مطالعه تطبیقی رویکردهای اصلاح بودجه عمومی در کشورهای منتخب: مبتنی بر رویکرد جبر بولی

نوع مقاله : مقاله مستخرج از رساله دکتری

نویسندگان

1 دانشجوی دکتری مدیریت دولتی گرایش خط مشی گذاری، دانشکده مدیریت و حسابداری، دانشگاه علامه طباطبایی، تهران، ایران.

2 دانشیار، گروه مدیریت دولتی، دانشکده مدیریت و حسابداری دانشگاه علامه طباطبائی، تهران، ایران.

3 استاد، گروه مدیریت دولتی، دانشکده مدیریت و حسابداری، دانشگاه علامه طباطبائی، تهران، ایران.

4 استادیار، گروه مدیریت دولتی، دانشکده مدیریت و حسابداری، دانشگاه علامه طباطبائی، تهران، ایران.

چکیده

زمینه و هدف: اصلاح بودجه عمومی طی دهه‌های اخیر به یکی از محورهای کلیدی اصلاحات حکمرانی مالی دولت‌ها تبدیل شده است و نقش تعیین‌کننده‌ای در بهبود کارایی تخصیص منابع، ارتقای شفافیت، تقویت پاسخ‌گویی و پایداری مالی ایفا می‌کند. با این حال، بررسی ادبیات علمی نشان می‌دهد که بخش قابل توجهی از پژوهش‌ها به مطالعات موردی یا تمرکز بر ابعاد منفرد اصلاحات بودجه‌ای محدود بوده و کمتر به ماهیت چندبعدی، ترکیبی و زمینه‌مند اصلاح بودجه توجه کرده‌اند. این در حالی است که تجارب بین‌المللی نشان می‌دهد موفقیت اصلاحات بودجه‌ای بیش از آنکه به اجرای یک ابزار یا الگوی خاص وابسته باشد، به نحوه ترکیب و هم‌زمانی مجموعه‌ای از اصلاحات نهادی، ساختاری، فرایندی و فناورانه در بسترهای نهادی متفاوت وابسته است. بر این اساس، هدف پژوهش حاضر تحلیل تطبیقی رویکردهای اصلاح بودجه عمومی و شناسایی الگوها و ترکیب‌های مؤثر اصلاحات بودجه‌ای در کشورهای منتخب شامل چین، روسیه، ترکیه، عربستان سعودی، فرانسه، ایران و نروژ است.
روش‌شناسی: پژوهش حاضر از نوع کیفی و مبتنی بر تحلیل تطبیقی است و با بهره‌گیری از منطق جبر بولی به بررسی اصلاحات بودجه‌ای به‌مثابه پیکربندی‌هایی از شرایط و محورها می‌پردازد. در این چارچوب، اصلاح بودجه نه به‌صورت متغیرهای مستقل منفرد، بلکه به‌عنوان ترکیب‌های علّی از ابعاد مختلف تحلیل می‌شود. واحد تحلیل پژوهش، فرایند اصلاح بودجه عمومی در سطح ملی است و داده‌ها از طریق مطالعه اسنادی و کتابخانه‌ای گردآوری شده‌اند. منابع مورد استفاده شامل اسناد و قوانین بودجه‌ای، لوایح و گزارش‌های رسمی دولت‌ها، و گزارش‌های تحلیلی نهادهای بین‌المللی معتبر نظیر صندوق بین‌المللی پول، بانک جهانی و سازمان همکاری و توسعه اقتصادی است. منطق جبر بولی امکان شناسایی مسیرهای متفاوت اما هم‌ارز اصلاح بودجه را فراهم می‌سازد و با ماهیت غیرخطی و زمینه‌مند اصلاحات بودجه‌ای سازگاری دارد.
یافته‌ها: یافته‌های پژوهش نشان می‌دهد اصلاحات بودجه‌ای در کشورهای مورد مطالعه را می‌توان در قالب هفت محور کلیدی شامل اصلاح منابع و درآمدها، اصلاح مصارف و هزینه‌ها، اصلاح فرایند بودجه، اصلاح ساختار و طبقه‌بندی بودجه، اصلاح نهادی و حکمرانی مالی، به‌کارگیری رویکردهای نوین بودجه‌ریزی و توسعه زیرساخت‌های اطلاعاتی و فناوری مالی دولت طبقه‌بندی کرد. تحلیل تطبیقی نشان می‌دهد کشورها نه‌تنها در میزان توجه به هر یک از این محورها، بلکه در نحوه ترکیب و تقدم آن‌ها تفاوت‌های معناداری دارند. نتایج حاکی از آن است که برخی کشورها از مسیر تقویت نهادهای مالی و اصلاح فرایندهای تصمیم‌گیری به اصلاح بودجه دست یافته‌اند، در حالی که در برخی دیگر، اصلاحات درآمدی، فناورانه یا ساختاری نقش محوری‌تری ایفا کرده است.
نتیجه‌گیری: نتایج حاصل از این تحلیل تطبیقی نشان می‌دهد موفقیت اصلاح بودجه عمومی نه حاصل اجرای منفرد یک محور خاص، بلکه وابسته به ترکیب‌های چندبعدی اصلاحات و انطباق آن‌ها با بستر نهادی هر کشور است و کشورها در میزان و نوع اجرای این محورها تفاوت‌هایی معنادار دارند. این یافته بر ناکارآمدی رویکردهای نسخه‌محور تأکید دارد و نشان می‌دهد مسیرهای متفاوت اما کارآمدی برای اصلاح بودجه عمومی وجود دارد که می‌تواند مبنایی برای طراحی سیاست‌های بومی در حوزه حکمرانی مالی عمومی فراهم آورد.

