In the budget, the expected needs of each department in the institution are outlined and matched with the existing resources. In addition, budgeting makes the decision-making process expeditious as all capital structure decisions are always made during budgeting. It is paramount to note that the budget instrument is the only recognized tool for communicating financial requirements to the funders of public institutions.
Apart from internal organizations that influence the budgeting process, there exist external forces that determine the allotment in each department. In this case, these forces usually influence the budgeting process by making recommendations and distributing circulars that dictate on various items in the budget statement. It should be noted that public institutions are mainly funded from the public coffer and hence the entire budgeting process is often subjected too much oversight and supervision. Apart from the oversight practices, the board of directors managing a given institution seeks to their interests in the budget. Their main interest is to influence and to have control over the fee pooled from the learner. In this case, the independence of the budgeting officers is not guaranteed.
When filling vacant positions in the budgeting offices, all interested parties in a given institution often feel comfortable when their choices are picked. In this case, there exist situations where some candidates with good credentials miss these vacancies. For the obvious reason, every interested party seeks to have people they are comfortable with on budgeting table.
History always exonerates diligent officials who occupy budgeting offices at any given time. In most case, the end products justify the process used. In this case, when an institution is hard hit by bad economic time, the budgeting office carries all the blame. Going with the history, many budgets fail to