Türkiye’de Parlamenter Sistemden Cumhurbaşkanlığı Sistemine Geçişin Bütçe Sistemine Etkisi

Öz

Ülkelerin bütçe süreci, hükümetin yasama ve yürütme organlarının yapısından ve bu birimler arasındaki yetki dağılımından etkilenmektedir. Bu çalışma, bu yapılarda ve güç dağılımında meydana gelecek bir değişikliğin bütçe sistemi üzerindeki etkilerini incelemeyi amaçlamaktadır. İncelenen iki araştırma sorusu şu şekildedir: 1) Türkiye'de parlamenter sistemden başkanlık sistemine geçiş bütçe sürecini ve kurumları nasıl etkilemiştir? 2) Bütçe sistemindeki dönüşümle birlikte ortaya çıkan sorunlar nelerdir? Araştırma sorularının cevaplanması için Türkiye örneği incelenmiş ve bütçe sürecinde görev alan yetkililer ile görüşmeler yapılmıştır. Yapılan analizler sonucunda üç temel bulgu elde edilmiştir. İlk olarak, yaşanan değişim ile bütçe sürecinde yeni aktörler meydana gelirken eski aktörlerin bir kısmının varlığını sürdürdüğü görülmektedir. Bütçe sürecinin işleyişi açısından bu aktörler arasında koordinasyon öngörülmüştür. Ancak aktörler arasındaki amaç ve uygulama açısından görülen farklılıklar koordinasyonun kalitesini etkileyebilmektedir. İkincisi, bütçe sürecinde iki ana aktörün ortaya çıkması, farklı amaç, politika ve statülerden kaynaklanan sorunlara neden olabilir. Son olarak, bütçe takvimi ve yeni bütçe yaklaşımı, bütçe kurumlarının iş yükünde dengesiz bir dağılıma sebep olabilmektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Bütçe sistemi
• Bütçeleme
• Cumhurbaşkanlığı sistemi
• Parlamenter sistem

The Impact of the Transformation from Parliamentary System to Presidential System on the Budgetary System in Türkiye

Öz

The budgetary process in a country is affected by the structure of the executive and legislative branches of the government and the distribution of power among these units. This study sets out to explore the effects of the change in these structures and power distribution on the budgetary system. Two main research questions are investigated: 1) How did the transformation from parliamentary to presidential system in Turkey influence the budgetary process and institutions? 2) What problems occurred with the transformation in the budgetary system? A case study of Turkey is undertaken, and interviews are conducted with budgetary officials to answer research questions. Three key findings emerged from this study’s analysis. Firstly, the transformation established new budgetary actors and kept some of the previous actors. Coordination between these actors is required for a well-functioning budgetary system. However, differences between the actors in terms of goals and practices can affect the quality of this coordination. Secondly, the emergence of two main actors in the budgetary process can cause issues resulting from different objectives, policies and statuses. Lastly, the timetable for the budget and the new budgetary approach can result in an unbalanced workload throughout the year for budgetary organisations.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Budgetary system
• Budgeting
• Presidential system
• Parliamentary system

Kaynakça

1. Adar, S. & Seufert, G. (2021). Turkey’s Presidential System after Two and a Half Years an Overview of Institutions and Politics. SWP Research Paper 2, Stiftung Wissenschaft und Politik German Institute for International and Security Affairs, Berlin. Retrieved from https://www.swp-berlin.org/publications/products/research_papers/2021RP02_Turkey_Presidential_System.pdf
2. Akbey, F. (2020). Power of Purse and Budget Act under the Presidential Government System. International Journal of Public Finance, 5(1), 1-26 DOI: 10.30927/ijpf.676534
3. Arksey, H. & Knight, P. (1999). Interviewing for Social Scientists an Introductory Resource with Examples. London: SAGE Publications.
4. Bryman, A. (2016). Social Research Methods. 5th ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Caliskan A., Kaya P. B. & Malak, M. (2020). The Impact of the Presidential Government System on the Budget Process. Ankara Hacı Bayram Veli University Journal of the Faculty of Economics and Administrative Sciences, 22 (3), 721-736.
5. Cilavdaroglu, A. A. & Ekici, B (2013). Assessing the power of the Purse of Turkish Grand National Assembly. Review of Public Administration, 46(3), 59-88.
6. Cox, G. W. & Mccubbins, M. D. (2000). Political Structure and Economic Policy: The Institutional Determinants of Policy Outcomes in Presidents, Parliaments, and Policy. Cambridge University Press, 21-63.
7. Ergen, Z. (2021). The transition from the Performance-Based Budget System to the Program-Based Performance Budget System: Targeted with the New Budget System. Ömer Halisdemir University Academic Review of Economics and Administrative Sciences, 14(1), 280-302 http://doi.org/10.25287/ohuiibf.778740.1
8. Giuriato, L., Cepparulo, A. & Barberi, M., (2016). Fiscal forecasts and political systems: a legislative budgeting perspective. Public Choice, 168(1-2), 1-22.