کلیدواژه‌ها

عنوان مقاله [English]

A Comparative Study of Public Budget Reform Approaches in Selected Countries: Based on Boolean Algebra Approach

نویسندگان [English]

  • Mohammad Seddigh 1
  • Hadi Khanmohamadi 2
  • Reza Vaezi 3
  • Saeed Zarandi 4
1 PhD student in Public Administration, Policy Making, Faculty of Management and Accounting, Allameh Tabataba’i University, Tehran, Iran.
2 Associate Professor, Department of Public Administration, Faculty of Management and Accounting, Allameh Tabataba’i University, Tehran, Iran.
3 Professor, Department of Public Administration, Faculty of Management and Accounting, Faculty of Management and Accounting, Allameh Tabataba’i University, Tehran, Iran.
4 Assistant Professor, Department of Public Administration, Faculty of Management and Accounting, Allameh Tabataba’i University, Tehran, Iran.
چکیده [English]

Introduction: In recent decades, public budget reform has become a central pillar of fiscal governance reforms, playing a decisive role in improving the efficiency of resource allocation, enhancing transparency, strengthening accountability, and ensuring fiscal sustainability. However, a review of the scholarly literature indicates that a substantial share of existing studies has been confined to single-country case studies or to isolated dimensions of budget reform, paying limited attention to its multidimensional, combinational, and context-dependent nature. International experience suggests that the success of budget reforms depends less on the adoption of a specific instrument or model and more on the manner in which institutional, structural, procedural, and technological reforms are combined and implemented simultaneously within different institutional settings. Against this background, the present study aims to conduct a comparative analysis of public budget reform approaches and to identify effective reform patterns and configurations in selected countries, including China, Russia, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, France, Iran, and Norway.
Materials and Methods: This study adopts a qualitative, comparative research design and employs Boolean algebra logic to analyze public budget reforms as configurations of interrelated conditions and dimensions. Within this framework, budget reform is examined not as a set of isolated independent variables, but as causal combinations of multiple reform dimensions. The unit of analysis is the national-level public budget reform process. Data were collected through documentary and library-based research, drawing on budget laws and documents, government bills and official reports, as well as analytical reports produced by reputable international organizations such as the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. The Boolean approach enables the identification of multiple, functionally equivalent pathways to budget reform and is well suited to capturing the non linear and context-sensitive nature of fiscal reforms.
Discussion and Results: The findings indicate that budget reforms in the countries under study can be classified into seven key dimensions: revenue and resource reforms, expenditure reforms, budget process reforms, budget structure and classification reforms, institutional and fiscal governance reforms, the adoption of innovative budgeting approaches, and the development of public financial information and technology infrastructures. The comparative analysis reveals that countries differ not only in the extent to which they address each of these dimensions, but also in the way these reforms are combined and sequenced. The results further show that while some countries have achieved budget reform primarily through strengthening fiscal institutions and decision-making processes, others have relied more heavily on revenue, technological, or structural reforms as the main drivers of change.
Conclusion: The results of this comparative analysis demonstrate that successful public budget reform is not the outcome of implementing a single reform dimension in isolation, but rather depends on multidimensional reform configurations that are aligned with each country’s institutional context. Countries exhibit significant differences in both the scope and the composition of these reform configurations. This finding underscores the limitations of one size fits all approaches to budget reform and highlights the existence of multiple, context specific yet effective pathways toward improving public budget systems, which can serve as a foundation for the design of tailored public financial governance policies.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Public budget
  • budget reform
  • comparative study
  • Boolean algebra

