Modelling budgetary decision utility and institutional risk: Evidence from the Portuguese Navy
-
DOIhttp://dx.doi.org/10.21511/pmf.15(4).2026.02
-
Article InfoVolume 15 2026, Issue #4, pp. 14–31
- 4 Views
-
1 Downloads
This work is licensed under a
Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
Type of the article: Research Article
Abstract
Budgetary decision-making in the defense sector involves making trade-offs between interdependent capabilities, subject to financial, operational and institutional constraints. The analysis of aggregate expenditure is insufficient to evaluate these decisions, as the impact of the allocated resources depends on their composition and the interplay between categories of expenditure. The study analyzes the budgetary headings of the Portuguese Navy between 2023 and 2025 and assesses their compatibility with an institutional utility function. To this end, possible adjusted structural model has been proposed, which includes the complementarity between maintenance and investment, the adequacy of personnel expenditure, potential performance and institutional stability. The robustness of the optimization was assessed through 200,000 Monte Carlo simulations, with simultaneous variation of parameters, thresholds and weights. Total expenditure increased by 20.66 per cent over the period, but the highest utility was achieved in 2024 (0.691554), followed by 2025 (0.683443) and 2023 (0.659761). The 2024 financial year ranked first in 91.64% of the simulations and outperformed 2023 in all configurations analyzed. However, alternative normalization of the maintenance-investment component altered the ranking to 2023 > 2024 > 2025, thereby distinguishing the model’s parametric robustness from its structural robustness. The model enables to explain budgetary commitments and test the stability of decisions, but it does not constitute a causal measure of operational readiness, efficiency or institutional risk. The model’s relevance lies in the transparent support it provides for comparing the various allocation alternatives.
Acknowledgment
This article is financed by CINAV–Navy Research Centre [CINAV–Centro de Investigação Naval].
- Keywords
-
JEL Classification (Paper profile tab)C61, D81, H61, H56
-
References50
-
Tables4
-
Figures6
-
- Figure 1. Monte Carlo utility distributions by budget year
- Figure 2. Frequency of first place across Monte Carlo simulations
- Figure 3. Frequency of complete ranking orders
- Figure 4. Empirical cumulative distributions of pairwise utility differences
- Figure 5. Distribution of U2025 − U2024
- Figure 6. Sensitivity of utility levels to the specification of the maintenance-investment component
-
- Table 1. Changes in the budget breakdown
- Table 2. Utility components in the baseline configuration
- Table 3. Results of applying the Monte Carlo model with 200,000 simulations
- Table A1. Integrated evidence on institutional utility, ranking stability and model sensitivity
-
- Arrow, K., Chenery, H., Minhas, B., & Solow, R. (1961). Capital-labor substitution and economic efficiency. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 43(3), 225-250.
- Asiedu, Y., & Gu, P. (1998). Product life-cycle cost analysis: State of the art review. International Journal of Production Research, 36(4), 883-908.
- Aven, T. (2016). Risk assessment and risk management: Review of recent advances on their foundation. European Journal of Operational Research, 253(1), 1-13.
- Battaglio, R., Belardinelli, P., Bellé, N., & Cantarelli, P. (2019). Behavioral public administration ad fontes: A synthesis of research on bounded rationality, cognitive biases, and nudging in public organizations. Public Administration Review, 79(3), 304-320.
- Becker, J., Benson, S., Dunne, J., & Malesky, E. (2025). Disaggregated defense spending: Introduction to data. Journal of Peace Research, 62(3), 772-788.
- Belton, V., & Stewart, T. (2002). Multiple criteria decision analysis: An integrated approach. Kluwer Academic Publishers.
- Bove, V., & Nisticò, R. (2014). Military in politics and budgetary allocations. Journal of Comparative Economics, 42(4), 1065-1078.
- Chen, L. (2021). The impact of performance budgeting on defense resource allocation. International Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 9(4), 151-156.
- Cherchye, L., Moesen, W., Rogge, N., Van Puyenbroeck, T., Saisana, M., Saltelli, A., Liska, R., & Tarantola, S. (2008). Creating composite indicators with DEA and robustness analysis: The case of the Technology Achievement Index. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 59(2), 239-251.
- Conlisk, J. (1996). Why bounded rationality? Journal of Economic Literature, 34(2), 669-700.
- Cyert, R., & March, J. (1963). A behavioral theory of the firm. Prentice-Hall.
- Dimitriou, D., Goulas, E., & Kallandranis, C. (2025). Spend on what? Insights on military spending efficiency. European Journal of Political Economy, 88, Article 102696.
- Dunne, J., Smith, R., & Willenbockel, D. (2005). Models of military expenditure and growth: A critical review. Defence and Peace Economics, 16(6), 449-461.
- Gigerenzer, G., & Gaissmaier, W. (2011). Heuristic decision making. Annual Review of Psychology, 62, 451-482.
- Goodwin, P., & Wright, G. (2009). Decision analysis for management judgment. Wiley.
