我國政府現行由上而下的資源總額分配作業制度，已提供各主管機關基本運作需求經費及法律義務等等必要支出，並增加配置所屬機關預算決策的自主權。惟年度預算籌編過程，透過計畫及預算審核會議，爭取額度外預算需求仍是層出不窮。故政府機關於預算籌編時所行使之預算策略是一個重要的議題，本研究即針對預算參與、預算知覺及人際關係等因素來探討對預算策略之影響。
本研究經由問卷調查方法，經統計分析後，實證結果顯示，中央政府所屬各部會與高雄市政府一級機關科室主管在年度預算編製過程，預算參與程度愈高，相對行使預算策略機會愈高。此外，本研究更進一步發現，高雄市政府一級機關科室主管經由參與預算編製作業所產生的預算知覺是高的，亦能促進行使爭取預算的策略，中央政府所屬各部會科室主管則不受影響，故預算審核會議次數減少，應有助於降低機關提出額度外需求的行為。
本研究也發現機關首長會受到關係取向和權威取向的兩種價值影響來界定員工為自己人和外人，在預算額度分配時就會給予不同的對待。同時，行政科室負責行政支援、業務科室為執行計畫，因此，總務會計行政科室主管預算知覺會由於人際關係不同而有所差異，業務科室主管則不受影響。

In our government, the resource allocation is based on the up-down resource total quota allocation system, which has provided all authorities basic budget and expenditure for regular law and added the autonomy for authorities to decide budget by themselves. But in the annual budget planning process, cases asking for additional budget via planning and budget audit committee are very abundant. Therefore, adopting budget strategy is an important issue when government authorities planning budget. This study verifies the effects of budget participation, budget perception and interpersonal relationship over budget strategy.
Adopting questionnaire survey and statistic analyses, the empirical result of this study shows that the higher participation in the process of budget making, the higher the probability of execution budget strategy is. Moreover, this study finds that the budget perception generated by participating in the process of budget making is high for Kaohsiung city government’s first-level agency directors, and it can also improve the strategy for execution budget competing, while for the central government, it is not affected. Therefore, reducing the budget audit committee frequency should be helpful for reducing the authorities asking for extra needs.
This study also finds that bureau directors distinguish employees as insider or outsider by the value of relationship and authoritarianism, and treat them differently in budget allocation. Meanwhile, administration units take responsibility for administration staff, business units take responsibility for plan execution, the budget amount perceptions for directors of general affair, accounting, and administration unit directors are affected by interpersonal relationship, while directors of the business units are not affected.

圖目錄....................................................................................................................... II
表目錄.......................................................................................................................III
第一章 緒論...............................................................................................................1
第一節 研究背景與研究動機...................................................................................1
第二節 研究目的.......................................................................................................5
第三節 研究範圍及研究流程...................................................................................6
第二章 文獻探討.......................................................................................................8
第一節 預算參與.......................................................................................................8
第二節 預算知覺.....................................................................................................12
第三節 預算策略.....................................................................................................14
第四節 人際關係.....................................................................................................17
第五節 預算參與、人際關係、預算知覺及預算策略之關聯性.........................20
第三章 研究方法.....................................................................................................24
第一節 研究架構.....................................................................................................24
第二節 研究變項之操作性定義.............................................................................25
第三節 問卷設計.....................................................................................................27
第四節 研究對象與資料分析方法.........................................................................32
第四章 實證結果分析.............................................................................................34
第一節 樣本資料、相關分析及差異分析.............................................................34
第二節 實證結果分析.............................................................................................39
第五章 結論與建議.................................................................................................47
第一節 研究結果與建議.........................................................................................47
第二節 研究限制、研究貢獻及研究建議.............................................................51
參考文獻..................................................................................................................53
中文文獻..................................................................................................................53
英文文獻..................................................................................................................55
附錄..........................................................................................................................58

中文文獻
李青芬、李雅婷、趙慕芬合譯，組織行為學，2006，(Stephen P. Robbins, Organizational Behavior, 2005)，華泰。
李允傑、孫克難、李顯峰、林博文合著，2007，政府財務與預算，初版，五南。
李允傑，2007，政府預算決策理論與預算籌編實務。
邱炳乾，2001，影響預算參與之因素與效能的結構關係，國立中山大學企業管理研究所未出版博士論文。
林淑美，2005，預算參與對管理績效的影響：以角色模糊和組織承諾為中介變數，企業管理學報，64，29-52。
林欽榮，2001，人際關係與溝通，揚智。
施孟君，2003，組織政治知覺後果模型之跨產業比較分析，國立中山大學人力資源管理研究所未出版碩士論文。
徐仁輝，1996，制度與官僚的預算行為，空大行政學報，5，45-66。
徐仁輝，2006，公共財務管理，四版，智勝。
徐西森、連廷嘉、陳仙子、劉雅瑩，2002，人際關係的理論與實務，心理。
張四明，2001，財政壓力下地方政府的預算決策與調適行為之研究，行政暨政策學報，36，39-79。
張春興，1995，現代心理學，東華。
許道然，2001，公部門組織信任與組織公民行為關係之研究，國立政治大學公共行政學系未出版博士論文。
黃光國，1999，多元典範的研究取向：論社會心理學的本土化，社會理論學報，2(1)，1-51。
黃瑞祥，1986，會計行為面之研究，國立政治大學會計研究所未出版碩士論文。
曾端真、曾玲珉合譯，1997，人際關係與溝通，揚智。
楊中芳，2001，中國人的人際關係、情感與信任，初版，遠流。
楊國樞，1992，中國人的社會取向：社會互動的觀點，見楊國樞、余安邦主編：中國人的心理與行為－理念及方法篇，桂冠。
鄭伯壎、姜定宇合編，2006，華人組織行為：議題、作法及出版，華泰。
蔡培村，2000，人際關係，復文。
蕭妃真，2002，財政壓力下預算編製策略之研究，國立台北大學公共行政暨政策學系未出版碩士論文。
薛芝蕙，2006，主計人員角色衝突之研究，國立台北大學行政管理學研究所未出版碩士論文。