مراجع

References
Allen, R. (2001). Budgetary and financial management reform in Central and Eastern Europe. In J. L. Chan & X. Chen (Eds.), Models of public budgeting and accounting reform (OECD Journal on Budgeting, Vol. 2, Suppl. 1, pp. 81–114). OECD Publishing.
Allen, R. (2002). Budgetary and Financial Management Reform in Central and Eastern Europe. In OECD Journal on Budgeting.
Allen, R., & Tommasi, D. (2020). Managing Public Expenditure: A Reference Book for Transition Countries (2nd ed.). Routledge.
Alexeev, M., & Weber, S. (2013). The Oxford Handbook of the Russian Economy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Asian Development Bank. (2024). EAWP No. 73: Local Fiscal Multipliers in the PRC (context on subnational fiscal management). Manila: ADB.
Ayar,A. And Azad armaki,T. (2021). Comparative Analysis of the Impact of Institutional-Factor Configuration on Mood and Development with Boolean Algebra Approach (Case study of Lorestan Pishkuh and Poshtkuh from Safavid period to the end of Pahlavi). Journal of Iranian Social Studies, 15(4), 28-54. [In Persian].  Doi: 10.22034/jss.2022.529220.1524
Bezes, P. (2009). Réinventer l’État: Les réformes de l’administration française (1962–2008). Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.
Calmfors, L., & Wren-Lewis, S. (2022). Independent fiscal institutions: Watchdogs, helpers or political actors? Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 38(3), 391–414.
Caperchione, E., & Mussari, R. (2001). Italy. In J. L. Chan & X. Chen (Eds.), Models of public budgeting and accounting reform (OECD Journal on Budgeting, Vol. 2, Suppl. 1, pp. 305–331). OECD Publishing.
Chan, J. L. (2001). Introduction. In J. L. Chan & X. Chen (Eds.), Models of public budgeting and accounting reform (OECD Journal on Budgeting, Vol. 2, Suppl. 1, pp. 9–11). OECD Publishing.
Chan, J.L., & Xiaoyue, C. (2002). Models of Public Budgeting and Accounting Reform. OECD Journal on Budgeting.
Chevauchez, B. (2001). France. In J. L. Chan & X. Chen (Eds.), Models of public budgeting and accounting reform (OECD Journal on Budgeting, Vol. 2, Suppl. 1, pp. 285–303). OECD Publishing.
Cuadrado-Ballesteros, B. (2022). Budget transparency and financial sustainability. Journal of Public Budgeting, Accounting & Financial Management, 34(6), 210–229.
Diamond, J. (2006). Budget system reform in emerging economies: The challenges and the reform agenda. IMF.
Dwivedi, H. K., Chakraborty, A., & Sinha, S. K. (2023). An Analysis of the Impact of GST on States’ Indirect Tax Revenue and on Economic Formalization with Special Focus on West Bengal. In Risks and Resilience of Emerging Economies: Essays in Honour of Professor Ajitava Raychaudhuri (pp. 21-46). Singapore: Springer Nature Singapore.
Farazmand, A. (2004). Sound governance: Policy and administrative innovations. Greenwood Publishing Group. https://www.abc-clio.com/products/d8708c/
George, A. L., & Bennett, A. (2005). Case studies and theory development in the social sciences. MIT Press.
Government of Norway, Ministry of Finance. (2022–2024). The Norwegian Fiscal Policy Framework; National Budget-Economic Policy Chapters. Oslo.
Hepworth, N. (2001). Government budgeting and accounting reform in the United Kingdom. In J. L. Chan & X. Chen (Eds.), Models of public budgeting and accounting reform (OECD Journal on Budgeting, Vol. 2, Suppl. 1, pp. 115–162). OECD Publishing.
Hood, C. (1991). A Public Management for All Seasons? Public Administration, 69(1), 19.
