DAVLAT TIBBIYOT TASHKILOTLARIDA MOLIYAVIY HISOBOTLARNING AXBOROT IMKONIYATLARI (EKONOMETRIK MODELLAR ORQALI BAHOLASH)
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.22853578Abstract
Davlat tibbiyot tashkilotlari moliyaviy hisobotlarining axborot imkoniyatlari ekonometrik modellar yordamida
baholangan. Empirik baza to‘rtta tibbiyot tashkilotining 2019–2025-yillardagi hisobot ma’lumotlari asosida shakllantirilib,
28 ta obyekt–yil kuzatuvi hamda o‘nta tahliliy ko‘rsatkich bo‘yicha 280 ta hisoblanuvchanlik holatini qamrab oladi. Tadqiqot
doirasida to‘rtta model: hisoblanuvchanlik ehtimolining guruhlangan binomial logit modeli, eskirish darajasining chiziqli
modeli, ko‘rsatkichlarning yillik nisbiy o‘zgarishi modeli hamda artikulyatsiya qoldig‘ining uzilishli vaqt qatori modeli baholangan.
Natijalarga ko‘ra, tahliliy ko‘rsatkichlarning 47,9 foizi amaldagi hisobot to‘plami asosida hisoblanadi, modelning
Makfadden psevdo-determinatsiya koeffitsienti esa 0,289 ga teng. Hisoblanuvchanlikka ta’sir etuvchi eng kuchli omillardan
biri ko‘rsatkichning ikkita hisobot shakliga tayanishi bo‘lib, u hisoblanish ehtimolini o‘rtacha 23,7 foiz punktga pasaytiradi,
statistik hisobotga tayanish esa ushbu ehtimolni 25,3 foiz punktga kamaytiradi. Model bashoratiga ko‘ra, ehtimol
17,9–64,3 foiz oralig‘ida o‘zgaradi. 2024-yildagi hisobot shakllari tahriri tabiiy tajriba sifatida baholangan: artikulyatsiya
qoldig‘i 1,7982 foizdan 0,0006 foizgacha kamaygan, aniq permutatsion testning p-qiymati esa 0,0476 ni tashkil etgan.
Ayni paytda ko‘rsatkichlarning yillik qiyoslanuvchanligi buzilmagani aniqlangan, ya’ni yaxshilanish qiyoslanuvchanlik hisobiga
erishilmagan. Dispersiya dekompozitsiyasi ko‘rsatkichlar tarqoqligining asosiy qismi obyektlararo farqlar bilan izohlanishini
ko‘rsatgan: obyekt effekti dispersiyaning 34–89 foizini tushuntiradi. Hisoblanuvchanlik va diagnostik quvvat indeksi
o‘rtasidagi korrelyatsiya 0,676 ga teng.
Keywords
axborot imkoniyati, binomial logit, budjet hisobi, davlat tibbiyot tashkiloti, dispersiya dekompozitsiyasi, ekonometrik model, moliyaviy hisobot, permutatsion test, tabiiy tajribaReferences
Anessi-Pessina E., Steccolini I. Effects of budgetary and accruals accounting coexistence: evidence from Italian local
governments // Financial Accountability & Management. – 2007. – Vol. 23, № 2. – P. 113–131.
Angrist J. D., Pischke J.-S. Mostly Harmless Econometrics: An Empiricist’s Companion. – Princeton: Princeton
University Press, 2009. – 392 p.
Barton A. The use and abuse of accounting in the public sector financial management reform program in Australia //
Abacus. – 2009. – Vol. 45, № 2. – P. 221–248.
Bertrand M., Duflo E., Mullainathan S. How much should we trust differences-in-differences estimates? // Quarterly
Journal of Economics. – 2004. – Vol. 119, № 1. – P. 249–275.
Cameron A. C., Miller D. L. A practitioner’s guide to cluster-robust inference // Journal of Human Resources. – 2015.
– Vol. 50, № 2. – P. 317–372.
Christiaens J., Vanhee C., Manes-Rossi F. et al. The effect of IPSAS on reforming governmental financial reporting:
an international comparison // International Review of Administrative Sciences. – 2015. – Vol. 81, № 1. – P. 158–177.
Debreceny R., Farewell S., Piechocki M. et al. Does it add up? Early evidence on the data quality of XBRL filings to the
SEC // Journal of Accounting and Public Policy. – 2010. – Vol. 29, № 3. – P. 296–306.
Donatella P., Haraldsson M., Tagesson T. Determinants of popular financial reporting: evidence from Swedish
municipalities // Journal of Public Affairs. – 2024. – Vol. 24, № 1. – Art. e2909.
