has been evaluated by various stake-
holders, such as consumers, taxpayers, and politicians,
using various criteria, including quality, effectiveness,
and delivery speed (Boyne, 2003). However, in this study,
public service performance was investigated based on the
service providers’ perception of their public service qual-
ity, as they have more accurate information about the
quality of the services that they actually produce and
deliver than do service recipients (i.e., citizens) or service
evaluators/controllers (i.e., legislators) (Niskanen, 1971;
Ohemeng et al., 2018). Data were collected by distribut-
ing survey questionnaires to government officials across
the ministries to obtain their perception of the quality of
their public services. Individuals in the same ministry are
highly likely to share similar characteristics, and within-
group information cannot be assumed to be independent
of observation (Raudenbush & Bryk, 2002). Therefore, a
two-level dataset was constructed in this study, involving
respondents from different levels (i.e., 18 ministries at the
ministry level and 541 public officials at the individual
level). For the ministry-level data, this study used the
budget allocation data of 18 ministries in Myanmar
across 14 fiscal years. For the individual-level data, at
Myaing and Lim 5
least 20 public officers from each ministry were asked
about their perceptions of the efficiency, effectiveness,
and equity of the public services they deliver on an indi-
vidual basis. When independent variables are measured
at different levels, HLM can be used to investigate the
variation in the outcome variables (Chien & Wu, 2020;
K. H. Lee et al., 2013; Woltman et al., 2012). HLM pro-
vides the unique advantage of examining the associations
between the variables measured at different hierarchical
levels. The definitions and sources of measurements and
the sources of data are summarized in Table 1.
Regarding the dependent variables, this study focused
on the terms of competing public values such as effi-
ciency, effectiveness, and equity of public services pro-
vided by 18 Myanmar government ministries to measure
the quality of public services. To measure efficiency, this
study asked the respondents whether their organization
efficiently delivers public services to citizens. To measure
effectiveness, it asked whether the public services of the
organization meet the needs of citizens. Finally, to mea-
sure equity, it asked whether the organization fairly and
equally distributes public services to citizens. These
Table 1. Definitions/Measurements of Variables and the Sources of Measurements/Data.
Variables Definition/measurement
Sources of
measurement Data sources
Dependent variables
Changes in efficiency The perceived changes of efficiency before and after
the budget reform measured by using survey items
asking whether a public organization efficiently
delivers public services to citizens
Oh et al. (2014)
and Swe and Lim
(2019)
Survey
questionnaires
distributed to
government
officials across
the ministries
Changes in effectiveness The perceived changes of effectiveness before and after
the budget reform measured by using survey items
asking whether the public services of the
organizations meet the needs of citizens
Changes in equity The perceived changes of equity before and after the
budget reform measured by using survey items asking
whether a public organization fairly and equally
distributes public services to citizens
Independent variables
No. of positive punctuations
a
Each ministry’s total number of annual percentage
changes in budget more than +25%
Baumgartner and
Jones (1993)
State budget
regulations
(before 2011) and
the Myanmar
budget dashboard
website (after
2011)
No. of negative punctuations
a
Each ministry’s total number of annual percentage
changes in budget less than -25%
Average positive annual %
change
a
The mean value of all positive annual % changes in
budget allocated to each ministry
Average negative annual %
change
a
The mean value of all negative annual % changes in
budget allocated to each ministry
Changes in hierarchy The perceived changes in hierarchical governance
mode employed by ministries before and after the
budget reform
Yoo and Kim’s
(2012) survey
items on six task
characteristics:
rules, discretion,
supervision,
clients, goals, and
environment
Survey
questionnaires
distributed to
government
officials across
the ministries
Changes in market The perceived changes in market governance mode
employed by ministries before and after the budget
reform
Changes in network The perceived change of network governance modes
employed by ministries before and after the budget
reform
Changes in financial
management
The perceived changes in ministry’s budget
management capacities before and after the reform
Changes in budget monitoring The perceived changes in ministry’s budget monitoring
capacities before and after the reform
Changes in financial
information sharing
The perceived changes in ministry’s financial
information sharing capacities before and after the
reform
Gender A dummy variable coded as 0 for females and 1 for
males
Service experience in
government
Years of service as public servants
a
Ministry-level (level 2) variables.
6SAGE Open
outcome variables (3Es) were assessed using a seven-
point Likert-type scale (strongly disagree to strongly
agree) to score how much the public officers agreed or
disagreed with a set of the abovementioned survey items
on their organization’s public services.
The major independent variables at the ministry level
were determined based on the annual percentage changes
in budget appropriated to the ministries. To evaluate the
changing budget distribution trends, the dataset included
budget allocation data from 18 Myanmar government
ministries across 14 fiscal years, that is, 4 years before the
budget reform (FY 2001–2002, 2004–2005, 2007–2008,
2010–2011) and 10 years after the budget reform (FY
2011–2012 to 2020–2021). Due to the lack of budget
transparency in some years before 2011, we were unable
to collect data from consecutive years prior to 2011,
which resulted in data from nonconsecutive years. The
data were gathered from two sources: state budget regula-
tions (before 2011) and the Myanmar budget dashboard
website (after 2011). The following outlines how the study
determined annual percentage changes in budget alloca-
tion by following Baumgartner and Jones (1993, p. xxii):
%DBt=(BtBt1)
Bt1
3100
where % DB
t
= the percent change in the current year’s
budget allocation over the previous year’s allocations,
B
t
= the current year’s budget allocation value, and
B
t21
= the previous year’s budget allocation value.
