The Evaluation of Annual Municipal Reports in terms of Discharging Accountability: The Case of Turkey(Belediyelerde Faaliyet Raporlarının Hesap Verme Yükümlülüğünü Yerine Getirme Açısından Değerlendirilmesi: Türkiye Örneği)

Yıl 2016, Cilt: 23 Sayı: 2, 575 - 598, 25.08.2016

Tolga Demirbaş , Erdal Eroğlu

https://doi.org/10.18657/yecbu.01495

Öz

Public Financial Management and Control Law, which is accepted to be the constitution of public fiscal management in Turkey, has brought about many innovations such as strategic plan, performance-based budget and accrual based accounting so that public resources can be used more efficiently. The law has also stipulated that public institutions account for the use of resources to relevant authorities. As in the world, the most comprehensive accountability tool in Turkey is annual reports. The objective of this study is to find out to what extent the municipalities, which are now using more resources than in the past, can account by means of their annual reports. To reach this goal, the annual reports prepared by 50 municipalities for the fiscal year 2014 have been put to content analysis considering the accountability criteria that have already been set. The research has revealed that the municipalities concerned are weak in terms of accessibility, understandability, timeliness, full disclosure, accuracy and neutrality and, thus, they do not sufficiently account for their use of resources.

ÖZ

Türkiye’de kamu mali yönetiminin anayasası olarak kabul edilen Kamu Mali Yönetimi ve Kontrol Kanunu, kamu kaynaklarının daha etkin kullanılmasını sağlamak için stratejik plan, performans esaslı bütçe, tahakkuk esaslı muhasebe gibi yenilikler getirmiştir. Bunun yanında kaynakların etkin kullanılıp kullanılmadığının hesabının yetkili mercilere verilmesini de şart koşmuştur. Dünyada olduğu gibi Türkiye’de de, kamu hizmetlerinden yararlananlara hesap vermede kullanılan en kapsamlı araç ise idare faaliyet raporudur. Bu çalışma, eskiye göre daha fazla kaynak kullanan belediyelerin faaliyet raporları aracılığıyla ne ölçüde hesap verdiklerini araştırmayı amaçlamaktadır. Makalede bu amaca ulaşmak için 50 belediyenin 2014 mali yılı faaliyet raporları hesap verme yükümlülüğü çerçevesinde belirlenen kriterler ışığında içerik analizine tabi tutulmuştur. Araştırma sonucunda belediyelerin erişebilirlik, anlaşılabilirlik, zamanlılık, tam açıklama, doğruluk ve tarafsızlık açısından zayıf yönlerinin olduğu, bu nedenle kullanılan kaynaklar konusunda paydaşlarına yeterince hesap vermedikleri ortaya konmuştur.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Faaliyet raporları, Hesap Verme Yükümlülüğü, Belediyeler

