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

Year 2018, Volume: 7 Issue: 2, 69 - 91, 29.06.2018

Tayfun Moğol Süleyman Kasal

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.

Keywords

Incrementalism, budgeting, government budget, decision-making

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

Abstract

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.  

Keywords

Arttırımcılık, bütçeleme, devlet bütçesi, karar alma

References

• Anderson, S., & Harbridge, L. (2010). Incrementalism in Appropriations : Small Aggregation, Big Changes. Public Administration Review, 70(3), 464–474.
• 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.
• 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
• 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). 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
• 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.
• 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.
• 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
• 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
• 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). London.
• Hsiao, C. (2014). Analysis of panel data 3th Edition. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511754203 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
• Lindblom, C. E. (1959). The Science of “Muddling Through.” Public Administration Review, 19(2), 79–88.
• Maliye Bakanlığı. 1985-2015 yılları arası Bütçe Gerekçesi Raporları.
• Moğol, T., (2015), Devlet Bütçeleme Teknikleri, Moğol, T., (Ed), Devlet Bütçesi içinde, Eskişehir: Anadolu Üniversitesi Yayınları.
• Natchez, Peter B.; Irvin, C. B. (1973). Policy and Priority in the Budgetary Process. American Political Science Review, 67(3), 951–963. Pesaran, M. H. (2004). General Diagnostic Tests for Cross Section Dependencec in Panels, 3(1240).
• Pesaran, M. H. (2007). A Simple Panel Unit Root Test in The Presence of Cross-Section Dependence. Journal of Applied Econometric, 22, 265–312. https://doi.org/10.1002/jae
• Pesaran, M. H. (2012). On the interpretation of panel unit root tests. Economics Letters, 116(3), 545–546. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econlet.2012.04.049
• Reddick, C. G. (2002). Testing rival decision–making theories on budget outputs: Theories and comparative evidence. Public Budgeting and Finance, 22(3), 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1111/1540-5850.00078
• Reddick, C. G. (2003a). Budgetary Decision Making in The Twentieth Century: Theories and Evidence. Journal of Public Budgeting, Accounting & Financiail Management, 15(2), 251–274.
• Reddick, C. G. (2003b). Testing Rival Theories of Budgetary Decision-Making in the Us States. Financial Accountability and Management, 19(4), 315–339.
• Ripley, Randall B.; William, M.Holmes; Grace, A. Franklin; William, B. M. (1975). Explaining Changes in Budgetary Policy Actions. In A. F. Randall, B. Ripley; Grace (Ed.), Policy-Making in the Federal Executive Branch (pp. 145–170). New York: Free Press.
• Rubin, I. (1989). Aaron Wildavsky and the Demise of Incrementalism. Public Administration Review. https://doi.org/10.2307/977234 Schick, A. (1983). Incremental Budgeting in a Decremental Age. Policy Sciences, 16(1), 1–25.
• Simon, H. A. (1955). A Behavioral Model of Rational Choice. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 69(1), 99–118.
• Swamy, P. (1970). Efficient Inference in a Random Coefficient Regression Model. Econometrica, 38(2), 311–323.
• White, J. (1994). (Almost) Nothing New Under the Sun: Why the Work of Budgeting Remains Incremental. Public Budgeting & Finance, 14(1), 113–134. https://doi.org/10.1111/1540-5850.01002
• Wildavsky, A. (1964). The Politics of Budgetary Process. Boston: Little Brown.
• Wildawsky, Aaron; Caiden, N. (1997). The New Politics of the Budgetary Process (3rd ed.). New York: Longman