A Hundred Years of Misunderstanding (?): Magna Carta and Power of the Purse

Öz

Magna Carta Libertatum was interpreted by social scientists firstly as the initial step forward transition to representative democracy; secondly, within the context of limiting the taxation authority of the king, it was considered, by public finance theorists, especially in developing countries such as Turkey, as the first document regarding the principle of "no taxation without representation" as a reflection of the power of the purse. On the other hand; in many studies until 1960s; it has been put forward that, what were limited by the Carta were not taxes, that the limiting body was "not representative", and that taxes in England have always been based on the consent factor since the 10th century (therefore, the Carta did not introduce a new practice for taxation). Furthermore, in open sources it is stated that, a word denoting tax [task or taske(n)] was used during the signation period of Carta. Surprisingly, this word does not appear anywhere in the Carta. Unfortunately, or deliberately, these studies were totally ignored in studies written after 1960s in public finance and budgeting fields of the literature in developed and developing countries. In conclusion; it is a debatable pre-assumption that Carta is the first document which limits the taxation authority, and it is an unproven assumption that it is the first written document on the power of the purse.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Magna Carta
• Power of the Purse
• Taxation

A Hundred Years of Misunderstanding (?): Magna Carta and Power of the Purse

Öz

Magna Carta Libertatum was interpreted by social scientists firstly as the initial step forward transition to representative democracy; secondly, within the context of limiting the taxation authority of the king, it was considered, by public finance theorists, especially in developing countries such as Türkiye, as the first document regarding the principle of "no taxation without representation" as a reflection of the power of the purse. On the other hand; in many studies until 1960s; it has been put forward that, what were limited by the Carta were not taxes, that the limiting body was "not representative", and that taxes in England have always been based on the consent factor since the 10th century (therefore, the Carta did not introduce a new practice for taxation). Furthermore, in open sources it is stated that, a word denoting tax [task or taske(n)] was used during the signation period of Carta. Surprisingly, this word does not appear anywhere in the Carta. Unfortunately, or deliberately, these studies were totally ignored in studies written after 1960s in public finance and budgeting fields of the literature in developed countries and Türkiye. In conclusion; it is a debatable pre-assumption that Carta is the first document which limits the taxation authority, and it is an unproven assumption that it is the first written document on the power of the purse.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Magna Carta
• Power of the Purse
• Taxation

Kaynakça

1. Ahmad, N. (2021). “Resonance of Magna Carta in the Constitutions of the Democratic States”. Supremo Amicus. 24, 779-786.
2. Aksoy, Ş. (1993). Kamu Bütçesi. İstanbul: Filiz Kitabevi.
3. Altuğ, F. (2019). Kamu Bütçesi. İstanbul: Beta Basım Yayım Dağıtım.
4. Antoš, M. (2013). “Ulysses and Sirens: Constitutionalization Of Budgetary Constraints in Europe”. In Zborník Z Medzinárodnej Vedeckej Konferencie Bratislavské Právnické Forum Proceedings Book: Innovative Challenges for Constitutions and Constitutional Systems in the Globalized Europe. Pp.649-659. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2451284 (Access Date: 04.10.2023).
5. Asiegbu, M.F., Chukwuokolo, J. C. & Elem, E. C. (2023). “Attempting a Copernican Revolution for Politics in Nigeria”. Philosophy and Praxis. 13(1), 12-27.
6. B., Faik (1930). Bütçe ve Muhasebei Umumiye Kanunu İzahları. Ankara: Damga Matbaası.
7. Baldwin, J. F. (1915). Book Review on “Studies in Taxation under John and Henry III” by Sydney Knox Mitchell. The American Economic Review. 5(1), 60-62.
8. Batırel, Ö. F. (1987). Kamu Bütçesi (5th Ed.). İstanbul: Marmara Üniversitesi Nihad Sayar Yayın ve Yardım Vakfı.

