Türkiye’de Yerel Bütçeleme Sürecinde Belediyeler ile STK’lar Arasındaki Aktif Katılımcılık İlişkisinin Analizi

Year 2023, Volume: 31 Issue: 56, 171 - 190, 28.04.2023

Erdal Eroğlu Mine Aydemir Gülçin Tunç Adnan Gerçek

https://doi.org/10.17233/sosyoekonomi.2023.02.08

Abstract

Bu çalışmada STK'ların belediye bütçeleme sürecine aktif katılımı ile bütçe etkinliği algısı arasındaki ilişkiye odaklanılmaktadır. Araştırmamız şeffaflık, belediyeye güven, STK'ların aktif katılımı, sorumluluk ve bütçe etkinliği algısı arasındaki ilişkileri yapısal eşitlik modeli aracılığıyla tahmin etmektedir. Çalışmada elde edilen bulgular, aktif katılımın modelde kilit bir rol oynadığını ve bütçe etkinliği algısını doğrudan etkilediğini açıkça göstermektedir. Model sonuçları, aktif katılım, STK'ların sorumluluğu ve güven ile bütçe etkinliği algısı arasında olumlu yönde bir ilişkiyi ortaya koymaktadır. Ayrıca, şeffaflık, aktif katılım ve güven aracılığı ile bütçe etkinliği algısını etkilemektedir. Güven, şeffaflık ve sorumluluk ise aktif katılımı olumlu yönde etkilemektedir.

Keywords

Aktif Katılım, Belediye, STK, Katılımcı Bütçeleme, Yapısal Eşitlik Modeli

Supporting Institution

TÜBİTAK 1001

Project Number

SOBAG 120K148

Thanks

Bu çalışma, TÜBİTAK (SOBAG) 1001 kapsamında desteklenen 120K148 numaralı “Türkiye’de Yerel Yönetimlerde Planlama ve Bütçeleme Süreçlerinde Belediye İle Sivil Toplum Kuruluşları Arasındaki Katılımcılık İlişkisinin Büyükşehir Belediyeleri ve İl Belediyeleri Açısından Analizi” başlıklı projeden üretilmiştir. Mali desteklerinden ötürü TÜBİTAK’a teşekkür ederiz.

An Analysis of the Relationship between Municipalities and NGOs in Terms of Active Participation in Local Budgeting in Türkiye

Abstract

This study focuses on the relationship between NGOs’ active participation in municipal budgeting and their perception of budget efficiency. Our research estimates the relationships among transparency, trust in the municipality, NGOs' active participation, responsibility, and budget efficiency perception via the structural equation model. The findings indicate that active participation plays a key role in the model and directly affects the perception of budget efficiency. Besides, increased active participation, NGOs' responsibility, and trust positively affect budget efficiency perception. Transparency mediated through active participation and trust affects the perception of budget efficiency. Trust, transparency, and responsibility positively affect active participation.

Keywords

Active Participation, Municipality, NGOs, Participatory Budgeting, Structural Equation Model

