The Commission on Planning, Programming, Budgeting, and Execution (PPBE) Reform asked the RAND Corporation for an independent analysis of PPBE-like functions in selected countries and other federal agencies. In this second volume of four reports on this subject, RAND researchers conducted case studies of the defense budgeting processes of Australia, Canada, and the United Kingdom.

Planning, Programming, Budgeting, and Execution in Comparative Organizations

Volume 2, Case Studies of Selected Allied and Partner Nations

Megan McKernan, Stephanie Young, Andrew Dowse, James Black, Devon Hill, Benjamin J. Sacks, Austin Wyatt, Nicolas Jouan, Yuliya Shokh, Jade Yeung, et al.

ResearchPublished Jan 23, 2024

The U.S. Department of Defense's (DoD's) Planning, Programming, Budgeting, and Execution (PPBE) System was originally developed in the 1960s as a structured approach for planning long-term resource development, assessing program cost-effectiveness, and aligning resources to strategies. Yet changes to the strategic environment, the industrial base, and the nature of military capabilities have raised the question of whether existing U.S. defense budgeting processes remain well aligned with national security needs.

Congress called for the establishment of the Commission on PPBE Reform. As part of its data collection efforts, the commission asked RAND researchers to conduct case studies of defense budgeting processes across nine comparative organizations: five international defense organizations and four U.S. federal government agencies. Congress also specifically requested two case studies of near-peer competitors, and the research team selected the other seven cases in close partnership with the commission.

In this second volume of four reports on this subject, RAND researchers conduct case studies of the defense budgeting processes of Australia, Canada, and the United Kingdom (UK). Researchers conducted extensive document reviews and structured discussions with subject-matter experts with experience in the budgeting processes of Australia, Canada, and the UK. Each case study was assigned a unique team with appropriate regional or organizational expertise. The analysis was also supplemented by experts in the U.S. PPBE process.

Key Findings

  • Australia, Canada, and the UK have a shared commitment to democratic institutions with the United States and converge on a similar strategic vision.
  • Foreign military sales are an important mechanism for strategic convergence but pose myriad challenges for coordination and resource planning.
  • The Australian, Canadian, and UK political systems shape the roles and contours of resource planning.
  • Australia, Canada, and the UK have less legislative intervention in budgeting processes, relative to the United States, and do not need to confront the challenges of operating without a regular appropriation (as is the case under continuing resolutions).
  • Strategic planning mechanisms in Australia, Canada, and the UK harness defense spending priorities and drive budget execution.
  • Jointness in resource planning appears to be easier in Australia, Canada, and the UK, given the smaller size and structure of their militaries.
  • Australia, Canada, and the UK place a greater emphasis on budget predictability and stability than on agility.
  • Despite the common emphasis on stability, each system provides some budget flexibility to address unanticipated changes.
  • Similar budget mechanisms are used in Australia, Canada, and the UK.
  • Australia, Canada, and the UK have all pivoted toward supporting agility and innovation in the face of lengthy acquisition cycles.
  • Australia, Canada, and the UK have independent oversight functions for ensuring transparency, audits, or contestability of budgeting processes.
  • Despite the push to accept additional risk, there is still a cultural aversion to risk in the Australian, Canadian, and British budgeting processes.

Order a Print Copy

Format
Paperback
Page count
174 pages
List Price
$42.00
Buy link
Add to Cart

Topics

Document Details

  • Copyright: RAND Corporation
  • Availability: Available
  • Year: 2024
  • Print Format: Paperback
  • Paperback Pages: 174
  • Paperback Price: $42.00
  • Paperback ISBN/EAN: 1-9774-1253-X
  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.7249/RRA2195-2
  • Document Number: RR-A2195-2

Citation

RAND Style Manual
McKernan, Megan, Stephanie Young, Andrew Dowse, James Black, Devon Hill, Benjamin J. Sacks, Austin Wyatt, Nicolas Jouan, Yuliya Shokh, Jade Yeung, Raphael S. Cohen, John P. Godges, Heidi Peters, and Lauren Skrabala, Planning, Programming, Budgeting, and Execution in Comparative Organizations: Volume 2, Case Studies of Selected Allied and Partner Nations, RAND Corporation, RR-A2195-2, 2024. As of October 11, 2024: https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RRA2195-2.html
Chicago Manual of Style
McKernan, Megan, Stephanie Young, Andrew Dowse, James Black, Devon Hill, Benjamin J. Sacks, Austin Wyatt, Nicolas Jouan, Yuliya Shokh, Jade Yeung, Raphael S. Cohen, John P. Godges, Heidi Peters, and Lauren Skrabala, Planning, Programming, Budgeting, and Execution in Comparative Organizations: Volume 2, Case Studies of Selected Allied and Partner Nations. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation, 2024. https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RRA2195-2.html. Also available in print form.
BibTeX RIS

Research conducted by

This research was sponsored by the Commission on Programming, Budgeting, and Execution (PPBE) Reform and conducted within the Acquisition and Technology Policy Program of the RAND National Security Research Division (NSRD).

This publication is part of the RAND research report series. Research reports present research findings and objective analysis that address the challenges facing the public and private sectors. All RAND research reports undergo rigorous peer review to ensure high standards for research quality and objectivity.

This document and trademark(s) contained herein are protected by law. This representation of RAND intellectual property is provided for noncommercial use only. Unauthorized posting of this publication online is prohibited; linking directly to this product page is encouraged. Permission is required from RAND to reproduce, or reuse in another form, any of its research documents for commercial purposes. For information on reprint and reuse permissions, please visit www.rand.org/pubs/permissions.

RAND is a nonprofit institution that helps improve policy and decisionmaking through research and analysis. RAND's publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions of its research clients and sponsors.