SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Muhasebe Bilim Dünyası Dergisi / 2026 / Cilt: 28 Sayı: 3

ASSESSING GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTING STANDARDS IN TERMS OF FINANCIAL ACCOUNTABILITY AND APPLICABILITY: A PERCEPTIONS OF STATE UNIVERSITY PERSONNEL IN TÜRKİYE

DEVLET MUHASEBESİ STANDARTLARININ MALİ HESAP VEREBİLİRLİK VE UYGULANABİLİRLİK AÇISINDAN DEĞERLENDİRİLMESİ: DEVLET ÜNİVERSİTELERİ PERSONELİ ÜZERİNE BİR ALGI ARAŞTIRMASI

Oğuz Kuyumcu(ISPARTA UYGULAMALI BİLİMLER ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0000-0003-4153-7210
Osman Bayri(SÜLEYMAN DEMİREL ÜNİVERSİTESİ, İKTİSADİ VE İDARİ BİLİMLER FAKÜLTESİ, İŞLETME BÖLÜMÜ)0000-0003-2837-0778
Pages
321–358
Publication Date
2026-09-27
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

The findings indicate positive and statistically significant associations between GAS dimensions and perceived financial accountability.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:This study examines personnel perceptions of Government Accounting Standards (GAS) at state universities in Türkiye in terms of financial accountability and applicability.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Data from 261 valid survey responses were analyzed using frequency analysis, Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA), independent- samples t-tests, one-way ANOVA, and Pearson correlation analysis.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The findings indicate positive and statistically significant associations between GAS dimensions and perceived financial accountability.
🔬Design:Survey & Empirical Study
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Devlet Muhasebesi Standartları · Hesap Verebilirlik · Uygulanabilirlik

Abstract

This study examines personnel perceptions of Government Accounting Standards (GAS) at state universities in Türkiye in terms of financial accountability and applicability. Data from 261 valid survey responses were analyzed using frequency analysis, Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA), independent- samples t-tests, one-way ANOVA, and Pearson correlation analysis. EFA revealed an eight-dimensional structure. The findings indicate positive and statistically significant associations between GAS dimensions and perceived financial accountability. The strongest association was found between governance and enhancing accountability. The relatively lower perception of technological infrastructure and human resources highlights the need to support GAS implementation with adequate technical infrastructure and human capacity.

Özet

Bu çalışmada, Türkiye’deki devlet üniversitelerinde Devlet Muhasebesi Standartlarının (DMS) mali hesap verebilirlik ve uygulanabilirliğine ilişkin personel algıları incelenmektedir. Araştırmada 261 geçerli anket yanıtı; frekans analizi, Açımlayıcı Faktör Analizi (AFA), bağımsız örneklem t-testi, tek yönlü ANOVA ve Pearson korelasyon analizi kullanılarak değerlendirilmiştir. AFA sonucunda sekiz boyutlu yapı elde edilmiştir. Bulgular, DMS boyutları ile mali hesap verebilirlik algısı arasında pozitif ve istatistiksel olarak anlamlı ilişkiler bulunduğunu göstermektedir. En güçlü ilişki yönetişim ile hesap verebilirliğin artırılması arasında belirlenmiştir. Bununla birlikte, teknolojik altyapı ve insan kaynağı boyutunun görece düşük düzeyde algılanması, DMS uygulamalarının teknik altyapı ve beşerî kapasiteyle desteklenmesi gerektiğine işaret etmektedir.

🔖

Cite This Article

Kuyumcu, O., Bayri, O. (2026). ASSESSING GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTING STANDARDS IN TERMS OF FINANCIAL ACCOUNTABILITY AND APPLICABILITY: A PERCEPTIONS OF STATE UNIVERSITY PERSONNEL IN TÜRKİYE. Muhasebe Bilim Dünyası Dergisi, Cilt: 28 Sayı: 3, 321–358. https://doi.org/10.31460/mbdd.1737486

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (81)