Ernst M. D. Permutation methods: a basis for exact inference // Statistical Science. – 2004. – Vol. 19, № 4. – P.
–685.
Greene W. H. Econometric Analysis. – 8th ed. – New York: Pearson, 2018. – 1176 p.
IPSASB. The Conceptual Framework for General Purpose Financial Reporting by Public Sector Entities. – New York:
IFAC, 2023. – 78 p.
Ivanković D., Poldrugovac M., Garel P. et al. Why, what and how do European healthcare managers use performance
data? // PLOS ONE. – 2020. – Vol. 15, № 4. – Art. e0231345.
Jorge S., Jesus M. A., Nogueira S. P. Information brokers and the use of budgetary and financial information by
politicians: the case of Portugal // Public Money & Management. – 2016. – Vol. 36, № 7. – P. 515–520.
Kidholm K., Ølholm A. M., Birk-Olsen M. et al. Hospital managers’ need for information in decision-making: an interview
study in nine European countries // Health Policy. – 2015. – Vol. 119, № 11. – P. 1424–1432.
King G., Zeng L. Logistic regression in rare events data // Political Analysis. – 2001. – Vol. 9, № 2. – P. 137–163.
Lapsley I., Mussari R., Paulsson G. On the adoption of accrual accounting in the public sector: a self-evident and
problematic reform // European Accounting Review. – 2009. – Vol. 18, № 4. – P. 719–723.
MacKinnon J. G., White H. Some heteroskedasticity-consistent covariance matrix estimators with improved finite
sample properties // Journal of Econometrics. – 1985. – Vol. 29, № 3. – P. 305–325.
Masoud N. Global insights on public sector accounting reforms: a comprehensive study on the adoption, implementation,
and impact of IFRS and IPSAS // Accounting Research Journal. – 2025. – Vol. 38, № 1. – P. 1–24. – DOI: 10.1108/
ARJ-06-2024-0228.
Nurmanov U. A. Davlat auditi samaradorligini oshirishda moliyaviy hisobot axborotining o‘rni // Xalqaro moliya va
hisob. – 2021. – № 3. – B. 1–12.
Ostonokulov A. Improvement of methodology for accounting of extra-budgetary resources of public educational and
medical institutions // E3S Web of Conferences. – 2021. – Vol. 296. – Art. 06029. – DOI: 10.1051/e3sconf/202129606029.
Ostonokulov A., Kuliboyev A., Shaymatova N., Tadjiyev S. Leveraging blockchain for transparent accounting and
auditing in developing economies // Economic Annals-XXI. – 2025. – Vol. 211, № 5–6. – P. 42–51.
Ostonokulov A., Kuliboyev A. Modern issues of accounting and reporting in the budget system // GSC Advanced
Research and Reviews. – 2026. – Vol. 26, № 3. – P. 145–150. – DOI: 10.30574/gscarr.2026.26.3.0070.
Papke L. E., Wooldridge J. M. Econometric methods for fractional response variables // Journal of Applied Econometrics.
– 1996. – Vol. 11, № 6. – P. 619–632.
Pina V., Torres L., Royo S. Is e-government promoting convergence towards more accountable local governments? //
International Public Management Journal. – 2010. – Vol. 13, № 4. – P. 350–380.
Rizayev N. Q. Moliyaviy hisobotning tahliliy imkoniyatlari va ularni kengaytirish yo‘llari // Iqtisodiyot va ta’lim. – 2022.
– № 2. – B. 214–221.
Serrano-Cinca C., Rueda-Tomás M., Portillo-Tarragona P. Factors influencing e-disclosure in local public administrations
// Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy. – 2009. – Vol. 27, № 2. – P. 355–378.
Styles A. K., Tennyson M. The accessibility of financial reporting of U.S. municipalities on the internet // Journal of
Public Budgeting, Accounting & Financial Management. – 2007. – Vol. 19, № 1. – P. 56–92.
Tejedo-Romero F., Araujo J. F. F. E. de. Determinants of local governments’ transparency in times of crisis: evidence
from municipality-level panel data // Administration & Society. – 2018. – Vol. 50, № 4. – P. 527–554.
Wooldridge J. M. Econometric Analysis of Cross Section and Panel Data. – 2nd ed. – Cambridge: MIT Press, 2010.
– 1096 p.
Kuliboyev A. Sh. Davlat tibbiyot tashkilotlarida buxgalteriya hisobi hamda moliyaviy nazorat: nazariya va amaliyot:
monografiya. – Toshkent: Iqtisod-Moliya, 2023. – 236 b.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 MUHANDISLIK VA IQTISODIYOT
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