- Greco, S., Ishizaka, A., Tasiou, M., & Torrisi, G. (2019). On the methodological framework of composite indices: A review of the issues of weighting, aggregation, and robustness. Social Indicators Research, 141(1), 61-94.
- Hall, P., Markowski, S., & Thomson, D. (1998). Defence procurement and domestic industry: The Australian experience. Defence and Peace Economics, 9(1-2), 137-165.
- Hartley, K. (2012). The economics of defence policy: A new perspective. Routledge.
- Hitch, C., & McKean, R. (1960). The economics of defense in the nuclear age. Harvard University Press.
- Jones, B., & Baumgartner, F. (2005). The politics of attention: How government prioritizes problems. University of Chicago Press.
- Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica, 47(2), 263-291.
- Kaplan, S., & Garrick, B. (1981). On the quantitative definition of risk. Risk Analysis, 1(1), 11-27.
- Keeney, R., & Raiffa, H. (1993). Decisions with multiple objectives: Preferences and value trade-offs (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press.
- Kirkpatrick, D. (1995). The rising unit cost of defence equipment - The reasons and the results. Defence and Peace Economics, 6(4), 263-288.
- Knighton, R. (2004). The psychology of risk and its role in military decision-making. Defence Studies, 4(3), 309-334.
- Lindblom, C. (1959). The science of “muddling through.” Public Administration Review, 19(2), 79-88.
- Liwång, H. (2017). Risk communication within military decision-making: Pedagogic considerations. Defense & Security Analysis, 33(1), 30-44.
- Lopes, H., & Rosado, D. (2018). A importância da contabilidade e dos sistemas de informação de apoio à decisão na gestão organizacional do Exército Português [The importance of accounting and decision-support information systems in the organizational management of the Portuguese Army]. Proelium, 8(1), 91-119. (In Portuguese).
- March, J. (1994). A primer on decision making: How decisions happen. Free Press.
- Markowski, S., Hall, P., & Wylie, R. (Eds.). (2010). Defence procurement and industry policy: A small country perspective. Routledge.
- Marler, R., & Arora, J. (2010). The weighted sum method for multi-objective optimization: New insights. Structural and Multidisciplinary Optimization, 41(6), 853-862.
- Nardo, M., Saisana, M., Saltelli, A., Tarantola, S., Hoffmann, A., & Giovannini, E. (2008). Handbook on constructing composite indicators: Methodology and user guide. OECD Publishing.
- Oudot, J. (2010). Performance and risks in the defense procurement sector. Journal of Public Policy, 30(2), 201-218.
- Pollitt, C., & Bouckaert, G. (2017). Public management reform: A comparative analysis - Into the age of austerity (4th ed.). Oxford University Press.
- Pufahl, L., Stiehle, F., Ihde, S., Weske, M., & Weber, I. (2025). Resource allocation in business process executions: A systematic literature study. Information Systems, 132, Article 102541.
- Pugh, P. (2007). Retrospect and prospect: Trends in cost and their implications for UK aerospace. Defence and Peace Economics, 18(1), 25-37.
- Roth, R. (2004). The rational analytical approach to decision-making: An adequate strategy for military commanders? Connections: The Quarterly Journal, 3(2), 71-92.
- Roy, B. (1996). Multicriteria methodology for decision aiding. Springer.
- Saisana, M., Saltelli, A., & Tarantola, S. (2005). Uncertainty and sensitivity analysis techniques as tools for the quality assessment of composite indicators. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series A (Statistics in Society), 168(2), 307-323.
- Saltelli, A., Ratto, M., Andres, T., Campolongo, F., Cariboni, J., Gatelli, D., Saisana, M., & Tarantola, S. (2008). Global sensitivity analysis: The primer. Wiley.
- Savage, L. (1972). The foundations of statistics (2nd rev. ed.). Dover Publications.
- Schick, A. (1966). The road to PPB: The stages of budget reform. Public Administration Review, 26(4), 243-258.
- Scott, W. (2014). Institutions and organizations: Ideas, interests, and identities (4th ed.). SAGE Publications.
- Simon, H. (1957). Administrative behavior: A study of decision-making processes in administrative organization (3rd ed.). Free Press.
- Smith, R. (2009). Military economics: The interaction of power and money. Palgrave Macmillan.
- Sobol, I. (2001). Global sensitivity indices for nonlinear mathematical models and their Monte Carlo estimates. Mathematics and Computers in Simulation, 55(1-3), 271-280.
- Tagarev, T. (2006). Introduction to program-based defense resource management. Connections: The Quarterly Journal, 5(1), 55-69.
- von Neumann, J., & Morgenstern, O. (1944). Theory of games and economic behavior. Princeton University Press.
- Webb, N., Richter, A., & Bonsper, D. (2010). Linking defense planning and resource decisions: A return to systems thinking. Defense & Security Analysis, 26(4), 387-400.
- Wildavsky, A. (1984). The politics of the budgetary process (4th ed.). Little, Brown.


