Can Tomorrow’s Budget Be Spent Today?

When we examine a budget, we usually ask where the money is going. How much has been allocated to education? What share goes to health? Has investment increased? I believe we should ask another question: How much room does this budget leave for the next one? Some decisions spend more than today’s money. They also consume tomorrow’s choices.

In its Fiscal Monitor statement of October 14, 2026, the International Monetary Fund considers high and rising debt, higher interest rates, and persistent spending pressures together. It calls for action where fiscal risks are high, before markets force a more painful adjustment. My reading of this warning is that debt reaches beyond the balance sheet. A society’s ability to respond to an unexpected development is written into that sheet too.

Treating borrowing as inherently wrong narrows the discussion before it begins. Financing a hospital, a safe transport system, or durable water infrastructure can reasonably be spread across future years. Later generations will share the benefits. The central questions are what capacity the borrowing creates and what realistic expectations of revenue support its repayment.

Debt can narrow our room to decide

Two countries borrowing the same amount can move toward very different futures. One invests in productivity and accounts for the cost of maintaining its investments. The other finances temporary relief with a lasting burden. Looking only at the size of the debt misses this distinction. Maturity, currency, interest costs, revenue structure, and the quality of spending must be considered together.

Leaving a school roof unrepaired for years, then facing a major renovation, is a budget choice too. Because the expenditure was avoided in the first year, it may look like a saving. But if the building deteriorates further, the deferred bill may grow. Defining fiscal discipline solely by today’s payments makes the future cost of neglect disappear from view.

I argue that future budgets need room for preparedness. We cannot foresee every detail of a pandemic, a disaster, an energy disruption, or a break in a supply chain. Yet responding requires resources, trained people, and functioning institutions. Preparedness means more than money held in reserve. It includes maintained infrastructure and expertise that has not been allowed to disappear.

We should therefore resist two easy judgments about public spending. Not every unit of money spent is an investment; not every unit cut is a saving. Reducing support for a research laboratory may improve the accounts in the short term. But if the trained team disperses, rebuilding that capacity may take more time and money than the original cut saved.

Nor should we protect every project by calling it an indispensable investment in the future. An unnecessary building’s upkeep, the licence fees for an unused system, or a support programme whose results are never measured all take resources away from other priorities. Thinking ahead means questioning even well-intentioned expenditure: Whose life will it improve, over what period, and in what way?

What kind of discipline protects the future?

The emphasis on tax design and the quality of tax administration in the IMF’s October 2026 analysis is valuable in this respect. The discussion is not confined to collecting more revenue. It also considers preserving revenue capacity by reducing distortions that unnecessarily obstruct economic activity. We cannot simply adopt this framework as a ready-made prescription for Türkiye. It does, however, offer a starting point for a more serious discussion of predictability and compliance costs.

The time a small business spends learning constantly changing procedures instead of producing has a cost. Clear rules, understandable obligations, and consistent implementation can help people who want to run their businesses properly. Good fiscal management sees taxpayers as more than a source of revenue. They are also part of a country’s ability to produce, employ people, and innovate.

On the spending side, we need to know who receives short-term relief. The IMF’s statement stresses that support should reach those who need it and be limited, targeted, temporary, and transparent. The question I take from this is whether people will be better able to sustain their lives when that support ends. We should discuss the difference between social protection that helps people stay on their feet and arrangements that create lasting dependence.

Local government needs the same perspective. Opening a park and budgeting to keep it alive for ten years are different tasks. Buying buses and planning their maintenance, staffing, and route efficiency are different tasks. The opening ceremony is visible; operations and maintenance often are not. What changes a resident’s life is whether the service works on an ordinary Tuesday after the ceremony.

I would like public investments to be accompanied by understandable explanations of their lifetime costs and expected benefits. Those explanations should not end when construction begins. A few years later, actual results should be compared with the original promise. An institution that can acknowledge failure can make a better decision next time. Accountability means turning expenditure into learning, rather than becoming afraid to spend.

We should measure a country’s strength by its ability to meet tomorrow’s needs as well as today’s demands. We cannot fully control the conditions of the future. But we can increase the number of paths available under those conditions. A good budget leaves the next generation more than bills to pay. It also leaves functioning institutions and choices they can use.

Read this column in Turkish ↗