Research Article
BibTex RIS Cite

BUDGETING SYSTEMS AND THEIR APPLICABILITY IN PUBLIC SECTOR

Year 2001, Issue: 17, 17 - 36, 31.12.2001

Muhlis Bagdigen

Abstract

Views on the need for a public budget have varied över time. Before the tvventieth century, the chief reason for the early application to the budget was a desire to control public spending and taxation. The mid-twentieth century saw majör worldwide changes in socio-economic circumstances and therefore in budgeting. Keynesian thinking had led many economists to consider the public budget not only as legislative govemmental tool, but also as an instrument for political, economic, accounting, and adnlinistrative of the public sector. Since then, the budget has been examined from the vievvpoint of a number of disciplines.

This paper analyzes the issue of budgeting and budgeting systems with special reference to TBS, PBS and PPBS and their applicability in public sector. Comparisons of these systems have shown that although TBS is used widely within the public sector, PPBS is, hovvever, dominated as the most functional one to apply for budgeting.

Keywords

bütçeleme sistemleri bütçe oluşturma kamu sektöründe uygulanabilirliği

References

  • BABUNAKIS, M. (1976) Budgets: An Analytical and Procedural Hand Book For Government and Non-profit Organization Greenwood press, London.
  • BURKHEAD, J. (1956) Government Budgeting John Wiley and Sons, Inc., London.
  • CAIDEN, N. (1989) “A New Perspective On Budgetary Reform” Australian Journal of Public Administration, vol. 48, no. 1, pp. 53-60.
  • CARPSON, W. M. (1968) “Development of Cost-Effectiveness System in the Federal Government” in CARTLAND, R. L. (1968) Information Support, Program Budgeting and the Congress Sapaetan Books, New York.
  • DREW, E. R. (1969) “HEW Grapples With PPBS” ed. JAMES W. D. (1969) Politics, Programs and Budgets Prentice-Hall, Inc., Englevvood Cliffs, Ne w Jersey.
  • ECKSTEIN, O. (1973) Public Finance 3rd Edition, Prentice-Hall Inc., Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, p. 28.
  • EDİZDOĞAN, N. (1991) Kamu Bütçesi Ekin Kitabevi, Bursa.
  • FISHER, G. H. (1967) The Role of Cost-Utility Analysis in Program Budgeting
  • Harvard University Press, 2nd Edition, p. 77)
  • GORDON, L. A. and HEIVILIN, K. M. (1982) “Zero Base Budgeting in the Federal Government: An Historical Perspective” in KAVASSARI, V. R. and LARRY, P. H. (1982) Management Control in Non-Profit Organizations John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York, p. 319.
  • HEALD, D. (1987) Pubic Expenditure Basil Blackwell Ltd., London.
  • HOWARD, S. K. (1973) Changing State Budgeting Council of State Governments, Lexington, Ky.
  • HUET, P.; MORISSENS, M. L.; HATRY, H. P. and WDLDAVSKY, A., 1975 Bütçe Tercihlerinde Rasyonalizasyon (Çev. A. Yaman), Maliye Bakanlığı Tetkik Kurulu Neşriyatı, No: 167, Ankara.
  • JONES, R. and PENDLEBURY, M. (1992) Public Sector Accounting Pitman Publishing, 3rd Edition, London.
  • KEY, V. O. (1940) “The Lack of A Budgetary Theory” American Political Science Review, vol. 34, December, pp. 1137-1144.
  • KNEZEVICH, S. J. (1973) Program Budgeting: PPBS McCutchan Publishing Co„ Berkeley.
  • LEE, R D. (1997) "A Quarter Century of State Budgeting Practices" Public kdministration Review, v. 57, no. 2, pp. 133-140.
  • LEWIS, V. B. (1988) “Reflections on Budget Systems” Public Budgeting and Finance, Spring, pp. 4-19.
  • MELKERS, J. and WİLLOUGHBY, K. (1998) "The State of the States: Performance-Based Budgeting Requirements in 47 out of 50" Public Administration Review, v. 58, no. 1, pp.66-73.
  • MUSGRAVE, R. A. (1989) Public Finance In Theory and Practice 5th Edition, McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York.
  • PREMCHAND, A. (1983) Government Budgeting And Expenditure Controls: Theory And Practice International Monetary Fund, Washington, pp. 33839.
  • PYHRR, P. A. (1973) Zero-Base Budgeting John Wiley and Sons, New York.
  • RUBIN, I. S. (1992) "Budget Reform and Political Reform: Conclusion from Six Cities" Public Administration Review, v. 52, no. 5, pp. 454-466.
  • SCHICK, A. (1972) “The Road to PPBS: The Stages of Budget Reform” in LYDEN, F. J. and MİLLER, E. G. (1972) Planning Programming Budgeting: A Systems Approach To Management Rand McNally College Publishing Co., 2nd Edition, Chicago.
  • SCHICK, A. (1971) Budget Innovation in the States The Brookings Institution, Washington, D.C.
  • SCHULTZE, C. L. (1968) The Politics and Economics of Public Spending The
  • Brookings Institution, Washington, C.D.
  • SCHULTZE, C. L. (1966) The Politics and Economics of Public Spending The
  • Brookings Institution, Washington, D.C.
  • SHULTZ, W. J. and HARRIS, C. L. (1965) American Public Finance Prentice-Hall Inc., 8th Edition, New Jersey.
  • SMITHEES, A. (1967) “Conceptual Framevvork for the Program Budget” ed. NOVICK, D. (1967) Program Budgeting Harvard University Press, 2nd Edition, Cambridge, p. 29.
  • SMITHIES, A. (1965) Conceptual Framework for the Program Budget: Program Budgeting, Program Analysis, and the Federal Budget, ei.
  • David Norvick, Harvard University Press, Cambridge.
  • SHOUP, C. S. (1970) Public Finance Aidine Publishing Company, 2nd Edition, Chicago.
  • WILDAVSKY, A. (1974) The Politics Of The Budgetary Process Little, Bıown and Company, Inc., 2nd Edition, Boston.
  • WILDAVSKY, A. (1964) The Politics Of The Budgetary Process Little, Brown and Company, Inc., Boston.