Holden, R. (2013). The Oxford Handbook of Public Budgeting and Financial Management. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
IMF. (2003). Public Expenditure Management Handbook. International Monetary Fund.
International Monetary Fund (IMF). (2019). Norway: Staff Report for the 2019 Article IV Consultation. Washington, D.C.: IMF. Retrieved from https://www.imf.org
International Monetary Fund. (2016). Russian Federation—Selected Issues (sections on fiscal institutions and oil revenue management). Washington, DC: IMF.
International Monetary Fund. (2019). Fiscal Transparency Code. Washington, DC: IMF.
International Monetary Fund. (2021). IMF PFM and Digitalization: Survey of Member Countries. Washington, DC: IMF.
International Monetary Fund. (2023). Digital Solutions Guidelines for Public Financial Management. Washington, DC: IMF.
International Monetary Fund. (2023). Norway: 2023 Article IV Consultation-Staff Report. Washington, DC: IMF.
International Monetary Fund. (2023, 2025). Saudi Arabia: Article IV Consultation-Staff Reports/Press Releases. Washington, DC: IMF.
International Monetary Fund. External Relations Dept. (2003). Managing the reform process: Budgeting for results. IMF Survey, 0032(010), A003. Retrieved Aug 24, 2025, from https://doi.org/10.5089/9781451932010.023.A003
Joyce, P. G., & Pattison, S. (2021). Performance budgeting: A global perspective. Public Administration Review, 81(3), 389–399.
Keshavarz Tork, M. H., Ghasemi, H., & Keshavarz, L. (2023). A Comparative Study of Financial Resource Management of Iran’s Paralympic Sports and Selected Countries: Boolean Algebra Approach. Journal of Sport Management, 15(1), 248-264. [In Persian]. https://doi.org/10.22059/jsm.2021.328689.2794
Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, Ministry of Finance. (2024). Budget Statement FY2025. Riyadh: MoF.
Kim, J. M., & Park, N. (2006). Performance Budgeting in Korea. In A. Shah (Ed.), Budgeting and Budgetary Institutions (pp. 259–288). Washington, DC: World Bank.
Kıral, H., & Akdemir, T. (Eds.). (2020). Public financial management reforms in Turkey: Progress and challenges, Volume 1.
Lou, J. (2001). Government budgeting and accounting reform in China. In J. L. Chan & X. Chen (Eds.), Models of public budgeting and accounting reform (OECD Journal on Budgeting, Vol. 2, Suppl. 1, pp. 51–80). OECD Publishing.
Lüder, K. (2001). Germany. In J. L. Chan & X. Chen (Eds.), Models of public budgeting and accounting reform (OECD Journal on Budgeting, Vol. 2, Suppl. 1, pp. 224–241). OECD Publishing.
Lüder, K. (2001). The German Model of Public Sector Accounting. In OECD Journal on Budgeting.OECD. (2020). OECD
Matheson, A. (2001). Better public sector governance: The rationale for budgeting and accounting reform in Western nations. In J. L. Chan & X. Chen (Eds.), Models of public budgeting and accounting reform (OECD Journal on Budgeting, Vol. 2, Suppl. 1, pp. 37–50). OECD Publishing.
Memarian, M. H. (2024). Budgeting in International Experiences (3): Evolution, Preparation Process, and Approval of the Budget in Türkiye. Majlis Research Center – Expert Reports Monthly, 32(7), Article 20115. [In Persian]. https://doi.org/10.22034/report.mrc.2024.1403.32.7.20115
Ministère de l’Économie et des Finances (France). (2024). Green Budgeting – The French Green Budget: Summary of Methodology (Budget Bill 2024, 4th edition). Paris.