We considered that different magnitudes and direc-
tions of budget changes have different performance out-
comes. With regard to the measurement of the
magnitudes and directions of budget changes, this study
considered two methods. The first method measures pos-
itive or negative % changes in annual budget allocation
without considering whether these changes show budget
punctuations, which produces two different independent
variables, namely, Average Positive Annual % Change
(defined by the mean value of all positive annual %
change values) and Average Negative Annual % Change
(defined by the mean value of all negative annual %
change values).
The second method considers budget punctuations
(i.e., large-scale changes) and their direction (positive or
negative). First, we defined three categories of budget
punctuation depending on the degree of annual percent-
age changes in budget allocation from a previous year
(t21) to a current year (t), as follows (Baumgartner &
Jones, 1993):
- There is no punctuation (i.e., an incremental
change) if the annual percentage change is between
625%;
- There is a positive punctuation if the annual per-
centage change is more than + 25%; and
- There is a negative punctuation if the annual per-
centage change is less than 225% of that of the
previous year.
Then, we counted the total numbers of positive punc-
tuations and negative punctuations, which are the other
two independent variables, namely, Number of Positive
Punctuations and Number of Negative Punctuations.
Table 2 describes the descriptive statistics of the ministry-
level (the upper level in this study) variables. As shown in
Table 2, during the 14 fiscal years examined, the mini-
mum and maximum numbers of positive punctuations
across the ministries were 5 and 8, respectively, while
those of negative punctuations were 1 and 3, respectively.
Since other factors should also be considered as
affecting public service performance, this study specified
other control variables in the models. The three public
governance modes (hierarchy, market, and network),
financial management capacity, budget monitoring
capacity, financial information sharing capacity, gender,
and service experience in government were controlled for
at the individual level. These variables were measured by
respondents’ perceptions of which public governance
modes were employed by their ministries after the budget
reform and their evaluations of the ministry’s budget
management, monitoring, and information sharing capa-
cities in the periods both before and after the reform.
These respondents’ perceptions were assessed using a
seven-point Likert-type scale (strongly disagree to
strongly agree). Afterward, we defined the changes in
those variables by differentiating the average values
before and after the reform.
In particular, this study used Yoo and Kim’s (2012)
measurements of the three governance modes composed
Table 2. Ministry-level (Level 2) Descriptive Statistics.
Variables NMean SD Minimum Maximum
No. of positive punctuations 18 7.06 0.87 5.00 8.00
No. of negative punctuations 18 1.72 0.75 1.00 3.00
Average positive annual % change 18 463.48 1,134.04 38.88 4,784.03
Average negative annual % change 18 249.17 57.22 2258.83 216.01
Myaing and Lim 7
of the following six task characteristics: rules, discretion,
supervision, clients, goals, and environment. Then, we
examined the structural relationships between each gov-
ernance mode (latent variable) and the six task features
(observed variables) using a confirmatory factor analysis
(Brown, 2015). The observed variables for the hierarchy
mode appeared to have good fitness results; the likeli-
hood ratio chi-square value was 29.213, the p-value for
the Chi-square test was .001, the root mean squared error
of approximation (RMSEA) value was 0.06, and the
comparative fit index (CFI) value was 0.963. However,
neither the market nor network mode appeared to have
good fitness results; thus, we dropped some task items
from both of these modes. Goals and supervision, the
two items with the lowest factor loading values, were
excluded from the market mode. Supervision, which had
a negative factor loading value, was eliminated from the
network mode. After dropping those items, the market
and network modes had good fitness results; for the mar-
ket and network modes, the likelihood ratio chi-squares
were 6.158 and 17.479, the p-values for the Chi-square
test were .046 and .004, the RMSEA value was .06 for
both, and the CFI values were .97 and .914, respectively.
Therefore, the hierarchy mode was based on the six task
characteristics, whereas the market and network modes
were based on four and five task characteristics, respec-
tively. Gender was coded as 0 for females and 1 for
males. Table 3 shows the descriptive statistics of the
individual-level variables.
To manage the abovementioned two-level datasets,
the following regression equation was used for the indi-
vidual level in the multilevel analysis:
Yij =b0j+b1jX1ij +b2jX2ij +......... +b8jX8ij +eij:
Yij = the outcome variable,
b
0j
= the intercept,
b
1j
= the slope of explanatory variable X
1
,
b
2j
= the slope of explanatory variable X
2
, and .
eij = the usual residual error term for individual i
inside ministry j
The ministry is represented by the subscript j
(j=1.J), while the individual officer is represented by
the subscript i(i=1.nj). On subsequent levels, the
individual-level slope(s) and intercept become dependent
variables that are predicted from a ministry-level inde-
pendent variable Z
1
. The following regression equation
was used for the ministry-level analysis:
b0j=g00 +g01Z1+u0j
In the aforementioned regressions, g
00
is the intercept,
while g
01
is the slope of a ministry-level independent vari-
able Z
1
. Using these multilevel approaches, we were able
to model the impacts of not only level-1 (individual-level)
variable but also a level-2 (ministry-level) variable on the
outcome variables of the study.
Results
To answer our research question, we tested our proposed
two hypotheses through the execution of twelve regres-
sions utilizing HLM. Table 4 reports the results of the six
regressions used in the multilevel modeling to test the
effect of positive annual percentage changes and the
number of positive punctuations on changes in efficiency
(Models I and II), effectiveness (Models III and IV), and
equity (Models V and VI). Table 5 has the same structure
as that previously shown for Table 4, but the ministry-
level main independent variables are changed to a nega-
tive annual percentage change and a number of negative
punctuations. As shown in Tables 4 and 5, the coeffi-
cients of individual-level variables (b
1j
.b
8j
) have similar
results consistently across different models. For example,
the individual-level independent variable has a similar
effect on the change in efficiency (in Models I, II, VII,
and VIII) even though it uses a different ministry-level
independent variable. It is the same for the changes in
Table 3. Individual-Level (Level 1) Descriptive Statistics.
