SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Optimum Ekonomi ve Yönetim Bilimleri Dergisi / 2019 / Cilt: 6 - Sayı: 2

Performance Based Budgeting in the Dutch Justice System

Hollanda Adalet Sisteminde Performans Esaslı Bütçeleme Uygulaması

Fatih DEYNELİ
Pages
185–208
Publication Date
2019-07-10
DOI
—
🏛️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 Council of the Judiciary, which is settled between the Ministry of Justice and the courts, has a regulatory and supervisory role in the budget process.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Today, most OECD countries use Performance Budgeting system.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Providing effective, economic and efficient use of public resources are the most important advantages of the Performance Budgeting system.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The Council of the Judiciary, which is settled between the Ministry of Justice and the courts, has a regulatory and supervisory role in the budget process.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Adalet bütçesi · Yargı Konseyi · Hollanda Adalet Sistemi

Abstract

Today, most OECD countries use Performance Budgeting system. Providing effective, economic and efficient use of public resources are the most important advantages of the Performance Budgeting system. However, especially in some public services, there are practical difficulties. One of the services which this problem occurs is the justice service. In this study, the justice budget will be examined in the Dutch case. The data used in the Netherlands are obtained from relevant laws, budget laws, reports of authorities, web pages of authorities, annual reports and strategic plans. The Council of the Judiciary, which is settled between the Ministry of Justice and the courts, has a regulatory and supervisory role in the budget process.

Özet

Günümüzde birçok OECD ülkesi Performans Esaslı Bütçeleme sistemini uygulamaktadır. Performans Esaslı Bütçeleme sistemi ile kamu kaynaklarının etkin, ekonomik ve verimli kullanılmasının sağlanabileceği konusu bu sistemin en önemli avantajları arasında yer almaktadır. Ancak, özellikle bazı kamu hizmetlerinde ortaya çıkan uygulama zorlukları da bulunmaktadır. Bu zorlukların ortaya çıktığı hizmetlerden biri de adalet hizmetleridir. Bu çalışmada, adalet hizmetlerinin bütçesi Hollanda örneğinde incelenecektir. Çalışmada Hollanda ile ilgili kullanılan veriler; Adalet Bakanlığı bütçe kanunlarından, ilgili diğer kanunlardan, ilgili makamların web sayfalarından, Yargı Konseyinin stratejik planlarından ve yıllık raporlarından elde edilmiştir. Adalet Bakanlığı ile mahkemeler arasında yer alan Yargı Konseyinin bütçe sürecinde düzenleyici ve denetleyici bir rolü vardır.

🔖

Cite This Article

DEYNELİ, F. (2019). Performance Based Budgeting in the Dutch Justice System. Optimum Ekonomi ve Yönetim Bilimleri Dergisi, Cilt: 6 - Sayı: 2, 185–208. https://ajindex.com/articles/34307

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (8)

  1. Beers, D. J. (2012). Judicial Self-Governance and the Rule of Law. Problems of Post-Communism, 59(5), 50–67. http://doi.org/10.2753/PPC1075-8216590504
  2. Blöndal, J. R., & Kristensen, J. K. (2002). Budgeting in the Netherlands. OECD Journal on Budgeting, 1(3), 43–80.
  3. Buscaglia, E., & Ulen, T. (1997). A quantitative assessment of the efficiency of the judicial sector in Latin America. International Review of Law and Economics, 17(2), 275–291. http://doi.org/10.1016/S0144-8188(97)00007-0
  4. CEPEJ. (2016). European judicial systems: Efficiency and quality of justice. Debets, R. (2007). Performance Budgeting in the Netherlands. OECD Journal on Budgeting, 7(4). Deyneli, F. (2010). Türkiye’de Adalet Ekonomisinin Karşılaştırmalı Analizi (Yayın No:). Ankara: T.C. MALİYE BAKANLIĞI Strateji Geliştirme Başkanlığı. Dijk, F. Van. (2014). Improved Performance Of The Netherlands Judiciary: Assessment Of The Gains For Society International Journal For Court Administration | June 2014, 6(1), 1–17.
  5. Dijk, F. Van, & Kouwenhoven, R. (2014). Judicial Reform in the Netherlands Change in broad outline. In Suzan Verberk (Ed.),. Hague. Erüz Ertan. (2005). 20. Türkiye Maliye Sempozyumu. In Yeni Mali Yönetim Yapısında Performans Esaslı Bütçeleme. Karahayıt/Pamukkale: T. C. Pamukkale Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Maliye Bölümü. Garoupa, N., & Ginsburg, T. (2009). Guarding the Guardians: Judicial Councils and Judicial Independence. American Journal of Comparative Law, 57(1), 103–134. http://doi.org/10.5131/ajcl.2008.0004
  6. Groszyk, W., Kromann Kristensen, J., & Bühler, B. (2002). Outcome-focused Management and Budgeting. OECD Journal on Budgeting, 1(4), 7–34. http://doi.org/10.1787/budget-v1-art20-en
  7. Holvast, N. (2017). In the shadow of the judge: the involvement of judicial assistants in dutch district courts. Eleven International Publishing. Kirat, T. (2010). Performance-Based Budgeting and Management of Judicial Courts in France: an Assessment. International Journal For Court Administration, 2(2), 12–20.
  8. Köhling, W. K. C. (2000). The Economic Consequences of a Weak Judiciary: Insights From India. BONN. Langbroek, P. M. (2010). Organization Development of the Dutch Judiciary, between Accountability and Judicial Independence. International Journal for Court Administration, 2(2). Langbroek, P. M. (2017, January 9). Organization Development of the Dutch Judiciary, between Accountability and Judicial Independence. Langbroek, P. M., Dijkstra, R. I., Bozorg Zadeh, K., & Tür