Buradasınız

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

A NEW APPROACH FOR ALLOCATING APPROPRIATIONS TO STATE UNIVERSITIES: PERFORMANCE FUNDING

Journal Name:

Publication Year:

Author NameUniversity of AuthorFaculty of Author
Abstract (2. Language): 
Traditional methods that are used to allocate appropriations to state universities have a needs-based approach. Since 1980s, demand for higher education has risen faster than public resources, and this sitution has led to governments seeking to greater efficiency and effectiveness. For this reason, the concept of “performance” has become a key concept in allocating appropriations to state universities. This article examines the method of performance funding that suggests strictly linking appropriations to institutional performance of state universities. The method which is stated to be an extension of performance-based budgeting system is now being implemented in many countries such as USA, Denmark, and Australia etc. It seems that the method will also be used in some other countries. Despite the fact that the main purpose of this method is to use current resources of state universities more efficiently and effectively, the method, when applications in countries mentioned above are taken into consideration, is unable to meet the requirements and even it has a negative impact on service delivery of state universities.
Abstract (Original Language): 
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.
79-105

REFERENCES

References: 

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.
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.
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.
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.
Bogue, E. Grady ve Brown, Wayne. (1982), “Performance Incentives for State Colleges”,
Harvard Business Review, November-December, s. 123-128.
Burke, Joseph C. (1998a), “Performance Funding: Present Status and Future Prospects”, New
Directions for Institutional Research, No 97, Spring, p. 5-13.
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.
Burke, Joseph C. (1998c), “Performance Funding: Arguments and Answers”, New Directions for
Institutional Research, No 97, Spring, p. 85-90.
Burke, Joseph C. (1999), “Performance Funding in South Carolina: From Fringe toward
Mainstream”, Assessment Update, Vol 11, No 6, November-December, s. 4-6.
Burke, Joseph C. (2002), Funding Public Colleges and Universities for Performance: Popularity,
Problems, and Prospects, State University of New York Pres.
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.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.
Burke, Joseph C. ve Minassians, Henrik (2002b), “Reporting Indicators: What Do They
Indicate?”, New Directions for Institutional Research, No 116, Winter, s. 33-58.
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.
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.
Clark, Tony (2006), OECD Thematic Review of Tertiary Education, Country Background Report:
United Kingdom, May.
Deaton, Russ (2004), The Funding Formula as a Higher Education Policy Tool in Tennessee,
Boston.
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.
HEFCE-Higher Education Funding Council for England (2008), Funding Higher Education in
England: How HEFCE Allocates Its Funds.
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.
Johnstone, D. Bruce (1998), The Financing and Management of Higher Education: A Status
Report on Worldwide Reforms, The World Bank.
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.
Jonge, Jos de ve Berger, Jurriaan (2006), OECD Thematic Review of Tertiary Education, Country
Background Report: The Netherlands, August.
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.
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).
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.
Kis, Viktoria (2005), Quality Assurance in Tertiary Education: Current Practices in OECD
Countries and a Literature Review on Potential Effects, OECD Publishing, August.
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.
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.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)
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)
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.
Noland, Brian E. (2006), “Changing Perceptions and Outcomes: The Accountability Paradox in
Tennessee”, New Directions for Institutional Research, No 135, Fall, p. 59-67.
OECD (2003), Chapter 3: Changing Patterns of Governance in Higher Education, Education
Policy Analysis.
OECD (2008), Education at a Glance 2008: OECD Indicators.
OECD (2007a), Performance Budgeting in OECD Countries.
OECD (2007b), OECD Thematic Review of Tertiary Education, Country Background Report:
Australia, Canberra, April.
Serban, Andreea M. (1998a), “Precursors of Performance Funding”, New Directions for
Institutional Research, No 97, Spring, p. 15-24.
Serban, Andreea M. (1998b), “Performance Funding Criteria, Levels, and Methods”, New
Directions for Institutional Research, No 97, Spring, p. 61-67.
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.
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.
The Norwegian Ministry of Education and Research (2005), OECD Thematic Review of Tertiary
Education, Country Background Report for Norway, January.
THEC-Tennessee Higher Education Commission (2005), Performance Funding 2005-2010 Cycle,
July.
Thorn, Kristian, Holm-Nielsen, Lauritz ve Jeppesen, Jette Samuel (2004), Approaches to Results-
Based Funding in Tertiary Education: Identifying Finance Reform Options for Chile,
World Bank Policy Research Working Paper No 3436, October.
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.
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.
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, August.Yenice, Ebru (2006), “Kamu Kesiminde Performans Ölçümü ve Bütçe İlişkisi”, Sayıştay Dergisi,
Sayı 61, Nisan-Haziran, s. 57-68.
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.
www.hero.ac.uk/rae
www.highered.nysed.gov/oris/p_report.htm#Outcomes%20assessment
www.innovation.gov.au/innovationreview/Documents/Annex-6.pdf
www.tennessee.gov

Thank you for copying data from http://www.arastirmax.com