Variables NMean SD Minimum Maximum
Changes in efficiency 541 0.71 0.91 21.00 4.00
Changes in effectiveness 541 0.64 0.90 24.00 3.00
Changes in equity 541 0.61 1.00 22.00 4.00
Changes in hierarchy 541 0.35 0.49 22.50 3.00
Changes in market 541 0.25 0.63 21.75 3.75
Changes in network 541 0.59 0.58 22.00 4.00
Changes in financial management 541 1.15 1.12 21.00 5.00
Changes in budget monitoring 541 1.06 1.12 22.00 5.00
Changes in financial information sharing 541 1.40 1.44 22.00 6.00
Gender 541 0.28 0.45 0.00 1.00
Service experience in government 541 18.86 7.40 4.00 40.00
8SAGE Open
Table 4. The Effects of Positive Budgetary Changes (Positive Annual % Change or Number of Positive Punctuations) on the Changes in
Multiple Performances of Public Services.
Model
Change in efficiency Change in effectiveness Change in equity
I II III IV V VI
Coefficient (SE) Coefficient (SE) Coefficient (SE) Coefficient (SE) Coefficient (SE) Coefficient (SE)
(+) annual %
change, g
01
0.000009 (0.00001) 20.000004 (0.00002) 20.000016 (0.00002)
No. of ( +)
punctuation, g
01
20.006 (0.062) 0.100*(0.048) 0.007 (0.080)
Changes in hierarchy,
b
1j
0.345*** (0.085) 0.345*** (0.085) 0.422** (0.171) 0.422** (0.171) 0.407*** (0.118) 0.407*** (0.118)
Changes in market,
b
2j
0.032 (0.085) 0.032 (0.085) 0.050 (0.102) 0.050 (0.102) 0.221*(0.127) 0.221*(0.127)
Changes in network,
b
3j
0.238** (0.103) 0.238** (0.103) 0.265*** (0.095) 0.265*** (0.095) 0.286*** (0.092) 0.286*** (0.092)
Changes in financial
management, b
4j
0.004 (0.050) 0.004 (0.050) 0.026 (0.044) 0.026 (0.044) 20.132** (0.055) 20.132** (0.055)
Changes in budget
monitoring, b
5j
0.014 (0.054) 0.014 (0.054) 20.090*(0.053) 20.090*(0.053) 0.021 (0.050) 0.021 (0.050)
Changes in financial
information sharing,
b
6j
0.135*** (0.036) 0.135*** (0.036) 0.166*** (0.026) 0.166*** (0.026) 0.199*** (0.023) 0.199*** (0.023)
Gender, b
7j
0.120 (0.122) 0.120 (0.122) 0.012 (0.051) 0.012 (0.051) 20.024 (0.096) 20.024 (0.096)
Service experience,
b
8j
20.008 (0.006) 20.008 (0.006) 20.011** (0.005) 20.011** (0.005) 20.004 (0.004) 20.004 (0.004)
*p\.10, **p\.05, ***p\.01.
Table 5. The Effects of Negative Budgetary Changes (Negative Annual % Change or Number of Negative Punctuations) on the Changes
in Multiple Performances of Public Services.
Model
Change in efficiency Change in effectiveness Change in equity
VII VIII IX X XI XII
Coefficient (SE) Coefficient (SE) Coefficient (SE) Coefficient (SE) Coefficient (SE) Coefficient (SE)
(2) Annual % change,
g
01
0.0008*(0.0004) 20.0004 (0.0003) 0.001** (0.0005)
No. of (2)
punctuation, g
01
20.045 (0.060) 0.006 (0.055) 20.055 (0.074)
Changes in hierarchy,
b
1j
0.345*** (0.085) 0.345*** (0.085) 0.422** (0.171) 0.422** (0.171) 0.407*** (0.118) 0.407*** (0.118)
Changes in market,
b
2j
0.032 (0.085) 0.032 (0.085) 0.050 (0.102) 0.050 (0.102) 0.221*(0.127) 0.221*(0.127)
Changes in network,
b
3j
0.238** (0.103) 0.238** (0.103) 0.265*** (0.095) 0.265*** (0.095) 0.286*** (0.092) 0.286*** (0.092)
Changes in financial
management, b
4j
0.004 (0.050) 0.004 (0.050) 0.026 (0.044) 0.026 (0.044) 20.132** (0.055) 20.132** (0.055)
Changes in budget
monitoring, b
5j
0.014 (0.054) 0.014 (0.054) 20.090*(0.053) 20.090*(0.053) 0.021 (0.050) 0.021 (0.050)
Changes in financial
information sharing,
b
6j
0.135*** (0.036) 0.135*** (0.036) 0.166*** (0.026) 0.166*** (0.026) 0.199*** (0.023) 0.199*** (0.023)
Gender, b
7j
0.120 (0.122) 0.120 (0.122) 0.012 (0.051) 0.012 (0.051) 20.024 (0.096) 20.024 (0.096)
Service experience,
b
8j
20.008 (0.006) 20.008 (0.006) 20.011** (0.005) 20.011** (0.005) 20.004 (0.004) 20.004 (0.004)
*p\.10, **p\.05, ***p\.01.
Myaing and Lim 9
effectiveness (Models III, IV, IX, and X) and equity
(Models V, VI, XI, and XII).
Ministry-level independent variables have different
results for all the models, as shown in the first and second
rows of Tables 4 and 5. As shown in Table 4, the positive
annual percentage changes in budget allocation have no
significant effect on all 3Es. This outcome suggests that
increasing the annual budget (without considering
whether significant amounts are increased or not) has no
impact on all 3Es of public services. The results do not
support Hypothesis 1, that is, that positive public budget
changes are associated with positive public performance
changes. Then, we used the number of positive punctua-
tions as a ministry-level independent variable to deter-
mine what happens if the budget increases significantly.
