تحلیل نقش تدوین‌کنندگان بودجه در دانشگاه‌های ایران با استفاده از نظریه نقش‌های بودجه‌ای ویداوسکی

نوع مقاله: مقاله پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 دانشجوی دکترای حسابداری دانشگاه تهران.

2 دانشیار حسابداری دانشگاه تهران.

چکیده

مقدمه: در کشوری مانند ایران که دانشگاه‌های دولتی میزان قابل توجهی از منابع خود را از طریق تخصیص بودجه دولت به‌دست می‌آورند، بررسی فرایند تدوین بودجه در جهت یافتن راه‌های بهبود احتمالی مهم است. هدف از پژوهش حاضر شناسایی درک ذهنی مشارکت‌کنندگان در فرایند تدوین بودجه و تحلیل پیامدهای آن در نظام بودجه‌ای با استفاده از نظریه نقش‌های بودجه‌ای ویداوسکی است.
روش پژوهش: این پژوهش در حوزه تدوین بودجه دانشگاه‌ها و به روش نظریه بنیادی در قالب نظریه نقش‌های بودجه‌ای ویداوسکی انجام شده است.  اطلاعات این پژوهش طی انجام 23 مصاحبه عمیق در سه دستگاه اجرایی شامل وزرات علوم، تحقیقات و فناوری، سازمان مدیریت و برنامه‌ریزی کشور و دانشگاه‌ها و مؤسسات پژوهشی در سال 1395 جمع‌آوری شده است.
یافته‌ها: نتایج پژوهش حاکی از آن است که دانشگاه‌ها و مؤسسات پژوهشی به عنوان خرج‌کنندگان بودجه، بودجه را «مذاکره‌ای» می‌دانند و این ادراک ذهنی به «سوگیری» در تدوین بودجه ‌منتهی می‌شود. هم‌چنین، درک ذهنی در وزارت علوم، تحقیقات و فناوری و سازمان مدیریت و برنامه‌ریزی کشور به عنوان نگهبانان بودجه، به ترتیب، حاکی از «خروجی‌محور بودن» و «اطلاعات‌محور بودن» بودجه است که منجر به «استاندارد شدن فعالیت دانشگاه‌ها و مؤسسات پژوهشی» می‌شود.
نتیجه‌گیری: ادراکات ذهنی خرج‌کنندگان بودجه و نگهبانان بودجه در نظام تدوین بودجه در دانشگاه‌های ایران یک‌سو نیست و این امر منجر به بروز پیامدهای متضاد در فرایند تدوین بودجه از جانب کنش‌گران می‌شود. به این ترتیب، پیشنهاد می‌شود در راستای تغییر در نظام بودجه‌ریزی کشور یافته‌های پژوهش حاضر برای شناخت بیشتر فرایند بودجه‌ریزی بکار گرفته شود.

کلیدواژه‌ها


عنوان مقاله [English]

Analysis on the Role of University Budgeters in Iran, Using Wildavsky's Budgetary Roles

نویسندگان [English]

  • Farzaneh Jalali Aliabadi 1
  • Bita Mashayekhi 2
چکیده [English]

Introduction: It seems to be very vital to survey on university budget in a country like Iran, in which universities and research institute's financial resources are obtained through public budget allocation. The aim of this research is to understand the intellectual perception of budgeteers at Iranian universities and analyze its consequence using Wildavsky's Budgetary Roles.

Research Method: In this paper we are going to present a result of a survey form Wildavsky budgetary roles perspective, which has done using Grounded Theory method. Participants are chosen from budget department at universities and research institutes, Ministry of Science, Research and Technology (MSRT) and also Management and Planning Organization (MPO) of Iran. Based on the research result, two groups of "Guardians" and "Spenders" are recognized according to the Wildavsky's budgetary roles.
Results: Results display that universities and research institutes, as budget spenders understand budget as a negotiation process that lead to slack in budgeting. On the other hand, intellectual perception at MSRT and MPO is "budgeting as an output oriented process" and "budgeting as an information based process" respectively. The consequence of these budget perceptions among budget guardians is standardizing universities practice.
Conclusion: According to the result, intellectual perception of budget guardians and spenders in Iranian universities are not congruent and this lead to contradictory consequence in budgeting system. The result of this research can be stated as an important factor in success at new budgeting methods implementation.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • "Budgetary roles"
  • "University Budget"
  • "Intellectual perception"
  • "Grounded Theory"
  • "Wildavsky Budgetary Roles"
1      Arab Salehi, M. and E. Hatampoor (2015). “The Feasibility of Implementing Activity-Based Costing Method in the Performance-Based Budgeting of Isfahan University of Medical Sciences Based on SHAH Model”, Journal of Health Accounting, Vol. 3, No. 4, pp. 39-58. [In Persian]

2      Keshavarzi, M.; Valipour, H.; and A. Jamali (2014). “The Feasibility of Implementing Performance-Based Budgeting in Shiraz University of Medical Sciences”, Journal of Health Accounting, Vol. 3, No. 1, pp. 61-83. [In Persian]

3      Wildavsky, A. (1964). The Politics of the Budgetary Process, 1st Edition, Boston: Little, Brown.

4      Trimble, T. E. (2010). “Determining Source-Based and Party-Based Perspectives in the Federal Budget Process: A Content Analysis of United States Executive, Congressional, and Agential Budget Communication from 1998-2000”, Doctoral Dessertation Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Available at: www.theses.lib.vt.edu.[Online] [8 January 2015]

5      Imbeau, L. M. (2006). “Are Wildavsky’s Budgetary Roles Still Relevant: A Content Analysis of Policy Speeches in Quebec, 1980-2004”, Available at: www.cpsa-acsp.ca. [Online] [4 January 2017]

6      Grønhaug, K. and K. O. J. Ims (1991). “Rhetoric and Performance on the Budgetary Stage”, Scandinavian Journal of Management, Vol. 7, No. 1, pp. 3-15.

