Abstract
What purpose do budgetary tools, such as zero-base budgeting, break-down budgeting, net budget, program budget, and multi-year budget serve? Are they methods whereby planners and administrators intend to take the initiative and increase their power at the expense of the political decision-makers? Or, inversely, are they avenues to increased political influence? This dissertation analyses, characteristic by characteristic, different budgetary aspects in health care budgeting and their action alternatives. These aspects are related to three goals; priority setting, influence on action, and administrative contol. The attitudes of key groups political decision-makers, planners, hospital administrators, and senior physicians are investigated. The study shows that budgeting is incremental, not comprehensive. Budgetary reforms are of more concern to planners and administrators than to political decision-makers or senior physicians.