|
|
|
Sort Order |
|
|
|
Items / Page
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Srl | Item |
| 1 |
ID:
161360
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
By any objective measure, defense institutions in Central and Eastern Europe have all but universally been incapable of producing viable defense plans that are based on objective costing and operational planning data. This situation exists in spite the provision of considerable Western advice and assistance, let alone reporting to and receiving assessments by NATO’s International Staff under Partnership for Peace, as well as via the integrated defense planning and reporting systems. An explanation for this systematic failure across European post-Communist defense institutions can be found in the continued slow development of an over-arching policy framework which directs and approves all activities of the armed forces, as well as the de-centralization of financial decision-making down to capability providers. The essay ends with an examination of the adverse effects of the early introduction of planning programming, budgeting system (PPBS), have had on the development of effective policy and planning capabilities within these defense institutions.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 2 |
ID:
126242
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2012.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
Since 2001, the United States government has spent substantial resources on preparing the nation against a bioterrorist attack. Earlier articles in this series have analyzed civilian biodefense funding by the federal government for fiscal years (FY) 2001 through proposed funding for FY2012. This article updates those figures with budgeted amounts for FY2013, specifically analyzing the budgets and allocations for civilian biodefense at the Departments of Health and Human Services, Defense, Homeland Security, Agriculture, Commerce, and State; the Environmental Protection Agency; and the National Science Foundation. As in previous years, our analysis indicates that the majority (>90%) of the "biodefense" programs included in the FY2013 budget have both biodefense and non-biodefense goals and applications-that is, programs to improve infectious disease research, public health and hospital preparedness, and disaster response more broadly. Programs that focus solely on biodefense represent a small proportion (<10%) of our analysis, as the federal agencies continue to prioritize all-hazards preparedness. For FY2013, the federal budget for programs focused solely on civilian biodefense totals $574.2 million, and the budget for programs with multiple goals and applications, including biodefense, is $4.96 billion, for an overall total of $5.54 billion.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 3 |
ID:
128970
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
New Delhi, Lok Sabha Secretariat, 2012.
|
| Description |
3vol.set; xxvi, 631p.Hbk
|
| Contents |
Vol-I (Set of 3 volumes: Rs.2500.00)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Copies: C:1/I:0,R:1,Q:0
Circulation
| Accession# | Call# | Current Location | Status | Policy | Location |
| 057681 | 352.485/IND 057681 | Main | On Shelf | Reference books | |
|
|
|
|
| 4 |
ID:
128981
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
New Delhi, Lok Sabha Secretariat, 2012.
|
| Description |
3 vol.set; xxvi, 633-1261p.Hbk
|
| Contents |
Vol-II (Set of 3 volumes: Rs.2500.00)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Copies: C:1/I:0,R:1,Q:0
Circulation
| Accession# | Call# | Current Location | Status | Policy | Location |
| 057682 | 352.485/IND 057682 | Main | On Shelf | Reference books | |
|
|
|
|
| 5 |
ID:
128983
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
New Delhi, Lok Sabha Secretariat, 2012.
|
| Description |
3 vol.set; xxvi, 1263-2067p.Hbk
|
| Contents |
Vol-III (Set of 3 volumes: Rs.2500.00)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Copies: C:1/I:0,R:1,Q:0
Circulation
| Accession# | Call# | Current Location | Status | Policy | Location |
| 057683 | 352.485/IND 057683 | Main | On Shelf | Reference books | |
|
|
|
|
| 6 |
ID:
040910
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
London, Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, 1970.
|
| Description |
xii, 164p.Pbk
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Copies: C:1/I:0,R:0,Q:0
Circulation
| Accession# | Call# | Current Location | Status | Policy | Location |
| 004585 | 658.4012/MOR 004585 | Main | On Shelf | General | |
|
|
|
|
| 7 |
ID:
105458
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2011.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
The transformation from the comforts of outlay budgeting to an environment of accountability with outcome budgeting is difficult but not impossible. This re-engineering is essential as in the absence of outcome budgeting, budget management may be ineffective and ineffective budget management would weaken the Public Financial Management (PFM) system. A weakened PFM could even threaten established economic, social and political equilibriums. The weaknesses in the existing system need to be accepted and a roadmap for budgeting in terms of outcomes needs to be worked out and followed by programme managers of public authorities.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 8 |
ID:
121074
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2013.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
Over the past decade, defence capital acquisition reforms have enhanced standardization, transparency and bigger acquisition budgets. Yet the system grapples with delays, cost escalations and gaps in operational preparedness. This article explores the structure, process and cultural dimensions of the acquisition system, unpacking the underlying linkages between policy, planning, budgeting, strategic direction, and outcomefocused analytical decision-making-factors that influence effectiveness of the procurement system. The author makes a comparative study of the defence acquisition system of six countries, learning from the reforms and relentless pursuit of efficiency and effectiveness in USA, UK and France and the evolving systems of Australia, Brazil and Canada. The article seeks to steer the reforms debate beyond procurement procedures to performance management, strategic planning and risk management, towards delivering a culture of professionalism, innovation and outcomefocused decision-making to establish an acquisition system that best suits India's defence needs.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 9 |
ID:
149014
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
Traditionally, policy and planning have been institutionally weak in the Naval Staff (Office of the Chief of Naval Operations – OPNAV). In their place, the N8 (Programming) has dominated resource decision-making, and, by default, decisions relating to policy and planning. Recent uncertainty over defense authorization and appropriations has resulted in calls for a greater role to be played by the N3/5, Policy and Plans Directorate. The article argues that reform of the Department of the Navy’s planning process is urgently needed. OPNAV’s weak planning and overly dominant programming practices are compared with those of the Departments of the Army and Air Force and are shown to be out of conformance with them. The article concludes with specific and detailed recommendations for reform of both the current planning and programming processes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 10 |
ID:
002588
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
California, Rand Corporation,
|
| Description |
60p
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Copies: C:1/I:0,R:0,Q:0
Circulation
| Accession# | Call# | Current Location | Status | Policy | Location |
| 005539 | 351.722/FIS 005539 | Main | On Shelf | General | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|