We found that positive punctuations have a positive and
statistically significant effect on effectiveness (g
01
=.100,
p\.10 in Model IV) but no significant effect on effi-
ciency and equity. This means that a significant budget
increase over a long period will improve the effectiveness
of public services, whereas a positive punctuation cannot
enhance the efficiency and equity of public services.
Therefore, these results partially support Hypothesis 1.
Based on the results shown in Table 4, the budget
increase cannot improve all 3Es simultaneously, and per-
formance outcomes may be realized differently depend-
ing on the magnitude of the budget increase. Contrary to
previous literature suggesting that financial resources
enhance performance (Andersen & Mortensen, 2010;
Flink, 2018; Flink & Molina, 2021; Hedges et al., 1994),
our results indicate that every level of budget increase
does not uniformly enhance all aspects of public services
(efficiency, effectiveness, and equity). Positive budget
punctuation has a significant impact only on effective-
ness, which is a singular aspect of public performance,
while efficiency and equity remain unaffected. This sug-
gests that with a significant budget increase, it is possible
to deliver public services that meet the needs of citizens.
To increase the efficiency of public service delivery and
ensure a fairer and more equal distribution of public ser-
vices, factors other than financial resources must also be
considered. Here, we did not assess effectiveness from
the customers’ perspective. Instead, we assessed effective-
ness by asking whether government employees could
deliver their service to a satisfactory level for the public.
That is, government personnel believe that if the budget
is raised substantially, their services will be able to match
the public’s expectations. However, they do not expect
that their efficiency and equity of service delivery can be
improved only by increasing the budget. Based on these
findings, to enhance efficiency, we propose that only a
budget increase is not sufficient. Effective management,
such as performance and human resource management
practices, is also required. This aligns with the findings
of previous studies suggesting that increased resources
result in improved services, but effective management is
essential to better services (Walker et al., 2024) and per-
formance management is positively related to efficiency
(Andrews & Van de Walle, 2013). For more equity in
service provision, policymakers should address dispari-
ties in society, as suggested by Mamokhere et al. (2022).
As shown in Table 5, the negative annual percentage
change has a positive and significant effect on the
changes in efficiency (g
01
= .0008, p\.10 in Model VII)
and equity (g
01
= .001, p\.05 in Model XI). This
implies that reducing the annual budget allocation (any
level of budget reduction) would decrease the efficiency
and equity of public services. In other words, if the bud-
get is reduced, the existing inefficiency and inequality
inherent in public service delivery will continue to dete-
riorate. These results support Hypothesis 2. Our study
aligns with Hernandez’s (2021) observation and indicates
that budget cuts would lead to a lack of investment in
infrastructure and capacity buildings as well as inequity
in the distribution of services across various sectors and
geographical areas.
To examine what happens if the budget decreases sig-
nificantly, we used the frequencies of negative punctua-
tion as a main independent variable. The number of
negative punctuations has no significant effect on all 3Es,
which does not support Hypothesis 2. Our findings are
not consistent with the findings of Xu and Flink (2022)
that severe budget cuts reduce organizational perfor-
mance. However, according to our findings, it cannot be
interpreted that the 3Es would not be reduced by negative
punctuations. According to our data, negative budget
punctuations were not observed continuously over several
years, which means that there was no continuous negative
punctuation trend (Flink & Robinson, 2020, p. 103) in
the case of Myanmar’s budget spending. Reducing a large
amount of the budget (i.e., negative punctuation) was
achieved only when the government intended to maintain
a budget equilibrium point by correcting a previous year’s
dramatic budget increase (Myaing & Lim, 2023). For
instance, the budget appropriated to a certain public
agency or policy domain in a particular year could be
positively punctuated compared to a previous year for a
specific reason. After positive punctuation, the govern-
ment may want to return to the budget’s previous level;
thus, a significant amount of the budget could be reduced
in the following year to regress to that original level. This
is regarded as a budget equilibrium point. In Myanmar,
negative punctuation was observed very rarely and only
in relation to the purpose of maintaining budget equili-
brium (in most ministries, negative punctuation was
found only once or twice in the 14 years of data); the
results show that negative punctuation has no significant
effect on the 3Es. Therefore, it can be assumed that more
10 SAGE Open
frequent negative punctuations over the course of several
years may reduce the 3Es.
Regarding individual-level independent variables, we
found the following significant results in Tables 4 and 5.
Changes in the hierarchy mode had a positively signifi-
cant effect on all 3Es (for efficiency: b
1j
= .345, p\.01;
for effectiveness: b
1j
= .422, p\.05; for equity:
b
1j
= .407, p\.01). The results show that hierarchical
governance can generate positive effects on 3Es, implying
that strict rules, regulations, and close supervision can
enhance the performance of Myanmar’s public servants.
Myanmar’s public sector cannot incentivize public ser-
vants to work hard by themselves since finances and pro-
motion are already constrained by civil law. Therefore, it
may be assumed that strict rules and close supervision
are the best ways to improve employees’ performance.
Changes in the market mode had a positively signifi-
cant effect on only equity (b
2j
= .221, p\.10). This
implies that there is at least a small possibility that the
adoption of more market-based practices by or competi-
tion among Myanmar governmental agencies could ben-
efit even marginalized groups within society to some
extent. However, there are no significant effects found in
regard to efficiency and effectiveness. According to mar-
ket characteristics, public servants need to follow a few
basic rules; they have their own discretion and a lower
level of supervision, and the main goal of their work is
to obtain the highest number of payable outcomes.
