The use of a single budget or separate budgets for planning and performance evaluation

Abstract

Budgeting has different functions in the firm that are not necessarily congruent with each other but conflict. In many firms, budgets are simultaneously used for both operative planning and performance evaluation. Although Prior literature recommends using different budget levels for different purposes to resolve potential conflicts between these functions, empirical evidence indicates that most firms use a single budget level for planning and performance evaluation. To examine the questions of whether and why firms do so, we analyze potential costs emerging from these budgeting conflicts. We suggest that firms trade off these costs against the behavioral costs of reduced credibility when the performance evaluation budget deviates from the planning budget. We test our hypotheses using survey data from management accounting executives and find evidence for the predicted trade-offs. Moreover, we find that using a single budget level for both purposes at the beginning of the year does not imply using a single budget level at the end of the year as firms often adjust budgets differently for planning and performance evaluation. Our study contributes to the literature by reconciling discrepancies between descriptive empirical practice and recommendations from prior literature about the use of a single versus separate budgets for multiple purposes.