Public Budgets as Expressions of Political Culture and Collective Imagination

Yıl 2025, Cilt: 36 Sayı: 138, 493 - 516, 22.09.2025

Metehan Cömert

https://doi.org/10.52836/sayistay.1725431

Öz

This article begins with a suspicion: the presumed neutrality of public budgets
is a well-founded illusion. What is the definition of public budgeting, and what is at
stake when we reduce it to a technical or administrative routine? This study makes
a theoretical intervention into the dominant technocratic approaches by imagining
public budgets as culturally embedded and politically contested practices. Drawing on
Aaron Wildavsky’s writings, I argue that the post-political vision of budgeting –which
frames fiscal decisions as apolitical matters of expertise– obscures the ideological
underpinnings of public budgets. Against this ‘rational’ logic, I propose a politicized
understanding of public budgeting that calls for a radical break from conventional,
depoliticized perspectives. The conclusion outlines emancipatory possibilities that
could transform budgets from tools of control into instruments of collective selfdetermination and democratic reimagination.

Anahtar Kelimeler

budget , public budget , politics , culture , political culture.

Politik Kültür ve Kolektif Tahayyülün Dışavurumu Olarak Kamu Bütçeleri

Öz

Bu makalede, kamu bütçelerine atfedilen ‘tarafsızlık’ iddiasının aslında özenle
inşa edilmiş bir yanılsama olduğu yönünde bir şüpheden hareket edilmektedir. “Kamu
bütçesi nedir?” sorusu ile birlikte, bütçelerin salt teknik ya da idari bir rutin olarak
tanımlanmasının bu süreçlerin ideolojik, kültürel ve siyasal boyutlarını nasıl görünmez
kıldığı sorgulanmaktadır. Çalışmada, egemen teknokratik yaklaşımlara kuramsal
müdahalelerde bulunularak, bütçeleme süreçlerinin kültürel olarak şekillendiği ve
siyasal mücadelelerle iç içe geçtiği savunulmaktadır. Bu çerçevede, Aaron Wildavsky’nin
metinlerinden hareketle, bütçe kararlarını apolitik birer uzmanlık meselesi olarak sunan
post-politik tahayyülün, kamu bütçelerinin ideolojik boyutlarını görünmez kıldığı öne
sürülmektedir. Tarafsızlık iddiasıyla meşrulaştırılan bu ‘rasyonel’ bütçeleme anlayışına
karşı, çalışmada bütçeyi siyasallaştıran bir perspektif önerilmekte ve yerleşik teknokratik
söylemlere karşı teorik düzlemde itirazlar geliştirilmektedir. Sonuç bölümünde ise,
bütçelerin birer toplumsal kontrol aracından kolektif katılım ve demokratik tahayyül
imkânlarını barındıran özgürleştirici araçlara dönüştürülebileceği yönündeki olasılıklar
ana hatlarıyla ortaya konmaktadır..

Anahtar Kelimeler

Bütçe , Devlet Bütçesi , Siyaset , Kültür , Politik Kültür

Etik Beyan

Bu çalışmada kullanılan tüm veriler ve analizler akademik etik kurallarına uygun şekilde elde edilmiş ve yorumlanmıştır. Çalışma süresince intihal, tahrifat veya uydurma gibi etik ihlallerden kaçınılmıştır. Kullanılan tüm kaynaklara bilimsel atıf kuralları doğrultusunda yer verilmiştir.

Destekleyen Kurum

Yok.

Teşekkür

Yok.