However, most public services are not profitable.
Moreover, public employees might complete their work
under rules, regulations, and supervision rather than
being motivated to work hard by incentives or rewards.
Hence, the market governance approach does not work
as expected in the public sector and fails to improve the
efficiency and effectiveness of public services.
Changes in the network mode had a positive signifi-
cant effect on all 3Es (for efficiency: b
3j
= .238, p\.05;
for effectiveness: b
3j
= .265, p\.01; for equity:
b
3j
= .286, p\.01). These results indicate that when
there is increasingly more communication, collaboration,
and coordination among public organizations and stake-
holders with diverse interests and priorities, the perfor-
mance of public services (all 3Es) will improve.
The results of the three governance modes demonstrate
that both hierarchical and network structures enhance the
3Es simultaneously, whereas market mechanisms specifi-
cally promote equity. These findings suggest that govern-
ment organizations in Myanmar employ a combination
of the three governance modes. This observation is consis-
tent with prior research indicating that the three govern-
ance modes coexist and mutually reinforce each other in
practice rather than one mode replacing another (Haveri
& Anttiroiko, 2023; Osborne, 2010), although the influ-
ence of these governance modes on the 3Es may vary
depending on the context of a country (Meuleman, 2008;
Swe & Lim, 2019).
Financial information sharing had a positive signifi-
cant effect on all 3Es (for efficiency: b
6j
= .135, p\.01;
for effectiveness: b
6j
= .166, p\.01; for equity:
b
6j
= .199, p\.01). This means that if the government
releases more budget information, it will increase the
efficiency, effectiveness, and equity of public services.
Jung (2022) revealed that budget information sharing
using participatory budgeting programs leads to a signif-
icant improvement in government efficiency. Our find-
ings imply that an increase in the ministries’ budgetary
information-sharing capacity would promote stake-
holders’ engagement in the public budgetary process,
which would in turn make the functions and operations
of budget implementation, as well as public service deliv-
ery agencies, more efficient, accountable and equitable
for citizens.
Public officer’s years of service for government had a
negative effect on effectiveness (b8j=2.011, p\.05 in
Models III, IV, IX, and X). This result can be interpreted
as public employees who have more working experience
within the government possibly being able to obtain
more accurate internal information about the qualities of
services delivered to their target recipients, tending to
better underestimate the effectiveness of the public ser-
vice and believing that it needs to be improved.
In sum, we can conclude that positive public budget
changes have a positive impact on effectiveness depend-
ing on the magnitude of budget changes. However, care
should be taken with any amount of budget cutting, as
public budget reductions can decrease the efficiency and
equity of public service delivery to a certain extent. In
Myanmar’s public sectors, hierarchical governance, net-
work governance and financial information sharing can
improve public service performance (all 3Es), while mar-
ket governance can improve only equity to some extent.
Conclusion
According to our results, increases in budget allocation
cannot improve all 3Es at the same time. Depending on
the magnitudes and directions of the budget changes,
there are different effects on the 3Es. The effectiveness of
public services can be improved by increasing a signifi-
cant amount of budget allocation, as indicated by posi-
tive punctuations (annual percentage changes greater
than + 25%) in this study. However, even positive punc-
tuations have no effect on efficiency and equity. To
deliver public services more efficiently, the capacity of
public employees must also be enhanced. That is, to
deliver public service efficiently, not only public finances
but also other resources, such as human resources, need
to be reinforced together. Equity depends not only on a
Myaing and Lim 11
department’s service delivery policies or programs but
also on a society’s underlying equity level. Public finance
alone may not be able to easily address deeply rooted
structural inequalities within a society. If a society lacks
fairer social policies aimed to eradicate or mitigate injus-
tice (such as discrimination based on ethnicity, religion,
urban-rural, income, and age), simply increasing the bud-
get cannot improve the equity of service distributions.
Any level of budget reduction (including small and
large budget reductions) can diminish the efficiency and
equity of public services. Budgetary or policy decision-
makers should be aware that while an increase in budget
allocation may not necessarily affect the performance of
public services (i.e., all 3Es), even a small budget reduc-
tion can harm the efficiency and equity of public ser-
vices. Regarding the three governance modes, Myanmar
still relies mainly on hierarchical governance, but there is
also a growing trend toward network governance; both
governance modes have a positive impact on all 3Es.
However, there is relatively less emphasis on market
characteristics. Another important finding is that sharing
financial information is one of the crucial factors for
improving all 3Es at the same time. Therefore, our find-
ings support the role of financial information sharing
among stakeholders, which should be considered to pro-
vide better public services in various public sectors in the
future, especially for policymakers in Myanmar.
The policy implications are that policymakers should
not simply focus on increasing the budget to improve all
3Es. Although the budget is essential for public services, it
alone may not be sufficient to improve all 3Es. As dis-
cussed above, financial resources can be utilized to obtain
other types of resources. Therefore, to improve all 3Es, it
is necessary to use financial resources effectively to acquire
or reinforce other types of resources. For instance, in
labor-intensive sectors, financial resources should be used
to improve human capital resources. An increased budget
will definitely improve the capacity of public employees,
which can consequently improve the efficiency and effec-
tiveness of their services. On the other hand, while an
increase in financial resources may not necessarily increase
equity in public service delivery, it is necessary for policy-
makers to be cautious about the possibility that equity
could also be sacrificed with any budgetary stringency.
In the fields of public budgeting and administration,
some studies have already analyzed the linkages between
budget inputs and public organizations’ performance
(outputs or outcomes); however, this paper has some
distinctions. In most of the previous studies, public per-
formance was measured mainly based on a certain
aspect or single dimension of output quality (Andersen
& Mortensen, 2010; Chen & Flink, 2022; Flink, 2019;
Flink & Molina, 2021; S.-Y. Lee & Whitford, 2013).
