Search results

In this study, various acts including regulations of public financial management, fiscal responsibility, and state budget in the selected six countries were subjected to different readability tests, and an international comparison was made. The fiscal responsibility act of six countries – Turkey, the UK, India, Australia, Canada, and Pakistan – were included in the study and analyzed. Each country was analyzed under its official language. Since English is an official language of all of the countries except for Turkey, the authors have evaluated the fiscal responsibility acts of these countries using the following readability tests: Flesch Reading Ease, Flesch-Kincaid, Gunning-Fog, and Dale-Chall. Additionally, Public Financial Management and Control Law No. 5018 approved in Turkey was analyzed by the Ateşman Readability Test which was uniquely designed for Turkish grammar rules. The acts discussed in the study were analyzed not only as a whole but also in parts and subsections. According to the results of the study, the levels of readability of the existing laws in most of the selected countries are very difficult to understand for a university graduate. However, when the readability level of the British Budget Responsibility and National Audit Act tested as parts and subsections and a whole, it was rated at a level a university student could understand. This study analyses the readability and intelligibility of acts related to fiscal responsibility and the state budget in six selected countries, adopting Anglo-Saxon public administration model and making an inter-country evaluation. Since it is important that citizens have enough information about legislation for a citizen-oriented understanding, a legislation system that is understood by the larger part of the society is essential.

Recent changes in professional examinations have generated much debate concerning various issues. One specific debate relates to the consistency of readability levels before and after the changes. While no significant differences in examination readability were found with respect to consistency across the entire time horizon of the study, comparisons with respect to the readability of other professional materials generate questions on whether the exam is testing at an appropriate level and whether other materials such as those produced for continuing education are written at a level commensurate to practice.

For several decades, a prominent movement within government and the legal profession has emphasized the use of “plain language” to improve readability in legal writing. Plain language legal writing in U.S. Tax Court opinions is important for tax advisors and their clients for two primary reasons. First, clients value efficiency in the work of the tax advisor. A tax advisor can research a thorny legal issue more efficiently and cost-effectively if the related Tax Court opinions are written in a clear, logical, and easy-to-read manner. Second, if opinions are difficult to understand, they provide less certain authority. A degree of certainty in the tax law is important for taxpayers to plan and conduct their economic activities, whereas a lack of certainty creates confusion and an inefficient tax compliance and planning environment.

We examined the readability of the Tax Court opinions using the Flesch Reading Ease formula. Since we selected the opinions used in this study based on the same database search term, they contain similar technical content, improving comparability of readability scores. The analysis shows that as the plain language movement progressed over the years, the readability of these opinions has actually decreased.