A Comparative Study of the Central Administration Budget Preparation Process in Turkey and Sweden

A Comparative Study of the Central Administration Budget Preparation Process in Turkey and Sweden

Fatma Turna (Marmara University, Turkey), Nihan Kurtulmaz (Marmara University, Turkey) and Burak Kozali (Marmara University, Turkey)
DOI: 10.4018/978-1-5225-2160-0.ch001
OnDemand PDF Download:
No Current Special Offers


Sweden was one of the countries among the OECD states yielding maximum budget surplus at the end of 1980s and became one of the countries yielding maximum budget deficits in the first years of the 1990s. The budget deficit almost doubled in five years. During that period, the government decided the most important reason of the budget deficits was the budget process itself and commenced studies to reform the budget process and enhance its consistency and reliability. Basic steps were taken to grant budget surplus for whole public sector, to set an allowance cap for whole public sector and create equivalent budget structure for all municipalities and a series of studies were conducted. In this study, the stage of the budget preparation process in Turkey and Sweden will be reviewed and compared to the budget preparation process in Sweden with the budget preparation process in Turkey.
Chapter Preview

General Information On The Budget Preparation Process In Sweden

Sweden is a Scandinavian country which is ranked in the front of all comfort and peace indexes with respect to money and freedoms. A constitutional monarchy where the King has limited ritualistic roles, the status of the monarchy has become symbolic since the adoption of the Constitution in 1974. Sweden is ruled by parliamentary democracy in which the people are represented by Parliament (Riksdag) at the national level and a one chamber Parliament which consists of 349 members (Regeringskansliet, 2016a). Blöndal (2010) states that Sweden has always been one of the countries implementing the most developed techniques with respect to the budgeting and public administration. Reformist precautions have been taken as a result of budgetary deficits and realization of pre-existing modern drafts. Financial crisis created by budgetary deficits has given rise to more extensive implementation of these precautions in a shorter period.

Sweden moved into the performance-based budgeting system within the context of the reform studies first initiated in 1993. The system requires preparation of 3-year reports so as to exhibit operating results of institutions as part of the objectives set out by those reports (Tüğen, Egeli, & Özen 2010, p. 42). Additionally, some reforms to the system have been made such as monthly monitoring of expenditures; abolition of open-ended allowances (of the social security system); gross budgeting (e.g., expenditures not being offset by income); entering nominal expense ceilings set in a 3-year term; setting expense ceilings for 27 expenditure areas as well as total expenditure (excluding government debit interest) and pension system including social security; evaluation of all governmental organizations in terms of economy and administration (Molander & Jörgen, 2013, pp. 4-5).

The issues shown in Table 1 are of great importance to improve the stability and reliability in the Swedish budgeting process in line with the budget policy (Carlgren, 2016).

Table 1.
27 Expenditure areas
Political AdministrationTraining Support
Economic and Fiscal ManagementEducation and University Researches
Tax Management Culture, Media and Religious Organizations
Foreign AffairsRegional Development
International Development SupportEnergy
Migration and AsylumCommunication
Support for diseases and the disabled Agriculture, Forestry and Fishery
Health and Social SecurityBusiness World
Retirement SupportMunicipalities
Support for Family and ChildrenInterest Payments
Unemployment AssistanceContributions to the EU Budget
Labour Market

Blöndal, 2001, p. 57.

Complete Chapter List

Search this Book: