Analysis of Factors Participating Citizens in National Budget Processes

Abstract

Most of the empirical studies on the determinants of citizen participation in budget processes have been conducted at a local level. This study aims to empirically analyze the potential factors that determine citizen participation in national budget processes. The factors affecting citizen participation in national budget processes have been reviewed using the panel data method, with the data about the years 2011, 2014, 2016, and 2018 of 93 countries included in the Open Budget Survey (OBS) 2012. The factors affecting citizen participation have been addressed under two main titles: socio-economic and institutional-political factors. In terms of socio-economic factors, the empirical findings in the model demonstrate that citizen participation in national budget processes increases as the level of education increases. Furthermore, the findings reveal that citizen participation decreases as the proportion of the elderly within the total population increases. In terms of institutional-political factors, on the other hand, an increase in the level of budget transparency is observed to have a positive impact on citizen participation. Similarly, the analysis results indicate that the level of e-participation positively affects citizen participation in budget processes. It has been concluded that the freedom of association and assembly also has a positive impact on citizen participation in budget processes. On the other hand, the findings demonstrate that an increased level of corruption leads to decreased citizen participation in national budget processes.

Keywords

• National Budget Process
• Citizen Participation in Budget Process
• Panel Data Analysis.

References

1. Alesina, A. & Perotti, R. (1996). Fiscal discipline and the budget process, The American Economic Review, 86(2), 401–407.
2. Asteriou, D. & Stephen, G. H. (2007). Applied Econometrics-A Modern Approach, New York: Palgrave Macmillan
3. Bağdigen, M. & Dökmen, G. (2006). Yolsuzluğun Kamu Gelir Ve Giderleri Üzerine Etkisi, ZKÜ Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 2(3), 53-69.
4. Baltagi, B. H. (2005). Econometric Analysis of Panel Data, England: John Wiley & Sons Company.
5. Becker, G. S. (1993). Human Capital: A Theoretical and Empirical Analysis, with Special Reference to Education, Third Edition, London: The University of Chicago Press.
6. Beğer, T. & Yavuzer, H. (2012). Yaşlılık ve Yaşlılık Epidemiyolojisi, Klinik Gelişim, 25, 1-3.
7. Dikmen, S. (2019). Bütçe Gözetimi Açısından Bağımsız Mali Kurumların Bütçe Sürecindeki Rolü, Sayıştay Dergisi, 30(115), 55-81.
8. Dikmen, S. & Çiçek, H. G. (2019). Yasama Organının Bütçe Gözetim İşlevi ve Mali Saydamlık Arasındaki İlişkinin Ekonometrik Bir Analizi, Siyasal Journal of Political Science, 28(2), 182-205.

9. Fenwick, H. (2002). Civil Liberties and Human Rights, London: Cavendish Publishing.
10. Gaventa, J., Barrett, G. (2012). Mapping the Outcomes of Citizen Engagement, World Development, 40(12), 2399–2410.
11. Gerring, J., Strom, C. T. & Rodrigo, A. (2012). Democracy and Human Development Journal of Politics, 2012, 74 (01), 1–17.
12. Goetz, A. M. & Gaventa, J. (2001). Bringing Citizen Voice and Client Focus into Service Delivery. IDS Working Paper 138, Brighton, UK: Institute of Development Studies
13. Güriş, S. (2018). Panel Veri Modelleri, (Uygulamalı Panel Veri Ekonometrisi kitabı içinde), S. Güriş (Ed.), İstanbul: Der Yayınları.
14. Harrison, T. M. & Sayogo, D. S. (2014). Transparency, Participation and Accountability Practices in Open Government: A Comparative Comparative Study, Government Information Quarterly 31(4), 513–525.
15. Karagöz, K. & Karagöz, M. (2010). Yolsuzluk, Ekonomik Büyüme ve Kamu Harcamaları: Türkiye İçin Ampirik Bir Analiz, Sayıştay Dergisi, 76, 5-22.
16. Keyifli, N. (2021). Yasama Organının Bütçe Gözetiminin Bütçe Saydamlığı Üzerindeki Etkisi: Gelişmekte Olan Ülkeler Üzerine Ampirik Bir Analiz, Sayıştay Dergisi, 32(120).
17. Khagram, S., De Renzio, P. & Fung, A. (2013). Overview and synthesis: the political economy of fiscal transparency, participation, and accountability around the world. In S. Khagram, A. Fung & P. De Renzio (Ed.), Open budgets: the political economy of transparency, participation, and accountability (1–50). Washington: Brookings Institution Press.
18. Kopits, G. & Craig, J. (1998). Transparency in government operations, IMF Occasional Paper 158, Washington DC: International Monetary Fund.
19. Lambsdorff, J. G. (2006). The Institutional Economics of Corruption and Reform: Theory, Evidence and Policy, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
20. Liao, Y. & Zhang, Y.(2012). Citizen Participation in Local Budgeting: Mechanisms, Political Support, and City Manager’s Moderating Role, International Review of Public Administration 17(2), 19–38.
21. Lienert, I. (2005). Who controls the budget: The legislature or the executive? IMF Working Paper, 05(115).
22. Melo, D. F. & Stockemer, D. (2014). Age and political participation in Germany, France, and the UK: A comparative analysis, Comparative European Politics, 12, 33–53.
23. Nie, N. H, Sidney, V. & Kim, J. (1974). Political Participation and The Life Cycle, Comparative Politics, 6 (3), 319-340.
24. Norris, P. (2001). Digital Divide: Civic Engagement, Information Poverty and the Internet Worldwide, Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
25. International Budget Partnership. (2012). The Open Budget Survey 2012, International Budget Partnership, Washington DC.
26. International Budget Partnership. (2015). The Open Budget Survey 2015, International Budget Partnership, Washington DC.
27. International Budget Partnership. (2018). The Open Budget Survey 2017, International Budget Partnership, Washington DC.
28. International Budget Partnership. (2020). The Open Budget Survey 2019, International Budget Partnership, Washington DC.
29. Rios, A. M., Bastida F. & Benito B. (2016). Budget transparency and legislative Budgetary oversight: An international approach. American Review of Public Administration, 46(5), 546–568.
30. Rios, A. M., Benito, B. & Bastida, F. (2017). Factors Explaining Public Participation in the Central Government Budget Process, Australian Journal of Public Administration, 76(1), 48–64.
31. Tanaka, S. (2007). Engaging the Public in National Budgeting: A Non-Governmental Perspective, OECD Journal on Budgeting, 7(2), 139-177.
32. Tatoğlu, Yerdelen, F. (2020). Panel Veri Ekonometrisi, İstanbul: Beta Basım Yayım.
33. UN. (2014). E-Government for the Future We Want, E-Government Survey 2014, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, New York.
34. Verbeek, M. (2004). A Guide to Modern Econometrics, England: John Wiley & Sons Company.
35. Wallace, C. & Pichler, F. (2009). More Participation, Happier Society? A Comparative Study of Civil Society and the Quality of Life, Social Indicators Research, 93, 255–274.
36. Wang, X. (2001). Assessing public participation in US cities, Public Performance & Management Review, 24(4), 322–336. Willmore, L. (2005). Civil Society Organizations, Participation, and Budgeting, United Nations Publication, 19-34. Wooldridge, J. M. (2001). Econometric Analysis of Cross Section and Panel Data, Londra: MIT Baskısı.