7      Schiff, M. and A. Y. Lewin (1970). “The Impact of People on Budgets”, The Accounting Review, Vol. 45, No. 2, pp. 59-68.

8      Hofstede, G. H. (2012). The Game of Budget Control, 1st Edition, USA: Routledge.

9      Argyris, C. (1952). The Impact of Budgets on People, 1st Edition, New York: Controllership Foundation.

10  Forrester, J. P. and G. B. Adams (1997). “Budgetary Reform through Organizational Learning toward an Organizational Theory of Budgeting”, Administration & Society, Vol. 28, No. 4, pp. 66-88.

11  Covaleski, M. A.; Dirsmith, M. W.; and J. M. Weiss (2013). “The Social Construction, Challenge and Transformation of a Budgetary Regime: The Endogenization of Welfare Regulation by Institutional Entrepreneurs”, Accounting, Organizations and Society, Vol. 38, No. 5, pp. 33-64.

12  Niskanen, W. A. (1989). “Book Review: The New Politics of the Budgetary Process”, Cato Journal, Vol. 8, No. 3, pp. 65-67.

13  Burgess, J. F. (2006). “Performance‐Based Budgeting in the Public Sector: An Illustration from the VA Health Care System”, Health Economics, Vol. 15, No. 3, pp. 295-310.

14  Doern, B.; Maslove, A.; and M. Prince (1988). Budgeting in Canada: Politics, Economics and Management, 1st Edition, Ottawa: Carleton University Press.

15  Savoie, D. J. (1990). The Politics of Public Spending in Canada, 1st Edition, Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

16  Imbeau, L. M. (2000). “Guardians and Advocates in Deficit Elimination: Government Intervention in the Budgetary Process in Three Canadian Provinces”, Canada Observed: Perspectives from Abroad and from Within,Available at: www.pdfs.sem anticscholar.org. [Online] [5 January 2017]

17  Ahrens, T. and F. Laurence (2016). “Institutional Entrepreneurship, Practice Memory, and Cultural Memory: Choice and Creativity in the Pursuit of Endogenous Change of Local Authority Budgeting”, Management Accounting Research, In Press, Corrected Proof, Available Online 18 November 2016.

18  Agha Beig Pouri, H. (Translator) (2012). Social Researches Strategy, 2nd Edition, Tehran: Jamee Shenasan Publications. [In Persian]

19  Mohammad Pour, A. (2010). Beyond Method of the Philosophical and Applied Foundations of Mixed- Method Research in Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2nd Edition, Tehran: Jame Shenasan Publications. [In Persian]

20  Afshar, E. (Translator) (2016). Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Stages of the Grounded Theory Creation, 4th Edition, Tehran: Nashre Ney Publications.[In Persian]

21  Maier, E. R. (2017). “The Budget in the Aesthetic: The Role of Calculative Practice in the Production of Popular Culture”, Management Accounting Research, Vol. 35, pp. 83-98.

22  Jensen, M. C. and W. H. Meckling (1976). “Theory of the Firm: Managerial Behavior, Agency Costs and Ownership Structure”, Journal of Financial Economics, Vol. 3, No. 4, pp. 305-360.

23  Merchant, K. A. (1985). “Budgeting and the Propensity to Create Budgetary Slack”, Accounting, Organizations and Society, Vol. 10, No. 2, pp. 201-210.

24  Esmaieli Kia, Q. and M. Molla Nazari (2016). “A Framework for Evolution in the Financial and Operational Accountability Systems of Iranian Public Universities from the Expertsʼ Perspective”, Journal of Health Accounting, Vol. 4, No. 4, pp. 1-25.[In Persian]

25  Padgett, J. F. (1980). “Bounded Rationality in Budgetary Research”, The American Political Science Review, Vol. 74, No. 2, pp. 54-72.

26  Eisenhardt, K. M. (1988). “Agency- and Institutional-Theory Explanations: The Case of Retail Sales Compensation”, The Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 31, No. 3, pp. 488-511.

27  Peffer, S. A. (1996). “Budgeting as a Negotiation Process: The Effect of Information and Power on Performance, Planning and Budget Costs”, Indiana University, Available at: www.search.proquest.com. [Online] [22 November 2014]

28  Sponem, S. and C. Lambert (2016). “Exploring Differences in Budget Characteristics, Roles and Satisfaction: A Configurational Approach”, Management Accounting Research, Vol. 30, pp. 47-61.

29  Covaleski, M. A. and M. W. Dirsmith (1983). “Budgeting as a Means for Control and Loose Coupling”, Accounting, Organizations and Society, Vol. 8, No. 4, pp. 23-40.

30  Nye, R. K. (2009). “Beyound Budget Rationalities: The Social Structure of Performance Budgeting and Its Indirect Effect on Organizational Performance Within Public Organization”, University of Kansas,Available at: www.kuscholarworks. ku.edu. [Online] [7 November 2014]

31  Mkasiwa, T. A. (2011). “Accounting Changes and Budgeting Practices in the Tanzanian Central Government: A Theory of Struggling for Conformance”, Dessertation at University of Southampton, Available at: www.eprints.soton.ac.uk. [Online] [7 November 2014]

32  Goddard, A. (2004). “Budgetary Practices and Accountability Habitus: a Grounded Theory”, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 17, No. 4, pp. 543-577.