9. Batırel, Ö. F. (1996). Kamu Bütçesi (8th Ed.). İstanbul: Yaylım Matbaası.
10. Beard, C. A. (1908). Book Review on “The American Constitution” by Frederic Jesup Stimson. Political Science Quarterly. 23(2), 340-343.
11. Becho, R. L. & Oliveira, R. K. F. (2021). “Introduction to Brazilian Constitutional Tax Law System”. Beijing Law Review. 12(3), 973-992.
12. Beddow, J. F. H. (1914). “The True Importance of Magna Carta”. History. 3(1), 3-11 . Brown, E. A. R. (1973). “Taxation and Morality in the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Centuries: Conscience and Political Power and the Kings of France”. French Historical Studies. 8(1), 1-28.
13. Bülbül, D., Ejder, H. L. & Şahan, Ö. (2005). Devlet Bütçesi. Ankara: Gazi Kitabevi.
14. Çağan, N. (1982). Vergilendirme Yetkisi. Ankara: Kazancı Hukuk Yayınları.
15. Cascant-Sempere, M. J. (2022). “Grounding ActionAid’s Tax Justice Campaigns in Nigeria”. Development and Change. 53(3), 525–550.
16. Çelik, F. & Kara, A. (2020). “Avrupa’da Siyasal İktidar Düşüncesinde Meşruiyet Sorununa Yönelik Çözüm Çabalari: İngiltere ve ‘Magna Carta’ Örneği”. International Journal of Disciplines Economics & Administrative Sciences Studies. 6(24), 820-831.
17. Collier, B. (2015). “The Influence of the Magna Carta on Papua New Guinea Law”. Lawasia Journal. 2015, 87-108.
18. Coşkun, G. (2000). Devlet Bütçesi – Türk Bütçe Sistemi (6th Ed.). Ankara: Turhan Kitabevi.
19. Costanzo, J. F. (1952). “Catholic Politeia II”. Fordham Law Review. 21(3), 236-281.
20. d'Eszlary, C. (1958). “Magna Carta and the Assises of Jerusalem”. The American Journal of Legal History. 2(3), 189-214.
21. Edizdoğan, N. & Çetinkaya, Ö. (2014). Kamu Bütçesi (5th Ed.). Bursa: Ekin Basım Yayın Dağıtım.
22. Edizdoğan, N. (1998). Kamu Bütçesi (4th Ed.). Bursa: Ekin Kitabevi.
23. Erçin, C. (1938). Bütçe: Nazariyat ve Tatbikatı. İstanbul: Devlet Basımevi.
24. Fevzioğlu, B. N. (1969). Nazari, Tatbikî, Mukayeseli Bütçe (3rd Ed.). İstanbul: Fen Fakültesi Döner Sermaye Basımevi.
25. Fölscher, A. (2006). “A Balancing Act: Fiscal Responsibility, Accountability and the Power of the Purse”. OECD Journal on Budgeting. 6(2), 133-152.
26. Fulton, E. A. (1914). “History and the National Life”. History. 3(2), No. 2, 63-67.
27. Galbraith, V. H. (1966). “Penrose Memorial Lecture: Runnymede Revisited”. Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society. 110(2), 307-317.
28. Güneş, G. (2011). Verginin Yasallığı İlkesi. İstanbul: On İki Levha Yayıncılık.
29. Gupta, R. (2020). “The Case for Tax in Democracies”. Australian Tax Forum. 35(1), 1-30.
30. Gürsoy, B. (1981). Kamusal Maliye İkinci Cilt: Bütçe (2nd Ed.). Ankara: Sevinç Matbaası.
31. Guthrie, W. D. (1915). “Magna Carta”. Bench and Bar. 10(7), 300-317.
32. Hoyt, R. S. (1950). “Royal Taxation and the Growth of the Realm in Mediaeval England”. Speculum. 25(1), 36-48.
33. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Middle_English (Access Date: 12.10.2023).
34. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tributum (Access Date: 12.10.2023).
35. https://etymologeek.com/eng/task/35207612 (Access Date: 12.10.2023).
36. https://quod.lib.umich.edu/m/middle-english-dictionary/dictionary/MED44575 (Access Date: 12.10.2023).
37. https://www.archives.gov/files/press/press-kits/magna-carta/magna-carta-translation.pdf (Access Date: 04.10.2023).
38. https://www.britannica.com/money/topic/aid (Access Date: 04.10.2023).
39. https://www.britannica.com/money/topic/scutage (Access Date: 04.10.2023).
40. https://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/education/resources/magna-carta/british-library-magna-carta-1215-runnymede/ (Access Date: 04.10.2023).
41. https://www.worldwidewords.org/topicalwords/tw-tax1.htm (Access Date: 11.10.2023).
42. Karaimamoğlu, T. (2022). “Norman Fethi’nden Magna Carta’ya: İngiltere’de Kralların Ölümlerinin Siyasi Sonuçları”. Manisa Celal Bayar Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi. 20(3), 113-124.
43. Kori, S. R. (2018). “Historical Development of Human Rights”. International Journal of Research in all Subjects in Multi Languages. 6(9), 64-71.