  1. Acar, D., & Akçakanat, Ö. (2012a). Devlet üniversitelerinin muhasebe birimlerinin iç kontrol sistemine ilişkin algı düzeyleri ile mevcut uygulamalarının karşılaştırılması. Selçuk Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, (28), 1-17.
  2. Acar, D., & Akçakanat, Ö. (2012b). Özel bütçeli idarelerden üniversitelerin muhasebe birimlerinin iç kontrol uygulamalarına yönelik bir araştırma. Muhasebe ve Denetime Bakış, (37), 25-46.
  3. Ada, S. S., & Christiaens, J. (2018). The magic shoes of IPSAS: Will they fit Turkey? Transylvanian Review of Administrative Sciences, 14(54), 5–21. https://doi.org/10.24193/tras.54E.1
  4. Ademola, A. O., Ben-Caleb, E., Madugba, J. U., Adegboyegun, A. E., & Eluyela, D. F. (2020). International Public Sector Accounting Standards (IPSAS) adoption and implementation in Nigerian public sector. International Journal of Financial Research, 11(1), 434-444.
  5. Aksoy, M. (2022). Kamu mali yönetiminde mali saydamlık ve hesap verebilirliğin sağlanmasında Sayıştay raporlarının etkinlik düzeyi. International Journal of Public Finance, 7(1), 181-210. https://doi.org/10.30927/ijpf.1053866
  6. Aktan, C. C., & Kuyumcu, O. (2026). Mali devlet ve mali yurttaşlık. Organizasyon ve Yönetim Bilimleri Dergisi, 18(Özel Sayı), 14-30.
  7. Alshujairi, M. H. (2014). Government accounting system reform and the adoption of IPSAS in Iraq. Research Journal of Finance and Accounting, 5(24), 1–20.
  8. Andrews, M. (2013). The limits of institutional reform in development. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
  9. Augusto, D. N. (2018). The impact of IPSAS on public sector accounting quality in Zimbabwe. International Journal of Accounting and Financial Reporting, 8(1), 35–53.
  10. Avidar, R. (2013). The responsiveness pyramid: Embedding responsiveness and interactivity into public relations theory. Public Relations Review, 39(5), 440-450. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2013.05.004
  11. Babatunde, S. A. (2017). Implementing International Public Sector Accounting Standards in Nigeria: Issues and challenges. International Journal of Business, Economics and Law, 12(1), 52–61.
  12. Bakre, O. M., McCartney, S., & Fayemi, S. O. (2022). Accounting as a technology of neoliberalism: The accountability role of IPSAS in Nigeria. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 87, 102282. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpa.2020.102282
  13. Ball, C. (2009). What is transparency? Public Integrity, 11(4), 293-308.
  14. Bastani, P., Vatankhah, S., Salehi, M., & Dinarvand, R. (2013). Strategic points of Iranian health financial reform applying shanonn's entropy model. Journal of Applied Environmental and Biological Sciences, 3(10), 7-81.
  15. Bayri, O. (2006). Hesap verebilirlik ve hesaplaşabilirlik (Accountability) kavram ve kültürü içinde muhasebenin rolü ve önemi. Muhasebe Bilim Dünyası Dergisi, 8(2), 125-148.
  16. Benito, B., Brusca, I., & Montesinos, V. (2007). The harmonization of government financial information systems: the role of the IPSASs. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 73(2), 293-317. https://doi.org/10.1177/0020852307078424
  17. Berger, T. M. M. (2012). IPSAS explained: A summary of international public sector accounting standards. John Wiley & Sons.
  18. Bertok, J., Caddy, J., & Ruffner, M. (2002). Making it happen: Developing policy guidelines for accountability and transparency. In Public Sector Transparency and Accountability: Making it Happen. OECD.
  19. Bovens, M. (2007). Analysing and assessing accountability: A conceptual framework1. European Law Journal, 13(4), 447-468. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0386.2007.00378.x
  20. Bovens, M. (2010). Two concepts of accountability: accountability as a virtue and as a mechanism. West European Politics, 33(5), 946-967. https://doi.org/10.1080/01402382.2010.486119
  21. Breakenridge, D. K. (2008). PR 2.0: New Media, New Tools, New Audiences. United States of America, Ft Press.