However, some researchers have proposed the multiple
dimensions of public values, i.e., efficiency, effectiveness,
and equity (fairness), to evaluate organizational perfor-
mance (Brewer & Selden, 2000; Davis et al., 2013).
Moreover, to comply with the argument of Walker et al.
(2024) that the budget should be viewed as a dynamic
rather than a static aspect, this study contributes to the
PET literature by examining how the different patterns
of budget changes we define affect three dimensions of
performance (the 3Es). Furthermore, most of the prior
studies have focused on only one single sector or policy
domain. Their results are thus too mixed to be general-
ized to all sectors because each sector has unique fea-
tures. However, our study’s findings are based on the
performance of 18 ministries. Therefore, it is reasonable
that our findings can be generalized to more diverse
sectors.
There are some limitations to this study. We focus only
on public service providers’ perceptions. We argue that if
service providers themselves believe that their own service
qualities are poor, policymakers should concentrate more
on the circumstances and obstacles faced by service deli-
verers. This is one emphasis of this study. However, some
studies have stated that different evaluations are used for
the quality of public service performance between citizens
and government servants (Scott & Enu-Kwesi, 2018) and
that assessing the complexity of public service perfor-
mance should involve using perceptual and archival data
collected from both internal and external stakeholders
(Walker et al., 2024). Therefore, future research that aims
to examine the quality of public service performance
should utilize perceptual and archival data collected from
both public servants and service recipients.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with
respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this
article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research,
authorship, and/or publication of this article.
ORCID iD
Seunghoo Lim https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7212-1261
Data Availability Statement
The data that support the findings of this study are available
from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.
12 SAGE Open
References
Andersen, S. C., & Mortensen, P. B. (2010). Policy stability and
organizational performance: Is there a relationship? Journal
of Public Administration Research and Theory,20(1), 1–22.
Andrews, R., Beynon, M. J., & Genc, E. (2017). Strategy imple-
mentation style and public service effectiveness, efficiency,
and equity. Administrative Sciences,7(1), 4.
Andrews, R., & Van de Walle, S. (2013). New public manage-
ment and citizens’ perceptions of local service efficiency,
responsiveness, equity and effectiveness. Public Management
Review,15(5), 762–783.
Bartle, J. R., & Shields, P. M. (2008). Applying pragmatism to
public budgeting and financial management [Paper presenta-
tion]. Association for Budgeting and Financial Management
Annual Conference, October 24, Chicago, Illinois.
Baumgartner, F. R., Carammia, M., Epp, D. A., Noble, B.,
Rey, B., & Yildirim, T. M. (2017). Budgetary change in
authoritarian and democratic regimes. Journal of European
Public Policy,24(6), 792–808.
Baumgartner, F. R., & Jones, B. D. (1993). Agendas and
instability in American politics. University of Chicago Press.
Boyne, G. A. (2003). Sources of public service improvement: A
critical review and research agenda. Journal of Public Admin-
istration Research and Theory,13(3), 367–394.
Brewer, G. A., & Selden, S. C. (2000). Why elephants gallop:
Assessing and predicting organizational performance in fed-
eral agencies. Journal of Public Administration Research and
Theory,10(4), 685–712.
Brown, T. A. (2015). Confirmatory factor analysis for applied
research (2nd ed.). Guilford Press.
Burkhead, J., & Miner, J. (2007). Public expenditure. Transac-
tion Publishers.
Caiden, G. E., & Sundaram, P. (2004). The specificity of public
service reform. Public Administration and Development,
24(5), 373–383.
Carpenter, D. P. (1996). Adaptive signal processing, hierarchy,
and budgetary control in federal regulation. American Polit-
ical Science Review,90(2), 283–302.
Cavalieri, A. (2023). Italian budgeting policy: Between punctua-
tions and incrementalism. Springer.
Chen, C., & Flink, C. M. (2022). Budgetary changes and orga-
nizational performance: Evidence from state transportation
agencies. Policy Studies Journal,50(3), 595–613.
Chien, S. P., & Wu, H. K. (2020). Examining influences of sci-
ence teachers’ practices and beliefs about technology-based
assessment on students’ performances: A hierarchical linear
modeling approach. Computers & Education,157, 103986.
Daft, R. L. (2015). Organization theory and design. Cengage
Learning.
Davis, P., Milne, B., Parker, K., Hider, P., Lay-Yee, R., Cum-
ming, J., & Graham, P. (2013). Efficiency, effectiveness,
equity (E3): Evaluating hospital performance in three
dimensions. Health Policy,112(1–2), 19–27.
Deshpande, R. (2017). Budget monitoring and oversight system in
Myanmar. Retrieved March 9, 2018, from https://asiafoun-
dation.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/Budget-Monitoring-
and-Oversight-System-in-Myanmar_Full-report-English.pdf
Dickenson-Jones, G., De, S. K., & Smurra, A. (2015). State and
region public finances in Myanmar. Think Asia. Retrieved
November, 2015, from https://www.theigc.org/wp-content/
uploads/2015/11/State-and-Region-Public-Finances-in-
Myanmar.pdf
Fernandez, S., & Rainey, H. G. (2006). Managing successful
organizational change in the public sector. Public Adminis-
tration Review,66(2), 168–176.
Fisher, R. C. (2007). State & local public finance (3rd ed.).
Thomson South-Western.
Flink, C. M. (2018). Ordering chaos: The performance conse-
quences of budgetary changes. American Review of Public
Administration,48(4), 291–300.
Flink, C. M. (2019). Predicting budgetary change: The effect of
performance gaps. Journal of Public Administration Research
and Theory,29(2), 227–237.