44. L.L.P. (1913). Book review on “Historie Financière et Économique de l'Angleterre” by Etienne Martin. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. 76(6), 610-612.
45. Lauth, T. P. (2002). “The Separation of Powers Principle and Budget Decision Making”. In Ed. By. Khan, A. & Hildreth, W.B. Budget Theory in The Public Sector (42-76). London: Quorum Books.
46. Mc Lennan, A. (2018). “The Power of the Purse: Fiscal Oversight and the South African Parliamentary Budget Office”. Africa Journal of Public Sector Development and Governance. 1(1), 90-105.
47. McKechnie, W. S. (1914). Magna Carta: A Commentary on the Great Charter of King John. Glasgow: James Maclehose and Sons Publishers to the University.
48. Miller, E. (1962). “The Background of Magna Carta”. Past & Present. 23, 72-83.
49. Özbilen, Ş. (2013). Devlet Bütçesi. Ankara: Gazi Kitabevi.
50. Paccione, P. (2023). “Parliament and Taxation: 1604-1689”. https://hcommons.org/deposits/download/hc:50736/CONTENT/parliament-and-taxation.pdf/ (Access Date: 04.10.2023).
51. Painter, S. (1947). “Magna Carta”. The American Historical Review. 53(1), No. 1, 42-49.
52. Palamut, M. E. (1980). Kamusal Bütçe. Bursa: Bursa İktisadi ve Ticari İlimler Akademisi.
53. Pehlivan, O. (2014). Devlet Bütçesi. Trabzon: Celepler Matbaacılık.
54. Pehlivan, O. (2018). Devlet Bütçesi (5th Ed.). Trabzon: Celepler Matbaacılık.
55. Pelin, F. (1944). Finans İlmi: Bütçe. İstanbul: İsmail Akgün Matbaası.
56. Pfeffer, Z. (2020). “The Development of Modern Budgetary Law in the European Legal Culture”. Journal on European History of Law. 11(2), 88-94.
57. Phillips, W. (1963). “The Wherefore of Taxes”. British Tax Review. 1963(5), 359-363.
58. Pollard, A. F. (1917). “Historical Revisions: I. Magna Carta”. History. 7(2), 170-173 . Radin, M. (1947). “The Myth of Magna Carta”. Harvard Law Review. 60(7), 1060-1091.
59. Read, J. H. (2019). “The Power of the Purse” [Blog]. Avon Hills Salon. https://avonhillssalon.com/2019/03/28/the-power-of-the-purse/ (Access Date: 03.10.2023).
60. Rosen, R. D. (1998). “Funding Non-Traditional Military Operations: The Alluring Myth of a Presidential Power of the Purse”. Military Law Review. 155, 1-152.
61. Sarıtaş, D. Ö. (2012). Cumhuriyet Dönemi Roma Vergi Sistemi. İstanbul: On İki Levha Yayıncılık.
62. Schick, A. (2002). “Can National Legislatures Regain an Effective Voice in Budget Policy?”. OECD Journal on Budgeting. 1(3).
63. Selen, U. & Tarhan, B. (2014). Türkiye’de Bütçe Hakkı Algısı. Uşak: Star Ajans Ltd. Şti . Seligman, E. R. A. (1923). “The Effects of Taxation”. Political Science Quarterly. 38(1), 1-23.
64. Siebeneck, H. K. (1943). “William Pitt, Earl of Chatham, and the Taxation of America”. The Western Pennsylvania Historical Magazine. 26(1&2), 1-20 . Stefanovska, V. (2015). “The Legacy of Magna Carta and the Rule of Law in The Republic of Macedonia”. SEEU Review (Special Edition). 11(1), 197-205.
65. Stuart, W. A. (1914). “Constitutional Clauses of Magna Carta”. Virginia Law Review. 2(8), 565-583.
66. Summers, W. (1971). “A Change in Budgetary Thinking”. American Libraries. 2(11), 1174-1180.
67. Taşdöğen, S. (2021). “Temsilsiz Vergi Olmaz İlkesi Bağlamında Magna Carta'ya Farklı Bir Bakış”. Süleyman Demirel Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi. 2(40), 120-142.
68. Tüğen, K. (2022). Devlet Bütçesi. İzmir: Bassaray Matbaası.
69. Turner, R. V. (2015). “The Making of Magna Carta: The Historical Background”. In Magraw, D. B.; Martinez, A. & Brownell, R. E. (Eds.), Magna Carta and the Rule of Law (1-38). American Bar Association. Chicago: ABA Publishing.
70. Vinagradoff, P. (1905). “Magna Carta”. Law Quarterly Review. 21(3), 250-257 . Wehner, J. (2020). “Effective Financial Scrutiny: The Role of Parliament in Public Finance”. Paper Presented at World Bank Parliamentary Staff Training Program. https://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/110391587967339662/pdf/World-Bank-Parliamentary-Staff-Training-Program-Effective-Financial-Scrutiny-The-Role-of-Parliament-in-Public-Finance.pdf (Access Date: 04.10.2023).