  22. Brinkerhoff, D. W. (2001). Taking account of accountability: A conceptual overview and strategic options. Draft Report, US Agency for International Development, Center for Democracy and Governance, Implementing Policy Change Project, Phase, 2.
  23. Burke, C. S., Sims, D. E., Lazzara, E. H., & Salas, E. (2007). Trust in leadership: A multi-level review and ıntegration. The Leadership Quarterly, 18(6), 606-632. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1016/j.leaqua.2007.09.006
  24. Caiden, G. E. (1988). The vitality of administrative reform. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 54(3), 331-357. https://doi.org/10.1177/002085238805400301
  25. Chan, J. L. (2003). Government accounting: an assessment of theory, purposes and standards. Public Money & Management, 23(1), 13-20. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9302.00336
  26. Christiaens, J., Vanhee, C., Manes-Rossi, F., Aversano, N., & Van Cauwenberge, P. (2015). The effect of IPSAS on reforming governmental financial reporting: An international comparison. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 81(1), 158-177. https://doi.org/10.1177/0020852314546580
  27. Demirkıran, Ö., Eser, H. B., & Keklik, B. (2011). Demokrasinin tabana yayılması, yönetimde şeffaflık ve hesap verebilirlik bağlamında bilgi edinme hakkı kanunu. Uluslararası Alanya İşletme Fakültesi Dergisi, 3(2), 1-23.
  28. Devlet Muhasebesi Standartları Kurulu. (2025). DMSK 2025 yıllık raporu. T.C. Hazine ve Maliye Bakanlığı, Muhasebat Genel Müdürlüğü. https://ms.hmb.gov.tr/uploads/2026/03/DMSK-2025- Yillik-Raporu-d90b005ba0b5537c.pdf (Erişim Tarihi: 26.03.2025).
  29. DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American sociological review, 48(2), 147-160. https://doi.org/10.2307/2095101
  30. Ertan, S. (2023). Devlet muhasebesi standartlarına göre hazırlanan finansal tabloların kamu sektöründe hesap verebilirliğe etkisi. (Tez numarası.780407) [Doktora tezi, Zonguldak Bülent Ecevit Üniversitesi]. YÖK Ulusal Tez Merkezi.
  31. Forrer, J., Kee, J. E., Newcomer, K. E., & Boyer, E. (2010). Public–private partnerships and the public accountability question. Public Administration Review, 70(3), 475–484. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2010.02161.x
  32. Grossi, G., Vakkuri, J. & Sargiacomo, M. (2022), Accounting, performance and accountability challenges in hybrid organisations: a value creation perspective, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 35(3), 577-597. https://doi.org/10.1108/AAAJ-10-2021-5503
  33. Grossi, G., & Soverchia, M. (2011). European Commission adoption of IPSAS to reform financial reporting. Abacus, 47(4), 525-552. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6281.2011.00353.x
  34. Gül, S. K. (2008). Kamu yönetiminde ve güvenlik hizmetlerinde hesap verebilirlik. Polis Bilimleri Dergisi, 10(4), 71-94.
  35. Hale, T. N. (2008). Transparency, accountability, and global governance. Global Governance, 73-94.
  36. Hart, H. L. A. (2008). Punishment and responsibility: Essays in the philosophy of law. Oxford University Press.
  37. Hughes, O. E. (2003). Public management and administration: An introduction (3. Baskı). Palgrave Macmillan.
  38. International Public Sector Accounting Standards Board (IPSASB). (2024). The Conceptual Framework for General Purpose Financial Reporting by Public Sector Entities. In 2024 Handbook of International Public Sector Accounting Pronouncements. IPSASB.
  39. Ismaili, A., Ismajli, H., & Vokshi, N. (2021). The importance and challenges of the implementation of IPSAS accrual basis to the public sector: the case of Kosovo. Accounting, 7(5), 1109-1118. http://dx.doi.org/10.5267/j.ac.2021.2.028
  40. Javed, M., & Zhuquan, W. (2018). Analysis of accounting reforms in the public sector of Pakistan and adoption of cash basis IPSAS. Universal Journal of Accounting and Finance, 6(2), 47-53. http://dx.doi.org/10.13189/ujaf.2018.060203