Project Number

SOBAG 120K148

References

• Alibegović, D.J. & S. Slijepčević (2018), “Attitudes towards citizen participation in the local decision-making process: A comparative analysis”, Drustvena Istrazivanja, 27(1), 155-175.
• Baiocchi, G. (2001), “Participation, Activism, and Politics: The Porta Alegre Experiment and Deliberative Democratic Theory”, Politics & Society, 29(1), 43-72.
• Bayram, N. (2016), Yapısal Eşitlik Modellemesine Giriş: AMOS Uygulamaları [Introduction to Structural Equation Modeling: AMOS Applications], Ezgi Kitabevi: Bursa.
• Berner, M. & S. Smith (2004), “The State of the States: A Review of State Requirements for Citizen Participation in the Local Government Budget Process”, State and Local Government Review, 36(2), 140-150.
• Berner, M. et al. (2011), “What constitutes effective citizen participation in local government? views from city stakeholders”, Public Administration Quarterly, 35(1), 128-163.
• Blanton, T. (2002), “The World’s Right to Know”, Foreign Policy, 131, 50-58.
• Borge, L.E. et al. (2008), “Public sector efficiency: The roles of political and budgetary institutions, fiscal capacity, and democratic participation”, Public Choice, 136(3-4), 475-495.
• Brannan, T. et al. (2006), “Active citizenship and effective public services and programmes: How can we know what really works?”, Urban Studies, 43(5-6), 993-1008.
• Bulut, Y. et al. (2017), “Kamu politikalarının oluşturulmasında sivil toplum kuruluşlarının etkisi”, Strategic Public Management Journal, 3(6), 23-34.
• Caamaño-Alegre, J. et al. (2013), “Budget Transparency in Local Governments: An Empirical Analysis”, Local Government Studies, 39(2), 182-207.
• Callahan, K. (2002), “The Utilization and Effectiveness of Citizen Advisory Committees in the Budget Process of Local Governments”, Journal of Public Budgeting, Accounting & Financial Management, 14(2), 295-319.
• Callahan, K. (2007), “Citizen participation: Models and methods”, International Journal of Public Administration, 30(11), 1179-1196.
• Chandler, D. (2001), “Active citizens and the therapeutic state: the role of democratic participation in local government reform”, Policy and Politics, 29(1), 3-14.
• Chi, C.S.F. et al. (2014), “Public participation in environmental impact assessment for public projects: A case of non-participation”, Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 57(9), 1422-1440.
• Çılgın, K. & Yirmibeşoğlu, F. (2019), “Yerel demokrasi arayışında mahalle yönetimi”, Planlama, 29(2), 102-114.
• Citrin, J. & C. Muste (1999), “Trust in government”, in: J. Robinson et al. (eds.), Measures of Political Attitudes (462-532), Academic Press.
• Devas, N. & U. Grant (2003), “Local government decision-making - Citizen participation and local accountability: Some evidence from Kenya and Uganda”, Public Administration and Development, 23(4), 307-316.
• Ebdon, C. & A.L. Franklin (2006), “Citizen participation in budgeting theory”, Public Administration Review, 66(3), 437-447.
• Ebdon, C. (2000), “The Relationship between Citizen Involvement in the Budget Process and City Structure and Culture”, Public Productivity & Management Review, 23(3), 383-393.
• Ebdon, C. (2002), “Citizen Participation in the Local Gvt Process”, Journal of Budgeting, Accounting & Financial Management, 14(2), 273-294.
• Eroğlu, E. & A. Gerçek (2022), “Current Issues and Empirical Studies in Public Finance”, in: B. Bozdoğanoğlu & A. Gercek (eds.), Evaluation of active participation on NGOs in Decision Making Process in Türkiye in terms of Relevant Legislation (163-182), Peter Lang Verlag.
• Fennema, M. & J. Tillie (1999), “Political participation and political trust in Amsterdam: Civic communities and ethnic networks”, Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 25(4), 703-726.
• Florini, A. (2007), “The Battle over Transparency”, in: A. Florini (ed.), The Right to Know: Transparency for an Open World (1-16), Columbia University Press.
• Fornell, C. & D.F. Larcker (1981), “Evaluating Structural Equation Models with Unobservable Variables and Measurement Error”, Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39-50.
• Franklin, A. & C. Ebdon (2004), “Aligning priorities in local budgeting processes”, Journal of Public Budgeting, Accounting & Financial Management, 16(2), 210-227.
• Fung, A. & E. Wright (2001), “Deepening Democracy: Innovations in Empowered Participatory Governance”, Politics & Society, 29(1), 5-41.
• Heald, D. (2006), “Varieties of Transparency”, in: C. Hood & D. Heald (eds.), Transparency: The Key to Better Governance?: Proceedings of the British Academy 135 (25-43), Oxford University Press.
• Héritier, A. (2003), “Composite democracy in Europe: The role of transparency and access to information”, Journal of European Public Policy, 10(5), 814-833.
• Innes, J.E. & D.E. Booher (2004), “Reframing public participation: Strategies for the 21st century”, Planning Theory and Practice, 5(4), 419-436.
• Irvin, R.A. & J. Stansbury (2004), “Citizen Participation in Decision Making: Is It Worth the Effort?”, Public Administration Review, 64(1), 55-65.
• Julnes, P. de L. (2004), “Performance Measurement for Performance Improvement and Democratic Governance”, in: M. Holzer et al. (eds.), Frontiers of Public Administration Proceedings of the Second Sino-U.S. International Conference: Public Administration in the Changing World (295-305).
• Justice, J.B. et al. (2006), “E-government as an instrument of fiscal accountability and responsiveness: Do the best practitioners employ the best practices?”, American Review of Public Administration, 36(3), 301-322.