Kaynakça

• Allen, R., Hemming R. and Potter B. H. (2013). The International Handbook of Public Financial Management. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
• Appadurai, A. (2017). Democracy Fatigue. The Great Regression. (Ed.) Geiselberger, H. Cambridge: Polity Press.
• Burnham, P. (2000). Globalization, Depoliticization and ‘Modern’ Economic Management. Politics of Change: Globalization, Ideology, and Critique. (Eds.) Bonefeld, W. and Psychopedis, K. Palgrave: New York.
• Butler, E. (2012). Public Choice: A Primer. London: The Institute of Economic Affairs.
• Caiden, N. (1994). The Management of Public Budgeting. Comparative Public Management. (Ed.) Baker, R. Westport, CT: Praeger.
• Cropf, R. A. (2007). American Public Administration: Public Service for the 21st Century. Routledge.
• Dahl, R. A. and Lindblom C. E. (1953). Politics, Economics, and Welfare. The University of Chicago Press.
• De Grove, J. M. (1965). Review of the Politics of the Budgetary Process. The Yale Law Journal, 74 (3), 588-593.
• Dennard, L. F. (2008). The Budget Process as Complex Civic Space: Wildavsky and Radical Incrementalism. Administration & Society, 40(6), 645-658.
• Eckstein, H. (1988). A Culturalist Theory of Political Change. American Political Science Review, 82, 789-804.
• Formisano, R. P. (2001). The Concept of Political Culture. The Journal of Interdisciplinary History, 31 (3), 393-426.
• Freire, P. (2017). Pedagogy of the Oppressed. Penguin Classics.
• Gilley, B. (2017). Technocracy and Democracy as Spheres of Justice in Public Policy. Policy Sciences, 50 (1), 9-22.
• Heiser, H. C. (1959). Budgeting: Principles and Practice. New York: The Ronald Press Company.
• Horkheimer, M. ([1937] 1976). Traditional and Critical Theory. Critical Sociology. (Ed.) Connerton, P. London: Penguin.
• Hyde, A. C. (1992). Government Budgeting: Theory, Process, and Politics. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks.
• Jones, L. R. and Mccafery, J. L. (1994). Budgeting according to Wildavsky: A Bibliographic Essay. Public Budgeting & Finance, 14(1), 16-43.
• Genç, M. (2010). Gender Budgeting and Efficency in Public Services. Journal of Turkish Court of Accounts, (77), 33-62.
• Khan, A. and Hildreth W. B. (2002). Budget Theory in the Public Sector. London: Quorum Books.
• Koven, S. G. (2002). The Influence of Political Culture on State Budgets: Another Look at Elazar’s Formulation. American Review of Public Administration, 32 (1), 66-77.
• Lazzarato, M. (2011). The Making of the Indebted Man: An Essay on the Neoliberal Condition. Semiotext(e) Intervention.
• Miller, G. J. (2012). Government Budgeting and Financial Management in Practice: Logics to Make Sense of Ambiguity. CRC Press.
• Mouffe, C. (2005). On The Political. New York: Routledge.
• Mouffe, C. (2013). Agonistics: Thinking the World Politically. London: Verso.
• Padgett, J. F. (1980). Bounded Rationality in Budgetary Research. The American Political Science Review, 74(2). 354-372.
• Pehlivan, O. (2022). Devlet Bütçesi. Ekin Yayınevi.
• Ross, A. (2014). Creditocracy and the Case for Debt Refusal. OR Books.
• Rubin, I. S. (2000). The Politics of Public Budgeting: Getting and Spending, Borrowing and Balancing. London: Seven Bridges Press.
• Sakal, M. and Karadeniz, M. (2021). Devlet Bütçesi, Savaş Yayınevi.
• Schick, A. (1983). Incremental Budgeting in a Decremental Age. Policy Sciences, 16 (1), 1-25.
• Schmitt, C. ([1929] 2007). The Age of Neutralizations and Depoliticizations. Concept of the Political. (Trans.) Konzett, M. and McCormick, J. P. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
• Schumpeter J. A. ([1918] 1954). The Crisis of the Tax State. International Economic Papers. (Eds.) Peacock, A.T., Stolper, W.F., Turvey R. and Henderson, E. London: MacMillan.
• Starr, P. (1989). The Meaning of Privatization. Privatization and the Welfare State. (Eds.) Kamerman, S. B. and Kahn, A. J. New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
• Streeck, W. (2014). Buying Time: The Delayed Crisis of Democratic Capitalism London: Verso.
• Streeck, W. (2017). The Return of the Repressed as the Beginning of the End of Neoliberal Capitalism. The Great Regression. (Ed.) Geiselberger, H. Cambridge: Polity Press.
• Thompson, M, Ellis R.J. and Wildavsky A. B. (1990). Cultural Theory. Boulder: Westview Press.
• Tüğen, K. (2024). Devlet Bütçesi. Bassaray Yayıncılık.
• Wehner, J. (2015). Aaron Wildavsky, The Politics of the Budgetary Process. The Oxford Handbook of Classics in Public Policy and Administration. Oxford University Press.
• Wildavsky, A. B. (1961). Political Implications of Budgetary Reform. Public Administration Review, 21(4), 183–90.
• Wildavsky, A. B. (1964). The Politics of the Budgetary Process. Boston: Little Brown.
• Wildavsky, A. B. (1985). A Cultural Theory of Expenditure Growth and (Un)Balanced Budgets. Journal of Public Economics, 28(3), 349-357.
• Wildavsky, A. B. (1988). A Cultural Theory of Budgeting. International Journal of Public Administration, 11 (6), 651-677.
• Wildavsky, A. B. (1992). The New Politics of the Budgetary Process. New York: Harper Collins.
• Wildavsky, A. (2018). Budgeting as a Political Process. The Revolt Against the Masses. (Ed.) Wildavsky, A. Routledge.