  41. Jayasinghe, K., Adhikari, P., Soobaroyen, T., Wynne, A., Malagila, J., & Noah, A. (2021). Government accounting reforms in Sub-Saharan African countries and the selective ignorance of the epistemic community: A competing logics perspective. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 78, 102246. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpa.2020.102246
  42. Jones, S. (2005). Notes of the University of Sydney pacioli society. Abacus, 41(2), 211. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6281.2005.00176.x
  43. Kartalcı, K. (2019). Türkiye’de devlet muhasebesi reformunda güncel gelişmeler. Fırat Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 29(1), 261-276. https://doi.org/10.18069/firatsbed.538693
  44. Karagöz, Y. (2019). SPSS 23 ve AMOS 23 uygulamalı istatistiksel analizler (2. Baskı). Nobel Akademik Yayıncılık.
  45. Khan, A., & Mayes, S. (2009). Transition to accrual accounting (No. 2009/002). International Monetary Fund. 47-48.
  46. Kimani, D., Ullah, S., Kodwani, D., & Akhtar, P. (2021). Analysing corporate governance and accountability practices from an African neo-patrimonialism perspective: Insights from Kenya. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 78, 102260. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpa.2020.102260
  47. Knir, M., Petrucha, S., & Kryvoruchko, Y. (2019). Accountability Theory and its implication in public finance. Naukovi Pratsi NDFI, 47-58. https://dx.doi.org/10.33763/npndfi2019.04.047
  48. Kondo, S. (2002). Fostering Dialogue to Strengthen Good Governance. In Public Sector Transparency and Accountability: Making it Happen, OECD 7-13.
  49. Kılıç, S. (2016). Cronbach's Alpha Reliability Coefficient. Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, 6(1),
  50. Koppell, J. G. (2005). Pathologies of Accountability: ICANN and the Challenge of “Multiple Accountabilities Disorder”. Public Administration Review, 65(1), 94-108. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2005.00434.x
  51. Krejcie, R. V., & Morgan, D. W. (1970). Determining sample size for research activities. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 30(3), 607-610. https://doi.org/10.1177/001316447003000308
  52. Kuyumcu, O. (2022). Türkiye’de devlet muhasebesi ve standartlaşma süreci, İçinde Z. Karacagil ve M. Bulut (Ed.), Sosyal Bilimlerinde Güncel Tartışmalar 10, 1. Baskı, Ankara, Bilgin Kültür Sanat Yayınları, 429-440.
  53. Kuyumcu, O. (2024a). Devlet muhasebe standartlarının hesap verebilirlik ve uygulanabilirlik açısından incelenmesi: Devlet üniversitelerinde bir araştırma. (Tez numarası.873939) [Doktora tezi, Süleyman Demirel Üniversitesi]. YÖK Ulusal Tez Merkezi.
  54. Kuyumcu, O. (2024b). Uluslararası ve ulusal muhasebe standartları açısından Sayıştay denetim bulguları: Yükseköğretim kurumları örneği. Sayıştay Dergisi, 35(135), 601-633. https://doi.org/10.52836/sayistay.1571678
  55. Kuyumcu, O. (2024c). Kamu ve özel sektör muhasebesi kavramsal çerçevelerinin karşılaştırmalı analizi. Maliye Dergisi, 187, 221-246.
  56. Kuyumcu, O. (2025). Yükseköğretim kurumlarında iç kontrol: Sayıştay denetim raporları üzerine bir araştırma. Denetişim Dergisi, (32), 131-147. https://doi.org/10.58348/denetisim.1578369
  57. Kuyumcu, O. (2026). Yeni kamu işletmeciliği anlayışında denetimin rolü: DMS 1 ve TMS 1 bağlamında Sayıştay ve bağımsız denetimin karşılaştırılması. Muhasebe ve Vergi Uygulamaları Dergisi, 19, 221- 249. https://doi.org/10.29067/muvu.1788363
  58. Maali, B. M., & Morshed, A. (2025). Impact of IPSAS Adoption on Governance and Corruption: A Comparative Study of Southern Europe. Journal of Risk and Financial Management, 18(2), 67. https://doi.org/10.3390/jrfm18020067
  59. Manning, M. M. (2008). How to discuss accountability with educators or the external stakeholders' guide to the accountability galaxy. On the Horizon, 16(2), 97-106. https://doi.org/10.1108/10748120810874496
  60. Masoud, N. (2025). Global insights on public sector accounting reforms: A comprehensive study on the adoption, implementation, and impact of IFRS and IPSAS. Accounting Research Journal, 38(1), 80- 105. https://doi.org/10.1108/ARJ-06-2024-0228
