Basic Budget Formats[3]
Line-item Budgeting．Line-item budgeting is the oldest and most ubiquitous form of budgeting.The idea of control is central to line-item budgeting.It has retained its popularity precisely because it provides such an effective means of controlling public expenditure.It requires that appropriations be linked to objects of expenditure(such as salaries，benefits，travel，supplies，grants，etc.).Although these objects could be defined in different ways，the tendency was to place every significant expenditure on a separate line in the agency's budget.For instance，the salaries of each employee might be listed separately，as might the cost of pencils，paper，pens，and so forth.The chief executive or legislature could then go down the list of agency requests for appropriations and cross out，reduce，or，less likely，augment the agency's funding request for any of the items.This provides a great deal of control of how money is spent，but it tells elected officials little about what is supposed to be accomplished by the agency.In other words，what are all those pencils for?What is it that the agency does?And how much does it cost?
The Performance Budgeting．This type of budget seeks to answer these questions without losing control over expenditures.Performance budgeting is the foundation of all modern managerially oriented public budgeting strategies.It fits well in with specialized organizational designs，as the subunits of agencies could be considered the“activities”for which funding is targeted.For example，in a public hospital，“food service”，“X rays”，“surgery”，and“housekeeping”might be considered budget activities and they might also form separate administrative organizational units.Performance budgeting promotes the managerial goal of allowing evaluation of administrative performance because it often requires that“performance reports”accompany budget requests.Consequently，performance budgeting has a concrete meaning to public managers:activities and organizational units tend to coincide;performance is measured and evaluated(in some fashion);and budgetary requests and appropriations are connected to performance levels.However，there are complaints about performance budgeting.First，it does not afford the legislature the same level of participation and control as the line-item budgeting.Second，it is not refined enough to deal with the complexity of administrative operations.
The Program Budgeting．Performance budgeting assesses the efficiency of government operations by examining the unit costs of public services.Although this information can be very useful for certain purposes，efficiency alone is seldom enough.One can walk through the woods very efficiently but get lost nonetheless.With government programs as with walking in the woods，we need to know if we are headed in the right direction，not just how fast we are getting there.Perhaps policing provides a more familiar example of the distinction between the performance budgeting and the program budgeting.“Patrolling”under the performance budgeting could become“crime control”under a program budgeting.Then different types of crime could be targeted for reduction，and police officers and other resources could be assigned accordingly.
A program budgeting forces policymakers to identify and evaluate the goals of public programs and to develop means that are optimally suited to reaching those goals.Where performance budgeting focuses on inputs and outputs，program budgeting encompasses inputs，outputs，and impacts or results．Thus，program budgeting encourages public officials to weigh alternatives systematically and to choose policy strategies that most effectively meet public purposes.It should be stressed that there is no single methodology or analytical tool that can be used to sort out alternatives in a program budgeting.Some budget problems lend themselves readily to highly quantitative decisionmaking devices，such as cost-benefit or cost-effectiveness analysis.Other questions require budget officials to rely on“softer”，qualitative analyses.Which tool is used will depend mainly on how easy it is to quantify the impact or benefit of a particular set of programs.(https://www.daowen.com)
Zero-base Budgeting．ZBB is intended to give budgetary decisionmakers a choice among different funding levels for different programs and activities.It starts from the intellectual premise that the budgeting process should be used to review the political desirability and administrative effectiveness of governmental programs.The concept of zero basing is that existing programs and activities should not automatically be funded，but rather should have to justify their continuation as part of the annual budget cycle.The main elements of ZBB are as follows:
1.The identification of decision units.Each decision unit must have a manager identified as responsible for the operation of that administrative entity as a whole.
2.The formulation of decision packages.These are derived from a comprehensive yearly review of each decision unit's purposes and functions.This considers such questions as what would happen if the decision unit were funded with 50 percent，75 percent，and so on，how can its operations be improved?Once the review is completed，the decision unit's operations are ranked according to the perceived importance of its activities.Those activities of top priority are in the first decision package，those of secondary importance in a second decision package，and so on.The operations，costs，and benefits of these packages are presented in a comprehensive fashion to budgetary decisionmakers.
3.The ranking of decision packages by top-level managers.This establishes organization-wide priorities and seeks to coordinate the agency's choice of level of activity with the amount of funding likely to be forthcoming.The key to ranking decision packages is not simply choosing from among different activities，but also deciding on different levels of activity within any given package.
As in the case of almost all known budgetary strategies，ZBB has some serious limitations.The analysis can become too complex or cumbersome to be useful.The identification of decision units runs into the problem of specifying objectives in clear operational terms.And assessing costs can be difficult or impossible.
In the future，whatever the reform and development of new budgetary techniques，however，one thing is certain—budgeting will remain an area of controversy for public administrators，elected officials，political executives，interest groups，commercial interests，and the public at large.The way in which budgetary questions are framed has a great deal to do with the outcome of contests for public dollars.Both the budget process and allocations will continue to be of critical political，economic，and organizational importance in the modern administrative state.