DEVLET ÜNİVERSİTELERİNE ÖDENEK TAHSİSİNDE YENİ BİR YAKLAŞIM: PERFORMANSA BAĞLI ÖDENEK TAHSİSİ

Öz

Devlet üniversitelerine ödenek dağıtımında kullanılan geleneksel yöntemler, ödenekleri “ihtiyaç” esaslı bir şekilde dağıtmaktadır. 1980’lerden bu yana yükseköğretime olan talebin kamu kaynaklarından daha hızlı bir şekilde artması, devlet üniversitelerinde verimlilik ve etkinlik arayışlarına yol açmıştır. Bunun bir sonucu olarak devlet üniversitelerine ödenek tahsisinde “performans” kavramı merkezi öğe haline gelmiştir. Bu makale devlet üniversitelerine ödenek tahsisini girdi odaklılıktan çıkararak, kurumsal performansa sıkıca bağlamayı öngören performansa bağlı ödenek tahsisi yöntemini incelemektedir. Performans bütçenin bir uzantısı olarak gösterilen yöntem günümüzde ABD, İngiltere, Danimarka, Avustralya gibi birçok ülkede uygulanmaktadır. Yöntemin diğer ülkeler arasında da yayılacağı tahmin edilmektedir. Temel hedefi, devlet üniversitelerinin mevcut kaynaklarını daha verimli ve etkin kullanmalarını teşvik etmek olan yöntemin, ülke örneklerine bakıldığında beklentileri karşılayamadığı hatta üniversitelerin mevcut hizmet kapasitesini olumsuz etkileyebilen bir yapıda olduğu görülmektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Performansa bağlı ödenek tahsisi, devlet bütçesi, performans esaslı bütçe, yükseköğretimin finansmanı, devlet üniversiteleri

References

1. Anderson, Don, Johnson, Richard ve Milligan, Bruce (1996), Performance-Based Funding of Universities, Australian National Board of Employment, Education and Training, Report No 51, Canberra.
2. Banta, Trudy W. ve Fisher, Homer S (1989), Tennessee’s Performance Funding Policy: L’Entant Terrible of Assessment at Age Fight, Center for Assessment Research and Development, University of Tennessee.
3. Banta, Trudy W; Rudolph, Linda B; Dyke, Janice Van; Fisher, Homer S (1996), “Performance Funding Comes of Age in Tennessee”, Journal of Higher Education, Vol 67, No 1, January-February.
4. Bogue, E. Grady (1998), “Quality Assurance in Higher Education: The Evolution of Systems and Design Ideals”, New Directions for Institutional Research, No 99, Fall, 7-18.
5. Bogue, E. Grady ve Brown, Wayne. (1982), “Performance Incentives for State Colleges”, Harvard Business Review, November-December, s. 123-128.
6. Burke, Joseph C. (1998a), “Performance Funding: Present Status and Future Prospects”, New Directions for Institutional Research, No 97, Spring, p. 5-13.
7. Burke, Joseph C. (1998b), “Performance Funding Indicators: Concerns, Values, and Models for State Colleges and Universities”, New Directions for Institutional Research, No 97, Spring, p. 49-60.
8. Burke, Joseph C. (1998c), “Performance Funding: Arguments and Answers”, New Directions for Institutional Research, No 97, Spring, p. 85-90.

