Journals / Sakarya İktisat Dergisi / 2018 / Cilt: 7 - Sayı: 2

INCREMENTALISM IN TURKISH PUBLIC BUDGETING PROCESS: AN ECONOMETRIC ANALYSIS FOR 1985 – 2015 PERIOD

TÜRK KAMU BÜTÇELEME SÜRECİNDE ARTTIRIMCILIK: 1985-2015 YILLARI ARASI EKONOMETRİK BİR ANALİZ

Pages
69–91
Publication Date
2018-06-29
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)

Therefore, it is reached the result that there is incrementalism in budget process.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:When preparing public budgets, decision-makers consider many factors and prepare their budgets according to these factors.
📊
Key Findings & Data:For this reason, decision-makers concentrate on increases or decreases of appropriations instead of considering the whole factors.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Therefore, it is reached the result that there is incrementalism in budget process.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:2015 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Arttırımcılık · bütçeleme · devlet bütçesi

Abstract

When preparing public budgets, decision-makers consider many factors and prepare their budgets according to these factors. However, existing of many factors to be considered in the budget process pose difficulties to decision makers. For this reason, decision-makers concentrate on increases or decreases of appropriations instead of considering the whole factors. Because those considerations are difficult, time consuming and costly. Essentially the important point for decision-makers is that not losing or decreasing previous year’s appropriations. Under such conditions, decision makers prefer to choose incrementalism. In this study, it is analyzed by Swamy (1970) random coefficients regression method whether or not incremental budgeting is existed in 16 general and 31 special budget administrations during 1985-2015 periods. As a result, it is found that the administrations in this period have prepared appropriations based on previous period appropriations. Therefore, it is reached the result that there is incrementalism in budget process.

Özet

Kamu bütçeleri hazırlanırken karar alıcılar birçok faktörü göz önünde bulundurmakta ve bu faktörlere göre bütçelerini hazırlamaktadır. Ancak bütçelerin hazırlık sürecinde dikkate alınması gereken birçok faktörün yer alması karar alıcıları zorlamaktadır. Bu nedenle karar alıcılar tüm faktörleri değerlendirip bütçe tahminlerini belirlemekten çok, temel olarak bütçelerinde artış veya azalışlara odaklanmaktadırlar. Çünkü bu değerlendirmeler zor, zaman alıcı ve maliyetlidir. Karar alıcılar için aslında önemli olan şey en azından bir önceki dönem bütçe büyüklüklerini kaybetmemektir. Bu şartlar altında karar alıcıların tercihleri arttırımcılık yönünde olmaktadır. Bu çalışmada, Türk bütçe sisteminde 1985-2015 döneminde yer alan 16 genel bütçeli ve 31 özel bütçeli kuruluş ödenek tekliflerinde arttırımcı davranışlarının var olup olmadığı Swamy (1970) rassal katsayılar regresyon yardımıyla analiz edilmiştir. Sonuçta bu dönem içerisinde yer alan kuruluşların bütçe tekliflerinin, bir önceki dönem ödenek teklifleri temel alarak hazırlandığı tespit edilmiştir. Dolayısıyla bütçe sürecinde arttırımcılığın var olduğu sonucuna ulaşılmıştır.

🔖

Cite This Article

MOĞOL, T., KASAL, S. (2018). INCREMENTALISM IN TURKISH PUBLIC BUDGETING PROCESS: AN ECONOMETRIC ANALYSIS FOR 1985 – 2015 PERIOD. Sakarya İktisat Dergisi, Cilt: 7 - Sayı: 2, 69–91. https://ajindex.com/articles/843444

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (13)

  1. Anderson, S., & Harbridge, L. (2010). Incrementalism in Appropriations: Small Aggregation, Big Changes. Public Administration Review, 70(3), 464–474.
  2. Berry, W. D. (1990). The Confusing Case of Budgetary Incrementalism: Too Many Meanings for a Single Concept. The Journal of Politics, 52(1), 167–196.
  3. Boyne, G., Ashworth, R., & Powell, M. (2000). Testing The Limits of Incrementalism: An Empirical Analysis of Expenditure Decisions by English Local Authorities, 1981-1996. Public Administration, 78(1), 51–73. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9299.00192
  4. Breitung, Jörg; Pesaran, H. (2008). Unit Roots and Cointegration in Panels. In P. Matyas, Laszlo; Sevestre (Ed.), The Econometrics of Panel Data (3rd ed., pp. 279–323).
  5. Springer. Breunig, C., & Koski, C. (2012). The tortoise or the hare? Incrementalism, punctuations, and their consequences. Policy Studies Journal, 40(1), 45–68. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1541-0072.2011.00433.x Caamaño-Alegre, J., & Lago-Peñas, S. (2011). Combining incrementalism and exogenous factors in analyzing national budgeting: An application to Spain. Public Finance Review, 39(5), 712–740. https://doi.org/10.1177/1091142111412578
  6. Davis, O. A., Dempster, M. A. H., & Wildavsky, A. (1966a). A Theory of the Budgetary Process. The American Political Science Review, 60(3), 529–547.
  7. Davis, O. A., Dempster, M. A. H., & Wildavsky, A. (1966b). "On the Process of Budgeting: An Empirical Study of Congressional Appropriations." In Studies in Budgeting, eds. R.F. Byrne vd. Londra: North Holland Publishing, 292-373.
  8. Davis, O. A., Dempster, M. A. H., & Wildavsky, A. (1974). Towards a Predictive Theory of Government Expenditure: US Domestic Appropriations. British Journal of Political Science, 4(4), 419–452. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0007123400009650
  9. Dezhbakhsh, H., Tohamy, S. M., & Aranson, P. H. (2003). A new approach for testing budgetary incrementalism. The Journal of Politics, 65(2), 532–558. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2508.t01-3-00014
  10. Gist, J. R. (1974). Mandatory Expenditures and the Defense Sector: Theory of Budgetary Incrementalism. In B. R. Randall (Ed.), A Sage Professional Paper (pp. 5–39).
  11. London. Hsiao, C. (2014). Analysis of panel data 3th Edition. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511754203
  12. Kleiber, C., & Lupi, C. (2011). Panel Unit Root Testing with R. Department of Economics, Management and Social Sciences (SEGeS) University of Molise, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1002/wics.10
  13. Lindblom, C. E. (1959). The Science of “Muddl