英文文獻
Argyris, C. 1952. The Impact of Budgets on People. New York, NY: The Controllership Foundation.
Baron, R. M. and D. A. Kenny. 1986. The Moderator-Mediator Variable Distinction in Social Psychological Research: Conceptual, Strategic and Statistical
Considerations, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(6):1173-1182.
Birnberg, J. G., M. D. Shields and S. M. Young. 1990. The Case for Multiple Methods in Empirical Management Accounting Research (with an Illustration from Budget Setting), Journal of Management Accounting Research, 2(Fall):33-66.
Brammer, L. M. 1993. The Helping Relationship: Process and Skill. New York, NY: Allyn and Bacon.
Brockner, J. and P. Siegel. 1996. Understanding the Interaction between Procedural and Distributive Justice, in R. M. Kramer and T. R. Trust in Organizations: Frontiers of Theory and Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Brownell, P. 1982. The Role of Accounting Data in Performance Evaluation, Budgetary Participation, and Organizational Effectiveness, Journal of Accounting Research, 20: 12-27.
Brownell, P. and A. S. Dunk. 1991. Task Uncertainty and Its Interaction with Budgetary Participation and Budget Emphasis: Some Methodological Issues and Empirical Investigation, Accounting, Organizations and Society, 16: 693-703.
Campos, J, E. and S. Pradhan. 1999. Budgetary Institutions and the Levels of Expenditure Outcomes in Australia and New Zealand, In J. M. Poterba & J. Von Hagen (Eds), Fiscal Institutions and Fiscal performance: 233-263. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
Caplan, E. H. 1971. Management Accounting and Behavioral Science. Boston, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Collins, F. 1978. The Interaction of Budgeting Characteristics and Personality Variables with Budgetary Response Attitudes, The Accounting Review, 53: 324-35.
Ferris, J. and S. Tang. 1993. The New Institutionalism and Public Administration: An Overview, Journal of Public Administration: Research and Theory, 3(1): 4-10.
Irvine, B. 1979. The Components of Budget Pressure, Cost and Management, 16-22.
Iyengar, S. S. and M. R. Lepper. 1999. Rethinking the Value of Choice: A Cultural Perspective on Intrinsic Motivation, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76(3): 349-366.
Kenis, I. 1979. Effects of Budgetary Goal Characteristics on Managerial Attitudes and Performance, The Accounting Review, 54: 707-721.
Lau, C. M., L. C. Low and I. R. C. Eggleton. 1995. The Impact of Reliance on Accounting Performance Measures on Job-Related Tension and Managerial Performance: Additional Evidence, Accounting, Organizations and Society, 20(5): 359-381.
Lewin, K. 1951. Field Theory in Social Science. New York, NY: Harper and Bros. Co.
Luthans, F. 1998. Organizational Behavior, 8th. Singapore: Mcgraw-Hill.
Mia, L. 1988. Managerial Attitude, Motivation and the Effectiveness of Budget Participation, Accounting, Organizations and Society, 13: 465-475.
Milani, K. W. 1975. The Relationship of Participation in Budget-Setting to Industrial Supervisor Performance and Attitudes: A Field Study, The Accounting Review, 50: 274-84.
North, D. 1990. Institutions, Institutional Change and Economic Performance. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Nunnally, J. 1978. Psychometric Theory. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Rubin, I. 1990. The Politics of Public Budgeting: Getting and Spending, Borrowing and Balance. Chatham, NJ: Chatham House Publishers.
------. 1992. Budgeting: Theory, Concepts, Methods, and Issues. In J. Rabin (Ed), Handbook of Public Budgeting. New York, NY: Marcel Dekker.
------. 1997. The Politics of Public Budgeting: Getting and Spending, Borrowing and Balancing, 3rd ed. Chatham, NJ: Chatham House Publishers.
Schick, A. 1986. Macro-Budgetary Adaptations to Fiscal Stress in Industrialized Democracies, Public Administration Review, 46(2): 124-134.
Tedeschi, J. T. and V. Melburg. 1984. Impression Management and Influence in the Organization, Research in the Sociology of Organizations, 3: 31-58.
Wildavsky, A. 1988. The New Politics of the Budgetary Process. Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman and Company.