  61. Mayers, A. (2013). Introduction to statistics and SPSS in social sciences. Pearson.
  62. Mulgan, R. (2002). Accountability Issues in the new model of governance. Discussion Paper, (No: 91), 1-14.
  63. Oulasvirta, L. (2014). The reluctance of a developed country to choose International Public Sector Accounting Standards of the IFAC. A critical case study. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 25(3), 272-285. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpa.2012.12.001
  64. Özbaran, M. H. (2000). Kamu kesiminde hesap verme sorumluluğu uygulamalarının modernizasyonu. Sayıştay Dergisi, (39), 114-126.
  65. Parlak, B. (2011). Kamu yönetiminde yeni vizyonlar. Alfa Aktüel Yayınları.
  66. Polzer, T., Gårseth-Nesbakk, L., & Adhikari, P. (2020). “Does your walk match your talk?” Analyzing IPSASs diffusion in developing and developed countries. International Journal of Public Sector Management, 33(2-3), 117-139. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJPSM-03-2019-0071
  67. Premchand, A. (1999). Public financial accountability. S. Schiavo-Campo (Ed.), In Governance, corruption, and public financial management In (ss. 137-193). Asian Development Bank.
  68. Romzek, B. S. (2000). Dynamics of public sector accountability in an era of reform. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 66(1), 21–44. https://doi.org/10.1177/0020852300661004
  69. Saeed, M. M. (2025). Factors affecting the implementation of the international public sector accounting standards (IPSAS) in Ghana. International Journal of Public Administration, 48(15), 1011-1024. https://doi.org/10.1080/01900692.2024.2440926
  70. Sakal, M., & Demirhan, H. (2017). Hesap Verebilirliğin Koppell’in Hesap Verebilirlik Boyutları Çerçevesinde İncelenmesi, İçinde Yeni Ekonomik Eğilimler ve İş Fırsatları, Manisa Celal Bayar Üniversitesi Matbaası, 506-517.
  71. Sayıştay. (2025a). 2024 yılı dış denetim genel değerlendirme raporu. T.C. Sayıştay Başkanlığı.
  72. Sayıştay. (2025b). 2024 yılı faaliyet genel değerlendirme raporu. T.C. Sayıştay Başkanlığı.
  73. Scannell, S., & Tawiah, V. (2024). A Thematic Literature Review on International Public Sector Accounting Standards (IPSAS). Public Organization Review, 24(3), 1053-1075. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11115-024-00773-1
  74. Schmidthuber, L., Hilgers, D., & Hofmann, S. (2022). International Public Sector Accounting Standards (IPSASs): A systematic literature review and future research agenda. Financial Accountability & Management, 38(1), 119-142. https://doi.org/10.1111/faam.12265
  75. Scott, W. R. (2014). Institutions and organizations. Ideas, interests and identities. M@n@gement, 17(2), 136-140. https://doi.org/10.3917/mana.172.0136
  76. Tabachnick, B. G., Fidell, L. S., & Ullman, J. B. (2013). Using multivariate statistics (6. Baskı). Pearson.
  77. Tawiah, V. (2023). The effect of IPSAS adoption on governance quality: Evidence from developing and developed countries. Public Organization Review, 23(1), 305-324. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11115- 022-00625-w
  78. Tutar, H., & Altınöz, M. (2017). Hesap verebilirlik bağlamında iç denetim ve sorun alanları: eleştirel bir analiz. Bartın Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 8(15), 225-248.
  79. Vinten, G. (1992). Accountability, IIA-UK style: An example not to be imitated. Managerial Auditing Journal, 7(4). 12-14. https://doi.org/10.1108/02686909210012815
  80. Yakupçebioğlu, N. S. (2023). Türkiye'de tahakkuk esaslı devlet muhasebesi ve devlet muhasebesi standartları uygulamaları. (Tez numarası.826378) [Doktora tezi, Niğde Ömer Halisdemir Üniversitesi]. YÖK Ulusal Tez Merkezi.
  81. Yılmaz İnce, E., Kuyumcu, O., & İnce, M. (2026). XAI-Supported Multi-Algorithm Budget Forecasting Model: Analysis of Türkiye’s Fiscal Sustainability and Parameter Importances for the Period 1999– 2024. Journal of Mehmet Akif Ersoy University Economics and Administrative Sciences Faculty, 13(1), 356-377. https://doi.org/10.30798/makuiibf.1764796