Kaynakça

• Avcı, M. (2015). Mali Saydamlık: Türkiye’de Büyükşehir Belediyeler Uygulaması (Doktora Tezi, Bülent Ecevit Üniversitesi-Zonguldak).
• Blanco, H., Lennard, J., & Lamontagne, S. (2011). Annual Reporting and Accountability by Municipalities in Canada: An Empirical Investigation. Accounting Perspectives, 10(3), 195-224.
• Bovens, M. (2005). Public Accountability. In E. Ferlie, L. E. Jr., Lynn, & C. Pollitt (Eds.), Public Management (pp. 182-208). New York: Oxford University Press.
• Bovens, M. (2007). Analysing and Assessing Accountability: A Conceptual Framework. European Law Journal, 13(4), 447-468.
• Bovens, M., Schillemans, T., & Hart, P. (2008). Does public accountability work? An assessment tool. Public Administration, 86(1), 225-242.
• Boyne, G., & Law, J. (1991). Accountability and Local Authority Annual Reports: The Case of Welsh District Councils. Financial Accountability & Management, 7(3), 179-194.
• Brinkerhoff, D. W. (2001). Taking Account of Accountability: A Conceptual Overview and Strategic Options. Washington, DC: U.S. Agency for International Development Center for Democracy and Governance Implementing Policy Change Project.
• Demirbaş, T. (2009). Genel Muhasebe Kanunundan Kamu Mali Yönetimi ve Kontrol Kanunu’na Türkiye'de Bütçe Reformu Geleneği. In N. Edizdoğan (Ed.), Güncel Mali Konular (pp. 279-302). Bursa: Dora Yayın Dağıtım Ltd. Şti.
• Demirbaş, T. (2010). Türkiye’de Yerel Yönetimlerin Faaliyet Raporları İle Saydamlığı Sağlama Çabaları: Belediyeler Üzerine Bir Araştırma. In F. Altuğ, Ö. Çetinkaya, S. İpek (Eds.), Mahalli İdareler Maliyesi Üzerine Yazılar (pp. 287-316). Bursa: Ekin Kitabevi.
• Demirbaş, T. (2014). Yerel Yönetimlerde Mali Tabloların Hesap Verme Amacıyla Kullanılması: Büyükşehir Belediyeleri Üzerine Bir İnceleme. In M. Sakal, A. Kesik ve T. Akdemir (Eds.), Mali Yerinden Yönetim: Teori, Kavramsal Açıklamalar ve Türkiye’ye İlişkin Değerlendirmeler. Ankara: Nobel Akademik Yayıncılık.
• Dubnic, M. J., & Frederickson, H. G. (2009). Accountable Agents: Federal Performance Measurement and Third-Party Government. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, The State of Agents: A Special Issue, 143-159.
• Dubnick, M. (2005). Accountability and the Promise of Performance: In Search of the Mechanisms. Public Performance & Management Review, 28(3), 376–417.
• Dubnick, M. (2007). Pathologies of Governance Reform: Promises, Pervasions and Perversions in the Age of Accountability. PA TIMES, October, 3, 8.
• Edizdoğan, N. & Çetinkaya, Ö. (2015). Kamu Bütçesi (6. Baskı). Bursa: Ekin Kitabevi.
• Emil, M. F., & Yılmaz, H. H. (2004). Mali Saydamlık İzleme Raporu. Ankara: TESEV
• Gray, A., & Jenkins, B. (1993). Codes of accountability in the new public sector. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 6(3), 52-67.
• Heeks, R. (1998). Information Systems and Public Sector Accountability. Information Systems for Public Sector Management Working Paper Series (Paper No 1). Manchester, UK: Institute for Development Policy and Management.
• Homburg, V., Pollitt, C. ve Thiel, S. (2007). Introduction. In C. Pollitt, S. Thiel, V. Homburg (Eds.), New Public Management in Europe: Adaptation and Alternatives (pp. 1-9). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
• Hood, C. (1995). The “New Public Management” in the 1980s: Variations on a Theme. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 20(2/3), 93-109.
• Justice, J. B., Melitski, J., & Smith, D. L. (2006). E-Government as an Instrument of Fiscal Accountability and Responsiveness: Do the Best Practitioners Employ the Best Practices? The American Review of Public Administration, 36(3), 301-322.
• Kesik, A., & Karagöz, N. (2010). “Yerel Yönetimlerde Stratejik Planlama”, In F. Altuğ, Ö. Çetinkaya, S. İpek (Eds.), Mahalli İdareler Maliyesi Üzerine Yazılar (pp. 131-150). Bursa: Ekin Kitabevi.
• Kettl, D. F. (2005). The Global Public Management Revolution. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution.
• Kluvers, R. (2003). Accountability for performance in local government. Australian Journal of Public Administration, 62(1), 57-69.
• Koppell, J. GS (2005). Pathologies of Accountability: ICANN and the Challenge of “Multiple Accountabilities Disorder”. Public Administration Review, 65(1), 94-108.
• Korlu, R. K. (2014). Belediyelerde Katılımcılık ve Retro Demokrasi. Bursa: Ekin Kitabevi.
