The logics of budgeting: Theorization and practice variation in the educational field q Mahmoud Ezzamel a,b , Keith Robson a,⇑ , Pam Stapleton c,1 a Cardiff Business School, Cardiff University, Cardiff CF10 9EU, UK b IE Business School, Pinar 15-1B, 28006 Madrid, Spain c Manchester Business School, University of Manchester, Manchester M15 6PB, UK abstract This paper examines the introduction of budgeting practices in situations where institu- tional logics are competing. The empirical cases, studied in two phases in the 1990s and in 2011, explore tensions that emerged between the new business logic, prevailing profes- sional logic, and governance logic in the education field. We analyze the theorization of budgeting practices and their performative effect on cognition in organizations. We argue that competing logics in a field impact upon budgeting practices and theorization of the meanings attributed to budgetary outcomes. Our study contributes to the understanding of accounting in processes of institutional change, and the further development of neo- institutionalist theory by attending to the sources of practice variation and their relation- ship to competing logics. We advance four tentative theoretical propositions concerning the impact of multiple logics upon budgetary practices. Ó 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Introduction ‘‘In general, we need more studies that connect institu- tional change to variation in the content of organiza- tional practices.’’ (Lounsbury, 2001, p. 53) Many writers working with neo-institutionalist theory (NIT) have bemoaned the lack of research upon organiza- tional micro-practices as counterweight to the focus upon cognitive, normative and regulative macro-structures (Hirsch, 1997; Hirsch & Lounsbury, 1997; Lawrence, Suddaby, & Leca, 2009a; Leblibici, Salancik, Gopay, & King, 1991; Powell & Colyvas, 2008; Reay, Golden-Biddle, & GermAnn, 2006; Schatzki, 2001; Zucker, 1991). This micro–macro dualism could be criticized for overlooking the importance of the duality of structure (Giddens, 1984), but nonetheless the gap identified in research motivated by NIT is important in the sense that often the micro-foundations of institutional theory are rarely expli- cit (Lawrence & Roy Suddaby, 2006; Powell, 2008, p. 276) and issues of agency occluded (Battilana, 2006; Battilana & D’Aunno, 2009; Cooper, Ezzamel, & Willmott, 2008; 0361-3682/$ - see front matter Ó 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.aos.2012.03.005 q An earlier version of this paper was presented at the School of Management, University of Innsbruck, November 2007, the Management Accounting as Social and Organizational Practice Workshop, HEC Paris, April, 2008, the Anderson School of Management, University of New Mexico, May 2008, and the EIASM New Directions In Management Accounting: Innovations In Practice And Research Conference, Brussels 15– 17 December 2008. Thanks to participants at those presentations, and to Albrecht Becker, Phil Bougen, Chris Chapman, David Cooper, Fredrik Ellbring, Royston Greenwood, Michael Habersam, Silvia Jordan, Michael Lounsbury, Karen Patterson, Alistair Preston, Bob Scapens, Joni Young, and two anonymous reviewers for their constructive comments and criti- cisms. This paper was an outcome of two studies on local management of schools funded by the Chartered Institute of Management Accountants (CIMA). We acknowledge this financial support and also the invaluable help we received from our informants in three English Local Education Authorities. ⇑ Corresponding author. Tel.: +44 (0) 29 20875514; fax: +44 (0) 29 20874419. E-mail addresses: ezzamel@cf.ac.uk (M. Ezzamel), RobsonK@cf.ac.uk (K. Robson), pam.stapleton@mbs.ac.uk (P. Stapleton). 1 Tel.: +44 (0) 161 306 3454; fax: +44 (0) 161 275 4023. Accounting, Organizations and Society 37 (2012) 281–303 Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect Accounting, Organizations and Society journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/aos