Flink, C. M., & Molina, A. L. (2021). Improving the perfor-
mance of public organizations: Financial resources and the
conditioning effect of clientele context. Public Administra-
tion,99(2), 387–404.
Flink, C. M., & Robinson, S. E. (2020). Corrective policy reac-
tions: Positive and negative budgetary punctuations. Journal
of Public Policy,40(1), 96–115.
Fry, F. L., Stoner, C. R., & Hattwick, R. E. (2004). Business:
An integrative approach. McGraw-Hill.
George, B., Walker, R. M., & Monster, J. (2019). Does strategic
planning improve organizational performance? A meta-anal-
ysis. Public Administration Review,79(6), 810–819.
Goddard, A. (1989). Are three ‘‘E’’s enough? Assessing value
for money in the public sector. OR Insight,2(3), 16–19.
Guo, Y., Fu, Y., Chui, E. W. T., & Xue, M. (2017). Equity,
efficiency and effectiveness. Journal of Asian Public Policy,
10(2), 143–157.
Guragain, H. P., & Lim, S. (2019). Nepalese budgetary
dynamics: Following incrementalism or punctuated equili-
brium? Public Organization Review,19(4), 493–518.
Harlow, C. R. (2001). Introduction. International Review of
Administrative Sciences,67(3), 379–388.
Haveri, A., & Anttiroiko, A. V. (2023). Urban platforms as a
mode of governance. International Review of Administrative
Sciences,89(1), 3–20.
He, B. (2011). Civic engagement through participatory budget-
ing in China: Three different logics at work. Public Adminis-
tration and Development,31(2), 122–133.
Hedges, L. V., Laine, R. D., & Greenwald, R. (1994). An
exchange: Part I: Does money matter? A meta-analysis of
studies of the effects of differential school inputs on student
outcomes. Educational Researcher,23(3), 5–14.
Hernandez, T. A. (2021). The consequences of the austerity pol-
icies for public services in the UK. Studies in Social Justice,
15(3), 518–537.
Hinrichs-Krapels, S., & Grant, J. (2016). Exploring the effec-
tiveness, efficiency and equity (3e’s) of research and research
impact assessment. Palgrave Communications,2(1), 1–9.
Jo
¨rden, N., Hampton, L., & Alayande, A. (2024). Public sector
productivity review: Fifteen questions. The Productivity
Institute Productivity Insights Paper No.030. https://www.
productivity.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/PIP030-
Public-Sector-Productivity-Review-FINAL-060324.pdf
Jung, S. M. (2022). Participatory budgeting and government
efficiency: Evidence from municipal governments in South
Myaing and Lim 13
Korea. International Review of Administrative Sciences,
88(4), 1105–1123.
Kahkonen, S., & Lanyi, A. (2001). Decentralization and govern-
ance: Does decentralization improve public service delivery?
World Bank’s note. https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/
bitstream/handle/10986/11382/multi0page.pdf?sequence=
1&isAllowed=y
Khan, A., & Hildreth, W. B. (Eds.). (2002). Budget theory in the
public sector. Quorum Books.
Khujamkulov, I. (2024). Public finance management architec-
ture in Tajikistan: International reform advice and domestic
reform practice. Journal of International Development,36(1),
109–126.
Kioko, S. N., Marlowe, J., Matkin, D. S., Moody, M., Smith,
D. L., & Zhao, Z. J. (2011). Why public financial manage-
ment matters. Journal of Public Administration Research and
Theory,21(suppl_1), i113–i124.
Kyaw, A. M. (2015). Myanmar’s budget system reform: Consid-
ering Japanese experiences [Paper presentation]. November
12, Policy Research Institute, Ministry of Finance, Japan.
Lee, K. H., Park, S. C., Park, J., & Lim, S. (2013). Medicaid
inpatient costs and nested structural analysis using a hier-
archical linear modeling (HLM) approach. Health Services
and Outcomes Research Methodology,13, 157–173.
Lee, S.-Y., & Whitford, A. B. (2013). Assessing the effects of
organizational resources on public agency performance: Evi-
dence from the US federal government. Journal of Public
Administration Research and Theory,23(3), 687–712.
Li, Q., Ho, W. H., & Shi, Y. (2022). Punctuated or incremental?
Macao’s budget change and governance before and after the
handover. Chinese Public Administration Review,13(1–2),
96–107.
Lim, S., & Oh, Y. (2016). Online versus offline participation:
Has the democratic potential of the internet been realized?
Analysis of a participatory budgeting system in Korea. Pub-
lic Performance & Management Review, 39(3), 676–700.
Lim, S., Wang, T. K., & Lee, S.-Y. (2017). Shedding new light
on strategic human resource management: Impact of human
resource management practices and human resources on
perception of federal agency mission accomplishment. Pub-
lic Personnel Management,46(2), 91–117.
Liu, K., Zhang, H., & Zhang, Z. H. (2021). The efficiency,
equity and effectiveness of location strategies in humanitar-
ian logistics: A robust chance-constrained approach. Trans-
portation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation
Review,156, 102521.
Lubis, N. W. (2022). Resource based view (RBV) in improving
company strategic capacity. Research Horizon,2(6),
587–596.
Mamokhere, J., Musitha, M. E., & Netshidzivhani, V. M.
(2022). The implementation of the basic values and princi-
ples governing public administration and service delivery in
South Africa. Journal of Public Affairs,22(4), e2627.
Mauro, S. G. (2021). Budgeting and performance management in
the public sector. Routledge.
Meuleman, L. (2008). Public management and the metagover-
nance of hierarchies, networks and markets: The feasibility of
designing and managing governance style combinations. Phy-
sica-Verlag.
Muda, M. R., Sulong, N., Ariffin, A. S., & Charehzehi, A.