• Law, J. (2001). Accountability and Annual Reports: The Case of Policing. Public Policy and Administration, 16(1), 75-90.
• Leclerc, G., Moynagh, W. D., Boisclair, J. P., & Hanson, H. R. (1996). Accountability, performance reporting, comprehensive audit - an integrated perspective. Ottawa, Canada: CCAF-FCVI Inc.
• Lee, M. (2004). Public Reporting: A Neglected Aspect of Nonprofit Accountability. Nonprofit Management & Leadership, 15(2), 169-185.
• Lee, M. (2006). The history of municipal public reporting. Intl Journal of Public Administration, 29, 453-476.
• Mack J., Ryan, C., & Dunstan, K. (2001). Local Government Annual Reports: Australian Empirical Evidence on Recipients. Paper presented at the APIRA Conference, Adelaide.
• Ministry of Finance (2005). Performans Esaslı Bütçeleme (Yapı-Rehber-Pilot Uygulama). Ankara: Bütçe ve Mali Kontrol Genel Müdürlüğü.
• Ministry of Finance (2006). Kamu İdarelerince Hazırlanacak Faaliyet Raporları Hakkında Yönetmelik. Regulations of Turkish Republic, No 26111 of 2006. Retrieved January 21, 2016, from http://www.mevzuat.gov.tr.
• Ministry of Internal Affairs (2006). Mahalli İdareler Bütçe ve Muhasebe Yönetmeliği. Regulations of Turkish Republic, No 26104 of 2006. Retrieved January 20, 2016, from http://www.mevzuat.gov.tr.
• Mulgan, R. (2000). ‘Accountability’: An Ever-Expanding Concept?. Public Administration, 78(3), 555-573.
• Mulgan, R. (2000b). Comparing accountability in the public and private sectors. Australian Journal of Public Administration, 59(1), 87-97.
• Municipality Law. (2005). Laws of Turkish Republic, No 5393 of 2005. Retrieved March 10, 2016, from http://www.mevzuat.gov.tr
• OECD (1997). Modern Budgeting. Paris: OECD.
• Pablos, J. L., Carcaba, A., & Lopez, A. (2002). The annual report as a tool for financial disclosure in local governments. International Journal of Management, 19(4), 651-663.
• Parker, L., & Gould, G. (1999). Changing public sector accountability: critiquing new directions. Accounting Forum, 23(2), 109-135.
• Peters, G. (2007). Performance-Based Accountability. In A. Shah (Ed.), Performance Accountability and Combating Corruption (pp. 15-32). Washington DC: World Bank.
• Polat, M. (2010). Hesap Verebilirlik Aracı Olarak İdare Faaliyet Raporlarının Değerlendirilmesi (Devlet Bütçe Uzmanlığı Araştırma Raporu). Ankara: Maliye Bakanlığı.
• Public Financial Management and Control Law. (2003). Laws of Turkish Republic, No 5018 of 2003. Retrieved February 10, 2016, from http://www.mevzuat.gov.tr
• Quirk, B. (1997). Accountable to everyone: postmodern pressures on public managers. Public Administration, 75, 569-586.
• Right to Information Law. (2003). Laws of Turkish Republic, No 4982 of 2003. Retrieved January 20, 2016, from http://www.mevzuat.gov.tr
• Romzek, B. S. (2000). Dynamics of Public Sector Accountability in an Era of Reform. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 66(1), 21-44.
• Romzek, B. S., & Dubnick, M. J. (1987). Accountability in the Public Sector: Lessons from the Challenger Tragedy. Public Administration Review, 47(3), 227-238.
• Sinclair, A. (1995). The chameleon of accountability: forms and discourses. Accounting organizations and society, 20(2/3), 219-237.
• Stanley, T., Jennings, N., & Mack, J. (2008). An examination of the content of community financial reports in Queensland local government authorities. Financial Accountability & Management, 24(4), 411-438.
• State Planning Organisation-SPO (2006). Kamu İdareleri İçin Stratejik Planlama Kılavuzu. Ankara.
• Steccolini, I. (2004). Is the annual report an accountability medium? An empirical investigation into Italian local governments. Financial Accountability & Management, 20(3), 327-350.
• Turkish Court of Accounts-TCA (2013). Annual Reports Evaluation Guide. Ankara: TCA.
• Toksöz, F., Özgür, A. E., & Koç, L. (2009). Küreselleşme ve Yerelleşme Bağlamında Yerel Yönetimler: Türkiye Örneği. In N. Falay, A. Kesik, M. Çak & M. Karakaş (Eds.), Türkiye’de Yerel Yönetimlerin Sorunları ve Geleceği (pp. 63-91). Ankara: Seçkin Yayıncılık.
• Yilmaz, S., & Beris, Y. (2008). Good Governance and the Emergence of a New Accountability Agenda. In G. Peteri (Ed.), Finding the Money: Public Accountability and Service Efficiency through Fiscal Tansparency (pp. 13-41). Budapest: Open Society Institute