Ministry of Finance of the People’s Republic of China / State Council. (2018–2019). Report on the Execution of the Central and Local Budgets; Government Work Report-emphasis on performance-based management. Beijing.
Montesinos, V. (2001). Spain. In J. L. Chan & X. Chen (Eds.), Models of public budgeting and accounting reform (OECD Journal on Budgeting, Vol. 2, Suppl. 1, pp. 333–351). OECD Publishing.
OECD (2022), OECD Journal on Budgeting, Volume 2022 Issue 1, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/10bfd8e5-en.
OECD. (2015). Recommendation of the Council on Budgetary Governance. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.
OECD. (2019). Budgeting and Public Expenditures in OECD Countries 2019. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.
OECD. (2019). Good Practices for Performance Budgeting. OECD Publishing.
OECD. (2019). Government at a Glance 2019. Paris: OECD Publishing.
OECD. (2021). Green Budgeting and Climate Mainstreaming in the OECD: Progress and Challenges. OECD Publishing.
OECD. (2022). OECD Journal on Budgeting, Volume 2022 (Special issue on principles of budgetary governance and practice). Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.
OECD. (2024). OECD Economic Surveys: Norway 2024. Paris: OECD Publishing.
Office of the Auditor General of Norway. (2016). Annual Report on the Government Budget and Fiscal Rule Compliance. Oslo: RiksrevisjonenBook:
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). (2015). Public Governance Reviews: Norway – Working Together for a Better Society. Paris: OECD Publishing.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). (2015). Recommendation of the Council on Budgetary Governance. OECD Publishing.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). (2015). Public Governance Reviews: Norway – Working Together for a Better Society. Paris: OECD Publishing.
Phaup, M. (2022). Budget transparency and accountability: A global perspective. OECD Journal on Budgeting, 22(1), 55–78.
Pessino, C., & Fenochietto, R. (2010). Determining Countries’ Tax Effort. IMF Working Paper No. WP/10/244. International Monetary Fund.
Ragin, C. C. (2008). Redesigning social inquiry: Fuzzy sets and beyond. University of Chicago Press.
Rao, R. K. (2021). The Economy as Reflected in Income Tax Data. National Institute of Public Finance and Policy.
Republic of Turkey. (2003). Public Financial Management and Control Law No. 5018. Ankara: Official Gazette.
Robinson, M. (2020). Medium-Term Expenditure Frameworks: An Assessment. International Journal of Public Budgeting, Accounting and Financial Management, 32(4), 567–585.
Sahara, K. I. M., & Salomo, R. V. (2025). Assessing the effectiveness of performance-based budgeting in government financial management: A systematic literature review. Jurnal Ilmu Pemerintahan, 10(1), 52–74.
Sahara, K. I. M., & Salomoa, R. V. (2025). A Sytematic Literature Review: Assessing the Effectiveness of Performance-Based Budgeting in Government Financial Management. Jurnal Ilmu Pemerintahan: Kajian Ilmu Pemerintahan dan Politik Daerah, 10(1).
Schedler, K. (2001). Switzerland. In J. L. Chan & X. Chen (Eds.), Models of public budgeting and accounting reform (OECD Journal on Budgeting, Vol. 2, Suppl. 1, pp. 243–263). OECD Publishing.
Schick, A. (2014). The metamorphosis of the state budget. OECD Journal on Budgeting, 14(2), 1–28.
Schick, A. (2022). The evolving role of the budget in public financial management. OECD Journal on Budgeting, 2022(1), 1–28.
