A Theoretical Accounting Framework For Dynamic Public Expenditure Optimization: A Differential-Equation Model Integrating Human Development Performance Indicators

Article Sidebar

PDF
Published: 2026-01-20
DOI: https://doi.org/10.53555/jtar.v22i1.76
Keywords:
..............

Main Article Content

T Dakshinamurthy
Dr. T. Venkatesan
S Chinnamanthur
Nandha Kumar S
Usha G,
T. Suganya

Abstract

This manuscript develops a theoretical accounting framework that models public-sector expenditure as dynamic control variables that influence multidimensional performance indicators via a system of differential equations. The model establishes a reproducible mathematical structure for optimizing government resource allocation while integrating inequality-adjusted performance measurement into public-sector accounting.

Article Details

Issue

Vol. 22 No. 1 (2026): Journal of Theoretical Accounting Research

Section

Articles
Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Author Biographies

T Dakshinamurthy

Assistant Professor, Xavier Institute of Management and Entrepreneurship, Bangalore

Dr. T. Venkatesan

HOD& Associate Professor, Knowledge Institute of Technology Salem Tamilnadu

S Chinnamanthur

Sr. Assistant Professor, Xavier’s Institute of Management  and  Entrepreneurship

Nandha Kumar S

Jr Assistant Professor, Xavier Institute of Management & Entrepreneurship, Bangalore.

Usha G,

Assistant Professor, Don Bosco Institute of Technology Bangalore

T. Suganya

Assistant Professor, Knowledge Institute of Technology

How to Cite

A Theoretical Accounting Framework For Dynamic Public Expenditure Optimization: A Differential-Equation Model Integrating Human Development Performance Indicators. (2026). The Journal of Theoretical Accounting Research, 22(1), 46-54. https://doi.org/10.53555/jtar.v22i1.76

References

[1] Manes Rossi F, Cohen S, Caperchione E, Brusca I. Harmonizing public sector accounting in Europe: Thinking out of the box. Public Money & Management. 2016;36(3):189-196. doi:10.1080/09540962.2016.1133976

[2] Grossi G, Kallio KM, Sargiacomo M, Skoog M. Accounting, performance management systems and accountability changes in knowledge-intensive public organizations: A literature review and research agenda. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal. 2019;33(1):256-280. doi:10.1108/AAAJ-02-2019-3869

[3] Fan Y. Accountability in public organization: A systematic literature review and future research agenda. Public Organization Review. 2025;25(2):295-310. doi:10.1007/s11115-024-00792-y

[4] Maggetti M, Papadopoulos Y. Happily unaccountable? Perceptions of accountability by public managers. Public Policy and Administration. 2023;38(4):381-404. doi:10.1177/09520767221074487

[5] Loftis MW, Mortensen PB. A dynamic linear modelling approach to public policy change. Journal of Public Policy. 2018;38(4):553-579. doi:10.1017/S0143814X17000186

[6] Nguyen LK, Kumar C, Jiang B, Zimmermann N. Implementation of systems thinking in public policy: A systematic review. Systems. 2023;11(2):64. doi:10.3390/systems11020064

[7] Aubin JP, Bayen AM, Saint-Pierre P. Viability Theory: New Directions. 2nd ed. Berlin: Springer; 2011. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-16684-6

[8] Sterman JD. Learning from evidence in a complex world. Am J Public Health. 2006;96(3):505-514. doi:10.2105/AJPH.2005.066043

[9] Kraft MA. Interpreting effect sizes of education interventions. Educ Res. 2020;49(4):241-253. doi:10.3102/0013189X20912798

[10] Tahir M, Hayat A, Rashid K, Afridi MA, Tariq YB. Human capital and economic growth in OECD countries: some new insights. J Econ Adm Sci. 2020;36(4):367-380. doi:10.1108/JEAS-07-2019-0073.

[11] Natoli R, Feeny S, Li J, Zuhair S. Aggregating the Human Development Index: a non-compensatory approach. Soc Indic Res. 2024;172(2):499-515. doi:10.1007/s11205-024-03318-7.

[12] Higham DJ, Higham NJ. MATLAB Guide. 3rd ed. Philadelphia: Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics; 2017.

[13] United Nations Development Programme. Human Development Report 2023. New York: UNDP; 2023.

[14] Fullman N, Yearwood J, Abay SM, et al. Measuring performance on the Healthcare Access and Quality Index for 195 countries and territories, 1990 to 2016: a systematic analysis. Lancet. 2018;391(10136):2236-2271. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(18)30994-2

[15] Das S. Economic impact of gain in life expectancy: a case study of India. Int J Soc Econ. 2023;51(7):857-869. doi:10.1108/IJSE-06-2022-0422.

[16] Evans DK, Popova A. What really works to improve learning in developing countries? An analysis of the evidence. World Bank Res Obs. 2016;31(2):242-270. doi: 10.1093/wbro/lkw004

[17] Buera FJ, Kaboski JP. The rise of the service economy. Am Econ Rev. 2012;102(6):2540-2569. doi: 10.1257/aer.102.6.2540

[18] Hanushek EA, Ruhose J, Woessmann L. Knowledge capital and aggregate income differences: development accounting for US states. Am Econ J Macroecon. 2017;9(4):184-224. doi:10.1257/mac.20160255.

[19] Collard F, Dellas H, Tavlas GS. Government size and macroeconomic volatility. Economica. 2017;84(336):797-819. doi:10.1111/ecca.12223.

[20] Decancq K, Lugo MA. Weights in multidimensional indices of wellbeing: an overview. Econom Rev. 2013;32(1):7-34. doi:10.1080/07474938.2012.690641.

[21] Ministry of Finance, Government of India. Union Budget Expenditure Profile 2023–24. New Delhi: Ministry of Finance; 2023.

[22] Baltagi BH. Econometric Analysis of Panel Data. 6th ed. Chichester: Wiley; 2021.

[23] United Nations. World Population Prospects 2022. New York: United Nations; 2022.

[24] Im KS, Pesaran MH, Shin Y. Testing for unit roots in heterogeneous panels. J Econom. 2003;115(1):53-74. doi:10.1016/S0304-4076(03)00092-7.