9. Guess, G. M. & Savage, J. D. (2021). Comparative Budgeting: Summary and Conclusion in Comparative Public Budgeting: Global Perspectives on Taxing and Spending. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 226–243. DOI: 10.1017/9781108182263.008.
10. Gustafson, R. (2003). Legislatures and the Budget Process: An International Survey. National Democratic Institute (NDI). Retrieved from https://www.ndi.org/sites/default/files/1651_gov_budget_093103.pdf
11. Jones, B.D., Baumgartner, F.R., Breunig, C., Wlezien, C., Soroka, S., Foucault, M., François, A., Green-Pedersen, C., Koski, C., John, P., Mortensen, P.B., Varone, F. & Walgrave, S. (2009). A General Empirical Law of Public Budgets: A Comparative Analysis. American Journal of Political Science, 53: 855-873. DOI: 10.1111/j.1540-5907.2009.00405.x
12. Klasnja, M., (2008). Electoral rules, forms of government, and political budget cycles in transition countries. Panoeconomicus, 55(2), 185-218.
13. Kraan, D., Bergvall, D. & Hawkesworth, I. (2007). Budgeting in Turkey. OECD Journal on Budgeting, 7(2), 7-58.
14. Krafchik, W. & Wehner, J. (1998). The Role of Parliament in the Budgetary Process. South African Journal of Economics, 66: 242-255. DOI: 10.1111/j.1813-6982.1998.tb01265.x
15. Kucukaycan, D. & Celikay, F. (2019). The Effects of the Presidential Government System on the Budgeting Process and the Right to Budget from the Perspective of Budget Theory in Guner, A., Akgul Yilmaz, G. and Dogrusoz, B. (Ed.) Current Finance Debates. Seckin Publishing, 329-356.
16. Lienert, I. (2005). Who Controls the Budget: The Legislature or the Executive?. IMF Working paper. Retrieved from https://www.elibrary.imf.org/view/journals/001/2005/115/001.2005.issue-115-en.xml
17. Posner, P. & Park, C. (2007). Role of the Legislature in the Budget Process. OECD Journal on Budgeting, 7(3), 1-26.
18. Santiso, C. & Varea, M. (2005). Strengthening the Capacities of Parliaments in the Budget Process. Inter-American Development Bank Institutional Capacity of State Division POLICY BRIEF No. IDB-PB-194. Retrieved from https://publications.iadb.org/publications/english/viewer/Strengthening-the-Capacities-of-Parliaments-in-the-Budget-Process.pdf
19. Schick, A., (2002). Can National Legislatures Regain an Effective Voice in Budget Policy?. OECD Journal on Budgeting, 1(3), 15-42.
20. Sobaci, M. Z., Koseoglu, O. & Mis, N. (2018). Reforming the Policymaking Process in Turkey’s New Presidential System. Insight Turkey, Vol. 20:4, 183-210.
21. Strategy and Budgeting Directorate (2019). Regulations on Strategy and Budgeting Expertise. https://www.resmigazete.gov.tr/eskiler/2019/06/20190627-27.pdf
22. Strategy and the Budgeting Directorate (2019). Handbook of Program Budgeting.
23. Strategy and the Budgeting Directorate (2022). 2022-2024 Budget Preparation Guide.
24. Wehner, J. (2002). Parliament and the Power of the Purse: The Nigerian Constitution of 1999 in Comparative Perspective. Journal of African Law, 46 (2), 216-231.
25. Wehner, J. (2004). Back from the Sidelines? Redefining the Contribution of Legislatures to the Budget Cycle. The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development /the World Bank, Washington. Retrieved from https://gsdrc.org/document-library/back-from-the-sidelines-redefining-the-contribution-of-legislatures-to-the-budget-cycle/
26. Wehner, J. (2006). Assessing the Power of the Purse: An Index of Legislative Budget Institutions. Political Studies, 54(4), 767-785.
27. Wehner, J. (2009). South Africa’s new parliamentary budget process: an initial assessment. In: Verwey, Len, Lefko-Everett, Kate, Mohamed, Ahmed and Zamisa, Musa, (eds.) Parliament, the Budget and Poverty in South Africa: a Shift in Power. Idasa, Pretoria, South Africa, 26-41.
28. Wehner, J. (2010). Legislatures and the Budget Process: The Myth of Fiscal Control. Palgrave Macmillan.
29. Yavuz, E., Ozgul, H.B. & Susam, N. (2021). Changes in Turkish Budget System: Transition to Performance-Based Program Budgeting. Journal of Public Finance Studies, 65: 115-137. DOI: 10.26650/mcd2021-889262
30. Yegen, B. (2020). Analyzing the Budget Process in the Scope of the Presidency Government System. Dokuz Eylul University the Journal of Graduate School of Social Sciences, 22 (1), 151-170. DOI: 10.16953/deusosbil.544721
31. Yilmaz, H. H. & Akdeniz, I. (2020). A Restructuring Proposal for Program Based Budget System in Public Fiscal Management Changing with the Presidential Government System. Journal of Turkish Court of Accounts, 32 (117), 87-114.