Schneider, C. Q., & Wagemann, C. (2012). Set-theoretic methods for the social sciences. Cambridge University Press.
Seddigh, M. (2020). Pathology of the Budgeting System in the Islamic Republic of Iran (Master’s thesis), University of Tehran, Faculty of Management and Accounting. [In Persian].
Seddigh, M., & Ne’mati, A. (2025). Structural Reform of the Budget with Emphasis on Diagnosing Budgeting Challenges in the 1390s (2010s). Strategic Studies of the Islamic Revolution, 2(7), 47-72. [In Persian]. https://doi.org/10.22034/irsj.2025.503085.1101
Seddigh, M., Mohammadi, A., & Shahbazi Limoochi, J. (2024). A Comparative Study of General Budget Policies with the Directives of the Supreme Leader of the Islamic Republic of Iran. Strategic Studies of the Islamic Revolution, 1(3), 59-96. [In Persian]. https://doi.org/10.22034/irsj.2024.445957.1045
Susam, N., Özgül, H., & Yavuz, E. (2020). Türkiye Ekonomisi ve Maliyesi (1923-2023).
Taghizadeh, R. (2024). Budgeting in International Experiences (3): Evolution, Preparation Process, and Approval of the Budget in Türkiye. Majlis Research Center – Expert Reports. [In Persian].
Wampler, B., McNulty, S., McNulty, S. L., & Touchton, M. (2021). Participatory budgeting in global perspective. Oxford University Press.
Wong, C. (2007). Budget reform in China. OECD Journal on Budgeting, 7(1), 1-24.
Wong, C. (2021). Fiscal Reform N the Xi Jinping Era and the State of Local Finance. East Asian Institute, National University of Singapore.
Wong, C. (2022). China's 2022 Budget and the Fate of Local Government Finance. East Asian Institute, National University of Singapore.
World Bank. (2011). Results, performance budgeting and trust in government. Washington, DC: World Bank.
World Bank. (2013). Beyond the Annual Budget: Global Experience with Medium Term Expenditure Frameworks. Washington, DC: World Bank.
World Bank. (2013). Beyond the annual budget: Global experience with medium-term expenditure frameworks. Washington, DC: World Bank.
World Bank. (2017). Budget transparency toolkit: Practical steps for supporting openness, integrity and accountability in public financial management. Washington, DC: World Bank.
World Bank. (2019). Improving public financial management: Opportunities and challenges. Washington, DC: World Bank.
World Bank. (2020). Public expenditure reviews: How to conduct and manage them. Washington, DC: World Bank.
World Bank. (2022). GovTech maturity index: The state of public sector digital transformation. Washington, DC: World Bank.
World Bank. (2024). Global Economic Prospects-Box 4.2: Do Fiscal Rules and Sovereign Wealth Funds Make a Difference? Washington, DC: World Bank.
Yu, J., Zhang, Z., Chen, X., & Boward, R. (2025). Mapping government budgeting research: A systematic literature review. International Journal of Public Administration, 1-16.Joyce, P. G., & Pattison, R. (2021). Performance budgeting in the United States: A reassessment. Public Administration Review, 81(4), 635–647.
Zarandi, S. (2024). A Review of Comparative Research Methods: Theories, Approaches, and Horizons. Comparative Public Administration, 1(4), 1-21. [In Persian]. https://doi.org/10.22098/cpa.2024.14476.1029.
مدیریت دولتی تطبیقی
دوره 4، شماره 1
خرداد 1405
صفحه 1-42

فایل ها

سابقه مقاله

  • تاریخ دریافت: 10 آبان 1404
  • تاریخ بازنگری: 02 اردیبهشت 1405
  • تاریخ پذیرش: 08 اردیبهشت 1405

هم رسانی

ارجاع به این مقاله

آمار