BUDGETING SYSTEMS AND THEIR APPLICABILITY IN PUBLIC SECTOR

Year 2001, Issue: 17, 17 - 36, 31.12.2001

Muhlis Bagdigen

Abstract

Views on the need for a public budget have varied över time. Before the tvventieth century, the chief reason for the early application to the budget was a desire to control public spending and taxation. The mid-twentieth century saw majör worldwide changes in socio-economic circumstances and therefore in budgeting. Keynesian thinking had led many economists to consider the public budget not only as legislative govemmental tool, but also as an instrument for political, economic, accounting, and adnlinistrative of the public sector. Since then, the budget has been examined from the vievvpoint of a number of disciplines.


This paper analyzes the issue of budgeting and budgeting systems with special reference to TBS, PBS and PPBS and their applicability in public sector. Comparisons of these systems have shown that although TBS is used widely within the public sector, PPBS is, hovvever, dominated as the most functional one to apply for budgeting.

Keywords

budgeting systems applicability in public sector issue of budgeting

References

  • BABUNAKIS, M. (1976) Budgets: An Analytical and Procedural Hand Book For Government and Non-profit Organization Greenwood press, London.
  • BURKHEAD, J. (1956) Government Budgeting John Wiley and Sons, Inc., London.
  • CAIDEN, N. (1989) “A New Perspective On Budgetary Reform” Australian Journal of Public Administration, vol. 48, no. 1, pp. 53-60.
  • CARPSON, W. M. (1968) “Development of Cost-Effectiveness System in the Federal Government” in CARTLAND, R. L. (1968) Information Support, Program Budgeting and the Congress Sapaetan Books, New York.
  • DREW, E. R. (1969) “HEW Grapples With PPBS” ed. JAMES W. D. (1969) Politics, Programs and Budgets Prentice-Hall, Inc., Englevvood Cliffs, Ne w Jersey.
  • ECKSTEIN, O. (1973) Public Finance 3rd Edition, Prentice-Hall Inc., Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, p. 28.
  • EDİZDOĞAN, N. (1991) Kamu Bütçesi Ekin Kitabevi, Bursa.
  • FISHER, G. H. (1967) The Role of Cost-Utility Analysis in Program Budgeting
  • Harvard University Press, 2nd Edition, p. 77)
  • GORDON, L. A. and HEIVILIN, K. M. (1982) “Zero Base Budgeting in the Federal Government: An Historical Perspective” in KAVASSARI, V. R. and LARRY, P. H. (1982) Management Control in Non-Profit Organizations John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York, p. 319.
  • HEALD, D. (1987) Pubic Expenditure Basil Blackwell Ltd., London.
  • HOWARD, S. K. (1973) Changing State Budgeting Council of State Governments, Lexington, Ky.
  • HUET, P.; MORISSENS, M. L.; HATRY, H. P. and WDLDAVSKY, A., 1975 Bütçe Tercihlerinde Rasyonalizasyon (Çev. A. Yaman), Maliye Bakanlığı Tetkik Kurulu Neşriyatı, No: 167, Ankara.
  • JONES, R. and PENDLEBURY, M. (1992) Public Sector Accounting Pitman Publishing, 3rd Edition, London.
  • KEY, V. O. (1940) “The Lack of A Budgetary Theory” American Political Science Review, vol. 34, December, pp. 1137-1144.
  • KNEZEVICH, S. J. (1973) Program Budgeting: PPBS McCutchan Publishing Co„ Berkeley.
  • LEE, R D. (1997) "A Quarter Century of State Budgeting Practices" Public kdministration Review, v. 57, no. 2, pp. 133-140.
  • LEWIS, V. B. (1988) “Reflections on Budget Systems” Public Budgeting and Finance, Spring, pp. 4-19.
  • MELKERS, J. and WİLLOUGHBY, K. (1998) "The State of the States: Performance-Based Budgeting Requirements in 47 out of 50" Public Administration Review, v. 58, no. 1, pp.66-73.
  • MUSGRAVE, R. A. (1989) Public Finance In Theory and Practice 5th Edition, McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York.
  • PREMCHAND, A. (1983) Government Budgeting And Expenditure Controls: Theory And Practice International Monetary Fund, Washington, pp. 33839.
  • PYHRR, P. A. (1973) Zero-Base Budgeting John Wiley and Sons, New York.
  • RUBIN, I. S. (1992) "Budget Reform and Political Reform: Conclusion from Six Cities" Public Administration Review, v. 52, no. 5, pp. 454-466.
  • SCHICK, A. (1972) “The Road to PPBS: The Stages of Budget Reform” in LYDEN, F. J. and MİLLER, E. G. (1972) Planning Programming Budgeting: A Systems Approach To Management Rand McNally College Publishing Co., 2nd Edition, Chicago.
  • SCHICK, A. (1971) Budget Innovation in the States The Brookings Institution, Washington, D.C.
  • SCHULTZE, C. L. (1968) The Politics and Economics of Public Spending The
  • Brookings Institution, Washington, C.D.
  • SCHULTZE, C. L. (1966) The Politics and Economics of Public Spending The
  • Brookings Institution, Washington, D.C.
  • SHULTZ, W. J. and HARRIS, C. L. (1965) American Public Finance Prentice-Hall Inc., 8th Edition, New Jersey.
  • SMITHEES, A. (1967) “Conceptual Framevvork for the Program Budget” ed. NOVICK, D. (1967) Program Budgeting Harvard University Press, 2nd Edition, Cambridge, p. 29.
  • SMITHIES, A. (1965) Conceptual Framework for the Program Budget: Program Budgeting, Program Analysis, and the Federal Budget, ei.
  • David Norvick, Harvard University Press, Cambridge.
  • SHOUP, C. S. (1970) Public Finance Aidine Publishing Company, 2nd Edition, Chicago.
  • WILDAVSKY, A. (1974) The Politics Of The Budgetary Process Little, Bıown and Company, Inc., 2nd Edition, Boston.
  • WILDAVSKY, A. (1964) The Politics Of The Budgetary Process Little, Brown and Company, Inc., Boston.
There are 36 citations in total.

Details

Primary Language English
Journal Section Makaleler
Authors

Muhlis Bagdigen This is me

Publication Date December 31, 2001
Published in Issue Year 2001 Issue: 17

Cite

APA Bagdigen, M. (2001). BUDGETING SYSTEMS AND THEIR APPLICABILITY IN PUBLIC SECTOR. Erciyes Üniversitesi İktisadi Ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi(17), 17-36.

Ethical Principles and Ethical Guidelines

The Journal of Erciyes University Faculty of Economics and Administrative Sciences places great emphasis on publication ethics, which serve as a foundation for the impartial and reputable advancement of scientific knowledge. In this context, the journal adopts a publishing approach aligned with the ethical standards set by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and is committed to preventing potential malpractice. The following ethical responsibilities, established based on COPE’s principles, are expected to be upheld by all stakeholders involved in the publication process (authors, readers and researchers, publishers, reviewers, and editors).

Ethical Responsibilities of Editors
Make decisions on submissions based on the quality and originality of the work, its alignment with the journal's aims and scope, and the reviewers’ evaluations, regardless of the authors' religion, language, race, ethnicity, political views, or gender.
Respond to information requests from readers, authors, and reviewers regarding the publication and evaluation processes.
Conduct all processes without compromising ethical standards and intellectual property rights.
Support freedom of thought and protect human and animal rights.
Ensure the peer review process adheres to the principle of double-blind peer review.
Take full responsibility for accepting, rejecting, or requesting changes to a manuscript and ensure that conflicts of interest among stakeholders do not influence these decisions.
Ethical Responsibilities of Authors
Submitted works must be original. When utilizing other works, proper and complete citations and/or references must be provided.
A manuscript must not be under review by another journal simultaneously.
Individuals who have not contributed to the experimental design, implementation, data analysis, or interpretation should not be listed as authors.
If requested during the review process, datasets used in the manuscript must be provided to the editorial board.
If a significant error or mistake is discovered in the manuscript, the journal’s editorial office must be notified.
For studies requiring ethical committee approval, the relevant document must be submitted to the journal. Details regarding the ethical approval (name of the ethics committee, approval document number, and date) must be included in the manuscript.
Changes to authorship (e.g., adding or removing authors, altering the order of authors) cannot be proposed after the review process has commenced.
Ethical Responsibilities of Reviewers
Accept review assignments only in areas where they have sufficient expertise.
Agree to review manuscripts in a timely and unbiased manner.
Ensure confidentiality of the reviewed manuscript and not disclose any information about it, during or after the review process, beyond what is already published.
Refrain from using information obtained during the review process for personal or third-party benefit.
Notify the journal editor if plagiarism or other ethical violations are suspected in the manuscript.
Conduct reviews objectively and avoid conflicts of interest. If a conflict exists, the reviewer should decline the review.
Use polite and constructive language during the review process and avoid personal comments.
Publication Policy
The Journal of Erciyes University Faculty of Economics and Administrative Sciences is a free, open-access, peer-reviewed academic journal that has been in publication since 1981. The journal welcomes submissions in Turkish and English within the fields of economics, business administration, public finance, political science, public administration, and international relations.

No submission or publication fees are charged by the journal.
Every submitted manuscript undergoes a double-blind peer review process and similarity/plagiarism checks via iThenticate.
Submissions must be original and not previously published, accepted for publication, or under review elsewhere.
Articles published in the journal can be cited under the Open Access Policy and Creative Commons license, provided proper attribution is given.
The journal is published three times a year, in April, August, and December. It includes original, high-quality, and scientifically supported research articles and reviews in its listed fields. Academic studies unrelated to these disciplines or their theoretical and empirical foundations are not accepted. The journal's languages are Turkish and English.

Submissions are first subject to a preliminary review for format and content. Manuscripts not meeting the journal's standards are rejected by the editorial board. Manuscripts deemed suitable proceed to the peer review stage.

Each submission is sent to at least two expert reviewers. If both reviews are favorable, the article is approved for publication. In cases where one review is positive and the other negative, the editorial board decides based on the reviews or may send the manuscript to a third reviewer.

Articles published in the journal are open access and can be cited under the Creative Commons license, provided proper attribution is made.