• Kathlene, L. & J.A. Martin (1991), “Enhancing Citizen Participation : Panel Designs, Perspectives, and Policy Formation”, Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 10(1), 46-63.
• Kim, P.S. et al. (2005), “Toward participatory and transparent governance: Report on the Sixth Global Forum on Reinventing Government”, Public Administration Review, 65(6), 646-654.
• Kim, S. & J. Lee (2012), “E-Participation, transparency, and trust in local government”, Public Administration Review, 72(6), 819-828.
• King, C.S. et al. (1998), “The Question of Participation: Toward Authentic Public Participation in Public Administration”, Public Administration Review, 58(4), 317-326.
• Krafchik, W. (2005), “Can Civil Society Add Value to Budget Decision-making. Citizen Participation and Pro-Poor Budgeting”, in: Citizen Participation and Pro-poor Budgeting (57-78), United Nations.
• Liao, Y. & Y. Zhang (2012), “Citizen participation in local budgeting: Mechanisms, political support, and city manager’s moderating role”, International Review of Public Administration, 17(2), 19-38.
• Mærøe, A.R. et al. (2021), “Increasing citizen participation in e-participatory budgeting processes”, Journal of Information Technology and Politics, 18(2), 125-147.
• McIver, J.P. & E. Ostrom (1976), “Using Budget Pies to Reveal Preferences: Validation of a Survey Instrument”, Policy & Politics, 4(4), 87-110.
• Michels, A. & L. de Graaf (2010), “Examining citizen participation: Local participatory policy making and democracy”, Local Government Studies, 36(4), 477-491.
• Mizrahi, S. & E. Vigoda-Gadot (2009), “Citizens’ learning, involvement, and participation in decision-making under the democratic ethos: A theoretical framework and the Israeli experience”, International Journal of Public Administration, 32(5), 438-460.
• Newman, J. & E. Tonkens (2011), Participation, Responsibility and Choice: Summoning the Active Citizen in Western European Welfare States, Amsterdam University Press.
• Novy, A. & B. Leubolt (2005), “Participatory budgeting in Porto Alegre: Social innovation and the dialectical relationship of state and civil society”, Urban Studies, 42(11), 2023-2036.
• Orosz, J.F. (2002), “Views from the field: creating a place for authentic citizen participation in budgeting”, Journal of Public Budgeting, Accounting & Financial Management, 14(3), 423-444.
• Park, H. & J. Blenkinsopp (2011), “The roles of transparency and trust in the relationship between corruption and citizen satisfaction”, International Review of Administrative Sciences, 77(2), 254-274.
• Petrova, T. (2011), “Citizen participation in local governance in Eastern Europe: Rediscovering a strength of civil society in the post-socialist world?”, Europe-Asia Studies, 63(5), 757-787.
• Ríos, A.M. et al. (2016), “Budget Transparency and Legislative Budgetary Oversight: An International Approach”, American Review of Public Administration, 46(5), 546-568.
• Røiseland, A. & S.I. Vebo (2016), “Interactive - or counteractive - governance? Lessons learned about citizen participation and political leadership”, in: J. Edelenbos & I. van Meerkerk (eds.), Critical Reflections on Interactive Governance (120-145), Edward Elgar Publishing Limited.
• Rubin, I.S. (1990), “Budget Theory and Budget Practice : How Good the Fit ?”, Public Administration Review, 50(2), 179-189.
• Sabri, N. (2010), “Assessing Mayors’ and Council Members’ Perceptions on Improving Community Involvement and Municipal Performance: The Case of Palestinian Local Governments”, Journal of Economic and Social Research, 12(1), 139-159.
• Schumacker, R.E. & R.G. Lomax (2004), A Beginner’s Guide to Structural Equation Modeling, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates: New York.
• Simonsen, W. & M.D. Robbins (2000), “The influence of fiscal information on preferences for city services”, Social Science Journal, 37(2), 195-214.
• Vigoda, E. (2002), “Administrative Agents of Democracy? A Structural Equation Modeling of the Relationship between Public-Sector Performance and Citizenship Involvement”, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 12(2), 241-272.
• Wang, X. (2001), “Assessing Public Participation in U.S. Cities”, Public Performance & Management Review, 24(4), 322-336.
• Wang, X.H. & M.W. Wart (2007), “When public participation in administration leads to trust: An empirical assessment of managers’ perceptions”, Public Administration Review, 67(2), 265-278.
• Watson, D.J. et al. (1991), “Institutionalized Use of Citizen Surveys in the Budgetary and Policy-Making Processes: A Small City Case Study”, Public Administration Review, 51(3), 232-239.
• Webb, K. & H. Hatry (1976), “Obtaining Citizen Feedback”, Ekistics, 42(251), 228-232.
• Wildavsky, A. (1992), “Political Implications of Budget Reform: A Retrospective”, Public Administration Review, 52(6), 594-599.
• Yahya, M.N. et al. (2008), “Budgetary participation and performance: Some Malaysian evidence”, International Journal of Public Sector Management, 21(6), 658-673.
• Yang, K. & K. Callahan (2005), “Assessing Citizen Involvement Efforts By Local Governments”, Public Performance & Management Review, 29(2), 191-216.
• Zhang, Y. & K. Yang (2009), “Citizen participation in the budget process: the effect of city managers”, Journal of Public Budgeting, Accounting & Financial Management, 21(2), 289-317.
• Zhang, Y. & Y. Liao (2011), “Participatory budgeting in local government: Evidence from New Jersey municipalities”, Public Performance and Management Review, 35(2), 281-302.