Türkiye’de “Program Bazlı Performans Bütçe” Çalışmaları Üzerine Bir Değerlendirme

Abstract

1990’lı yıllardan itibaren, özellikle program bütçe sistemi uygulayan batılı ülkelerde, mevcut bütçe sistemlerini sonuç odaklı hale getirmek üzere, performans esaslı bütçe sistemi unsurlarının eklemlenmesi ile, “Performans Bazlı Program Bütçe” PB2 uygulamalarına gidilmiştir. Türkiye’de ise 2003 yılında yürürlüğe giren 5018 sayılı Kanun ile, Program Bütçe Sisteminden vazgeçilerek, Performans Esaslı Bütçe Sistemine geçilmiştir. Ancak 2012 yılından itibaren “Program Bazlı Performans Esaslı Bütçe” çalışmalarına başlanmış, 2018 yılında Hazine ve Maliye Bakanlığında gerçekleştirilen son bir konferansla da süreç olgunlaşmıştır. Buna göre, harcamacı kurumlar hizmetlerini program-alt program-faaliyet biçiminde yapılandıracak ve Analitik Bütçe Sınıflandırmasındaki fonksiyonel sınıflandırmanın yerine program sınıflandırması getirilecektir. Ayrıca birim faaliyet raporları yerine program faaliyet raporları hazırlanacaktır. Bu çalışmada, bahsedilen bu değişiklikler ve diğer unsurlar değerlendirilmiş; bazı belirsizlik, tutarsızlık ve teknik olumsuzluklar tespit edilmiş; bir kısmının çözümüne yönelik öneriler sunulmuştur.

Keywords

• Bütçe Sistemleri, Program Bazlı Performans Bütçe, Performans Bazlı Program Bütçe.

An Evaluation on Transition to “Programme Based Performance Budget” Endeavors in Turkey

Abstract

Since 1990s, especially in countries that use programme based budgeting, there is seen a tendency to transition to Performance Based Programme Budgeting PB2 with the incorporation of performance based components into the programme budgeting systems, to make their budget systems more “result based” ones. Meanwhile, Turkey, has changed its programme based budget system with the new performance based one via the Law no 5018 enacted in 2003. However, by the year 2012, studies have been initiated for the transition to a “Programme Based Performance Budgeting System”, and the process has been maturated by a final conference held at the Ministry of Treasury and Finance in 2018. Within the framework of the envisaged new programme based system, spending public entities will configure their services in the form of a programme – sub-programme-activity classification, and the functional classification embodied in Analytical Budget Classification will be changed with this new programme classification. Furthermore, instead of current unit activity reports, programme activity reports will be prepared by public units. In this study, these changes and other components of the new system are evaluated; some ambiguities, contradictions and negative aspects are exposed; and some solutions are presented for some of these shortcomings

Keywords

• Budget Systems, Programme Based Performance Budget, Performance Based Programme Budget.

References

1. Bourdeaux, Carolyn (2008). “The Problem with Programs: Multiple Perspectives on Program Structures in Program-Based Performance-Oriented Budgets”, Public Budgeting & Finance, Summer 2008, pp. 20-47.
2. Flowers, Geraldo, Delia Kundin ve Ralph S. Brower (1999). “How Agency Conditions Facilitate and Constrain Performance-Based Program Systems: A Qualitative Inquiry”, Journal of Public Budgeting, Accounting & Financial Management, Vol.: 11, Issue: 4, pp.618-648.
3. Grizzle, Gloria A. ve Carole D. Pettijohn (2002). “Implementing Performance-Based Program Budgeting: A System-Dynamics Perspective”, Public Administration Review, Vol.: 62, No.: 1, pp. 51-62.
4. Işık, Hüseyin (2013), Program Bazlı Performans Bütçe: Model Önerisi, https://www.bumko.gov.tr/Eklenti/10763,programyapisiveprogramgerekcesirehberit aslagisurumiipdf.pdf%3F0+&cd=2&hl=tr&ct=clnk&gl=tr [Erişim Tarihi: 18.10.2018].
5. Jones, Lawrence R. ve Jerry L. McCaffery (2010). “Performance Budgeting in the U.S. Federal Government: History, Status and Future Implications”; Public Finance and Management, Vol.: 10, No.: 3, pp. 482-523.
6. Kong, Dongsung (2005). “Performance-Based Budgeting: The U.S. Experience”, Public Organization Review: A Global Journal, Vol.: 5, pp. 91–107.
7. Kraan, Dirk-Jan (2007). “Programme Budgeting in OECD Countries”, OECD Journal on Budgeting, Vol.: 7, No.: 4, pp. 1-41.
8. Robinson, Marc (2003). “Tightening the Results/Funding Link in Performance Budgeting Systems”, Queenslan University of Technology Discussion Paper No: 147, https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Marc_Robinson5/publication/27463141_Tight ening_the_ResultsFunding_Link_in_Performance_Budgeting_Systems_Discussion _Paper_No_147/links/55acae3108ae815a042b1e11/Tightening-the-Results-FundingLink-in-Performance-Budgeting-Systems-Discussion-Paper-No-147.pdf [Erişim: 06.11.2018].

9. Robinson, Marc (2013). “Program Classification for Performance-Based Budgeting: How to Structure Budgets to Enable the Use of Evidence”; IEG Evaluation Capacity Development Series, Washington DC:World Bank; https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/bitstream/handle/10986/21767/959380PUB 0perf00Box391429B00PUBLIC0.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y [Erişim Tarihi: 08.11.2018].
10. Sheffield, Sheila R. (1999). “Implementing Florida’s Performance and Accountability Act: A Focus On Program Measurement and Evaluation”, Journal of Public Budgeting, Accounting & Financial Management, Vol.: 11, Issue: 4, pp.649-669.
11. VanLandingham , Gary Martha Wellman ve Matthew Andrews (2005). “Useful, But Not A Panacea: Performance-Based Program Budgeting in Florida”, International Journal of Public Administration, Vol.: 28, No.:3-4, pp. 233-253.