Bibliometric analysis reveals a paradigm shift in public financial management scholarship toward sustainability and digital governance, highlighting an expanding global research agenda.
Public financial management (PFM) research has expanded considerably over the past twenty-five years, yet its intellectual evolution toward sustainability, digital governance, and fiscal resilience has not been comprehensively mapped. This study presents a bibliometric analysis of PFM research published between 2001 and 2025. Using a dataset of 358 Scopus-indexed publications, the study employs performance analysis, keyword co-occurrence, co-authorship, country collaboration, and co-citation analyses to examine the conceptual, intellectual, and collaborative development of the field. The findings show that early PFM scholarship was primarily grounded in New Public Management, accounting reforms, and fiscal transparency. At the same time, more recent research has expanded to encompass governance, institutional capacity, sustainability, digital transformation, artificial intelligence, and crisis resilience. Collaboration patterns reveal the continued prominence of Anglo-American research networks alongside growing contributions from developing economies. At the same time, the field’s intellectual foundation remains rooted in institutional governance, fiscal transparency, and public expenditure management. Overall, the findings suggest that PFM research is undergoing a process of paradigm expansion in which traditional accounting and accountability perspectives are increasingly complemented by sustainability, governance, and digital innovation. By systematically mapping the evolution of PFM scholarship, this study provides a comprehensive overview of the field’s intellectual structure and identifies emerging research priorities related to climate-responsive budgeting, digital governance, and sustainable fiscal management.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Mohamed et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: