This article compares budgetary reforms in Singapore and Hong Kong. Despite similar reform measures being undertaken in line with the global reform trends under new public management, it is found that such reforms per se have not fundamentally altered the institutional configuration of the respective budgetary regimes. While greater financial autonomy and flexibility have been given to departments and ministries, resulting in the central budget agency (CBA) surrendering micro-budgetary control, the latter continues to play a strategic macro-budgetary role at the governmental level. Neither have budgetary relationships moved towards control by performance as implied by the ‘budgeting for results’ objective. Despite their commonalities, Hong Kong has lately displayed a weaker CBA than Singapore, largely due to extra-budgetary factors rooted in their different governance and institutional contexts. Copyright © 2006 IIAS, SAGE Publications (London, Thousand Oaks, CA and New Delhi).