(2023). An overview of procurement practice in the Ministry
of Defence (MINDEF), Malaysia. Journal of Science, Tech-
nology and Innovation Policy,9(1), 45–52.
Myaing, W. T., & Lim, S. (2023). Myanmar’s budgetary punc-
tuations before and after the 2011 budget reforms: Budget
incrementalism and punctuated equilibrium theory. Chinese
Public Administration Review,14(3), 182–195.
Niskanen, W. A. (1971). Bureaucracy and representative govern-
ment. Rand McNally.
Nixon, H., & Joelene, C. (2014). Fiscal decentralization in
Myanmar: Toward a roadmap for reform. The Asia Founda-
tion and Myanmar Development Research Institute.
Oh,Y.,Park,J.,&Lim,S.(2014).Untanglingthecomplexityof
the association between contracting and local fiscal perfor-
mance and income inequality in terms of competing values.
Lex Localis–Journal of Local Self-Government,12(4), 851–872.
Ohemeng, F. L. K., Amoako-Asiedu, E., & Obuobisa-Darko,
T. (2018). The impact of employee perception on the success-
ful institutionalisation and implementation of performance
management systems in developing countries: The perspec-
tive from Ghana’s public service. Public Administration and
Development,38(2), 75–86.
Oo, Z., Joelene, C., Minoletti, P., Phyu, P., Saw, K. P. C., Win,
N. W., Porter, I., Oye, M., & Smurra, A. (2015). Fiscal man-
agement in Myanmar (Asian Development Bank Economics
Working Paper Series, 434). Asian Development Bank
Economics.
Osborne, S. P. (2010). The new public governance: Emerging
perspectives on the theory and practice of public governance.
Routledge.
PEFA. (2020). Public expenditure and financial accountability
assessment report. The Public Expenditure and Financial
Accountability.
Peng, P., & Cao, T. (2023). Attention, institutional friction,
and punctuated equilibrium in China’s budget: Changes in
social security and employment expenditure. Politics & Pol-
icy,51(2), 256–282.
Rainey, H. G. (2003). Understanding and managing public orga-
nizations. Jossey-Bass.
Raudenbush, S. W., & Bryk, A. S. (2002). Hierarchical linear
models: Applications and data analysis methods (Vol. 1).
Sage.
Reddick, C. G. (2003). Budgetary decision making in the twen-
tieth century: Theories and evidence. Journal of Public Bud-
geting, Accounting & Financial Management.15(2), 251–274.
Robertson, B. (2017). Overview of the Myanmar budget.
Retrieved December 15, 2022, from https://doi.org/10.
13140/RG.2.2.27959.01445
Savas, E. S. (1978). On equity in providing public services.
Management Science,24(8), 800–808.
Scott, G. K., & Enu-Kwesi, F. (2018). Role of budgeting prac-
tices in service delivery in the public sector: A study of dis-
trict assemblies in Ghana. Human Resource Management
Research,8(2), 23–33.
Shi, J., Dai, X., Duan, K., & Li, J. (2023). Exploring the perfor-
mances and determinants of public service provision in 35
major cities in China from the perspectives of efficiency and
effectiveness. Socio-Economic Planning Sciences,85, 101441.
14 SAGE Open
Shotton, R. (2019). Budget analysis brief: December 2019. The
Asia Foundation.
Shotton, R., Yee, Z. W., & Oo, K. P. (2016). State and region
financing, planning and budgeting in Myanmar: What are the
procedures and what are the outcomes?Renaissance Institute
and The Asia Foundation.
Swe, Y. L. W., & Lim, S. (2019). Associations between the mix-
ture of governance modes and the performance of local pub-
lic service delivery. Politics and Governance,7(4), 301–314.
True, J. L., Jones, B. D., & Baumgartner, F. R. (2007). Punctu-
ated-equilibrium theory: Explaining stability and change in
public policymaking. In P. Sabatier (Ed.), Theories of the
policy process (2nd ed.), pp. 155–188. Westview Press.
Walker, R. M., Andrews, R., George, B., & Tu, X. (2024).
Organizational size and public service performance: A meta-
analysis and an agenda for future research. Asia Pacific
Journal of Public Administration,46(1), 32–65.
Wang, R. (2002). Political dimensions of county government
budgeting in China: A case study. (Institute of Development
Studies Working Paper Series, 166). Institute of Develop-
ment Studies. https://opendocs.ids.ac.uk/opendocs/bit-
stream/handle/20.500.12413/3928/Wp166.pdf
Watkins,A.,&Meijer,C.J.(2016).Implementing inclusive
education: Issues in bridging the policy-practice gap.
Emerald.
Wernerfelt, B. (1984). A resource-based view of the firm. Strate-
gic Management Journal,5(2), 171–180.
Wenglinsky, H. (1997). When money matters: How educational
expenditures improve student performance and how they don’t.
Policy Information Center.
Williamson, O. E. (1999). Strategy research: Governance and
competence perspectives. Strategic Management Journal,
20(12), 1087–1108.
Willoughby, K. G. (2014). Public budgeting in context: Struc-
ture, law, reform and results. Jossey-Bass.
Woltman, H., Feldstain, A., MacKay, J. C., & Rocchi, M.
(2012). An introduction to hierarchical linear modeling.
Tutorials in Quantitative Methods for Psychology,8(1), 52–69.
Xu, X., & Flink, C. (2022). Representative bureaucracy, envi-
ronmental turbulence, and organizational performance.
American Review of Public Administration,52(7), 498–512.
Yoo, J., & Kim, S. (2012). Understanding the mixture of gov-
ernance modes in Korean local governments. Public Admin-
istration,90(3), 816–828.
Myaing and Lim 15
