Advertisement

Tournament Method Using a Tree Structure to Resolve Budget Conflicts

  • Natsumi OyamaguchiEmail author
  • Hiroyuki Tajima
  • Isamu Okada
Conference paper
  • 42 Downloads
Part of the Smart Innovation, Systems and Technologies book series (SIST, volume 193)

Abstract

Many local governments in Japan lack a decision-making protocol for resolving budget conflicts. They often use a method in which the budget allocation essentially follows that of the previous allocation. However, this method is not reliable for adapting to present situations and also results in sectarianism. The governments have been looking for alternatives as no dominant method currently exists. We propose a method for budget allocation that uses a tree structure. This method considers the trade-off between costs and efficiency. The number of assessments required for determining a budget allocation is at least the number of objects for allocation; thus, the method minimizes costs. Furthermore, each section manager is directly responsible for the budget ratios of all of the projects in their own section, so this procedure may alleviate the dissatisfaction of stakeholders. Moreover, this method avoids factitive assessments by prohibiting the choice of a representative project. Our method follows a tournament style which will be expanded on in a future work.

Keywords

Tree structure Budget allocation Tournament model 

References

  1. 1.
    Noguchi, Y., Niimura, Y., Takeshita, M., Kanamori, T., Takahashi, T.: Analysis of decision making in local finances. Keizai Bunseki, Econ. Soc. Res. Inst. 71, 1–190 (1978). (in Japanese)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Miyazaki, M.: Analysis of Prefectural Budget Process. The Jichi-Soken Monthly Review of Local Government, The Japan Research Institute for Local Government 41(9), 52–78 (2015). (in Japanese)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
  4. 4.
    Melkers, J., Willoughby, K.: Models of performance-measurement use in local governments: understanding budgeting, communication, and lasting effects. Public Adm. Rev. 65(2), 180–190 (2005).  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2005.00443.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Saaty, T.L.: The Analytic Hierarchy Process. McGraw-Hill, New York (1980)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Mizuno, T., Taji, K.: A ternary diagram and pairwise comparisons in AHP. J. Jpn. Symp. Anal. Hierarchy Process 4, 59–68 (2015)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Oyamaguchi, N., Tajima, H., Okada, I.: A questionnaire method of class evaluations using AHP with a ternary graph. In: Smart Innovation, Systems and Technologies, vol. 97, pp. 173–180. Springer, Cham (2018).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-92028-3_18
  8. 8.
    Oyamaguchi, N., Tajima, H., Okada, I.: Visualization of criteria priorities using a ternary diagram. In: Smart Innovation, Systems and Technologies, vol. 143, pp. 241–248. Springer, Singapore (2019).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-8303-8_21

Copyright information

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  • Natsumi Oyamaguchi
    • 1
    Email author
  • Hiroyuki Tajima
    • 1
  • Isamu Okada
    • 2
    • 3
  1. 1.Shumei UniversityChibaJapan
  2. 2.Soka UniversityTokyoJapan
  3. 3.Vienna University of EconomicsWienAustria

Personalised recommendations