9. Burke, Joseph C. (1999), “Performance Funding in South Carolina: From Fringe toward Mainstream”, Assessment Update, Vol 11, No 6, November-December, s. 4-6.
10. Burke, Joseph C. (2002), Funding Public Colleges and Universities for Performance: Popularity, Problems, and Prospects, State University of New York Pres.
11. Burke, Joseph C. ve Modarresi, Shahpar (2000), “To Keep or Not to Keep Performance Funding”, The Journal of Higher Education, Vol 71, No 4, July-August, s. 432-453.
12. Burke, Joseph C. ve Minassians, Henrik (2002a), “The New Accountability: From Regulation to Results”, New Directions for Institutional Research, No 116, Winter, s. 5-19.
13. Burke, Joseph C. ve Minassians, Henrik (2002b), “Reporting Indicators: What Do They Indicate?”, New Directions for Institutional Research, No 116, Winter, s. 33-58.
14. Burke, Joseph C. ve Serban, Andreea M. (1998), “State Synopses of Performance Funding Programs”, New Directions for Institutional Research, No 97, Spring, p. 25-48.
15. Center for Higher Education Policy Studies-CHEPS (2005), Issues in Higher Education Policy: An Update on Higher Education Policy Issues in 2004 in 11 Western Countries, March.
16. Clark, Tony (2006), OECD Thematic Review of Tertiary Education, Country Background Report: United Kingdom, May.
17. Deaton, Russ (2004), The Funding Formula as a Higher Education Policy Tool in Tennessee, Boston.
18. Harbour, Clifford P. (2002), “The Legislative Evolution of Performance Funding in the North Carolina Community College System”, Community College Review, Vol 29, No 4, Spring, s. 28-49.
19. HEFCE-Higher Education Funding Council for England (2008), Funding Higher Education in England: How HEFCE Allocates Its Funds.
20. Hoyt, Jeff E (2001), “Performance Funding in Higher Education: The Effects of Student Motivation on the Use of Outcomes Tests to Measure Institutional Effectiveness”, Research in Higher Education, Vol 42, No 1, s. 71-85.
21. Johnstone, D. Bruce (1998), The Financing and Management of Higher Education: A Status Report on Worldwide Reforms, The World Bank.
22. Jongbloed, Ben (2001), Performance-Based Funding in Higher Education: An International Survey, Center for the Economics of Education and Training, Working Paper No 35, Melbourne.
23. Jonge, Jos de ve Berger, Jurriaan (2006), OECD Thematic Review of Tertiary Education, Country Background Report: The Netherlands, August.
24. Jordan, Meagan ve Hackbart, Merl M. (1999), “Performance Budgeting and Performance Funding in the States: A Status Assessment”, Public Budgeting & Finance, Spring, s. 68-88.
25. Kaiser, Frans, Vossensteyn, Hans ve Koelman, Jos (2001), Public Funding of Higher Education: A Comparative Study of Funding Mechanisms in Ten Countries, Center for Higher Education Policy Studies (CHEPS).
26. Kesik, Ahmet (2003). Yüksek Öğrenimde Yeni Bir Finansman Modeli Önerisi: Bütünsel Model, TC Maliye Bakanlığı Araştırma, Planlama ve Koordinasyon Kurulu Başkanlığı Yayınları, Yayın No: 2003/362, Ankara.
27. Kis, Viktoria (2005), Quality Assurance in Tertiary Education: Current Practices in OECD Countries and a Literature Review on Potential Effects, OECD Publishing, August.
28. Lasher, William F. ve Grene, Deborah L. (2001), “College and University Budgeting: What Do We Know? What Do We Need to Know?”, The Finance of Higher Education: Theory, Research, Policy&Practice, Edited by Michael B. Paulsen ve John C. Smart, 2001, s. 501- 542.
29. Layzell, Daniel T. (1999), “Linking Performance to Funding Outcomes at the State Level for Public Institutions of Higher Education: Past, Present, and Future”, Research in Higher Education, Vol 40, No 2, s. 233-246.
30. Marks, Joseph L. ve Caruthers, J. Kent (1999a), A Primer on Funding of Public Higher Education, Southern Regional Education Board, Atlanta, August (http://www. sreb.org)
31. Marks, Joseph L. ve Caruthers, J. Kent (1999b), Funding Public Higher Education in the 1990s: What’s happened and where are we going?, Southern Regional Education Board, Atlanta, August (http://www. sreb.org)
32. Mutluer, M. Kâmil (2008), Türkiye’de Yükseköğretimin Başlıca Sorunları ve Sorunlara Çözüm Önerileri, T.C. Maliye Bakanlığı Strateji Geliştirme Başkanlığı Yayın No 2008/380, Ankara.
33. Noland, Brian E. (2006), “Changing Perceptions and Outcomes: The Accountability Paradox in Tennessee”, New Directions for Institutional Research, No 135, Fall, p. 59-67.
34. OECD (2003), Chapter 3: Changing Patterns of Governance in Higher Education, Education Policy Analysis. OECD (2008), Education at a Glance 2008: OECD Indicators.
35. OECD (2007a), Performance Budgeting in OECD Countries.
36. OECD (2007b), OECD Thematic Review of Tertiary Education, Country Background Report: Australia, Canberra, April.
37. Serban, Andreea M. (1998a), “Precursors of Performance Funding”, New Directions for Institutional Research, No 97, Spring, p. 15-24.
38. Serban, Andreea M. (1998b), “Performance Funding Criteria, Levels, and Methods”, New Directions for Institutional Research, No 97, Spring, p. 61-67.
39. Sletta, Knut (2007), “Funding Higher Educations Institutions in Norway”, Latvia Stevenson, Joseph M. (1996), “A Synopsis for Outcome-Based versus Income-Focused Enrollment Management”, Education, Vol 116, Vol 4, s. 609-611.
40. Strehl, Franz, Reisinger, Sabine ve Kalatschan, Michael (2007), “Funding Systems and their Effects on Higher Education Systems”, OECD Education Working Papers, No. 6, OECD Publishing. doi:10.1787/220244801417.
41. The Norwegian Ministry of Education and Research (2005), OECD Thematic Review of Tertiary Education, Country Background Report for Norway, January.
42. THEC-Tennessee Higher Education Commission (2005), Performance Funding 2005-2010 Cycle, July.
43. Thorn, Kristian, Holm-Nielsen, Lauritz ve Jeppesen, Jette Samuel (2004), Approaches to ResultsBased Funding in Tertiary Education: Identifying Finance Reform Options for Chile, World Bank Policy Research Working Paper No 3436, October.
44. Tural, Nejla Kurul (2002), Eğitim Finansmanı, Anı Yayıncılık, Ankara. Vossensteyn, Hans (2004), “Fiscal Stress: Worldwide Trends in Higher Education Finance”, NASFAA Journal of Student Financial Aid, Vol 34, No 1, s. 39-55.
45. Watt, Catherine, Lancaster, Carol, Gilbert, James ve Higerd, Thomas (2004), “Performance Funding and Quality Enhancement at Three Research Universities in the United States”, Tertiary Education and Management, Vol 10, No 1, March, s. 61-72.
46. Williams, Ronald Charles (2005), Higher Education Stakeholders’ Perceptions of Tennessee’s Current Performance Funding Policy, A Dissertation Submitted to the Graduate Scholl of Tennessee State University, AugustYenice, Ebru (2006), “Kamu Kesiminde Performans Ölçümü ve Bütçe İlişkisi”, Sayıştay Dergisi, Sayı 61, Nisan-Haziran, s. 57-68.
47. Yükseköğretim Kurulu (2007), Türkiye’nin Yükseköğretim Stratejisi, Şubat. 5018 Sayılı Kamu Mali Yönetimi ve Kontrol Kanunu, 24/12/2003 Tarih ve 25326 sayılı Resmi Gazete.
48. www.hero.ac.uk/rae
49. www.highered.nysed.gov/oris/p_report.htm#Outcomes%20assessment
50. www.innovation.gov.au/innovationreview/Documents/Annex-6.pdf
51. www.tennessee.gov