ALGORİTMİK KAMU YÖNETİMİ VE ALGOKRASİ: KENTSEL ULAŞIMDA YÖNETİŞİM DÖNÜŞÜMÜ

Abstract

Bu makale, Algoritmik Kamu Yönetimi (AKY) kavramını ortaya koymakta ve Yapay Zeka (YZ) odaklı mobilite sistemlerinin, kamu yönetişiminde yapısal bir dönüşümü temsil ettiğini ileri sürmektedir; bu dönüşüm algokrasi olarak adlandırılmaktadır. İstanbul, Singapur, Hangzhou, Belgrad ve Shenzhen örneklerine dayanan analiz, Yapay Zekâ (YZ) tabanlı mobilite yönetişimini beş katmanlı bir modelle açıklar: veri altyapısı, optimizasyon mantığı, normatif parametreler, gözetim mekanizmaları ve demokratik geri bildirim. Bu model, Algoritmik Kamu Yönetimi Modeli (AKYM) olarak adlandırılır. Makale üç temel katkı sunmaktadır. Birincisi, çok-etmenli YZ optimizasyonunun sistemik öngörülemezlik ve demokratik yerinden edilmenin (displacement) nasıl ürettiğini açıklayarak algoritmik kaosu Shannon entropisi aracılığıyla biçimselleştirmektedir. İkincisi, anayasal değerleri algoritmik sistemlere gömen norm-ağırlıklı bir tasarım ilkesi olarak dijital vicdanı tanıtmaktadır. Üçüncü ve son olarak da, kamu hukuku doktrinini algoritmik hesap verebilirlik teorisiyle bütünleştiren bir Algokratik Hata Matrisi aracılığıyla idari sorumluluğu yeniden kavramsallaştırmaktadır. Çalışmanın sonucunda elde edilen bulgular bir paradoksu ortaya koymaktadır: verimlilik kazanımları, azalan şeffaflık ve katılımcı meşruiyet ile ilişkilidir. Makale, optimizasyonu anayasal yönetişimle bağdaştırmak için Demokratik Algoritmik Yönetişim Çerçevesi ve kurumsal mekanizmalar (algoritmik denetim konseyleri ve katılımcı parametre belirleme gibi) önererek sonuçlanmaktadır. Çalışma, akıllı mobiliteyi yalnızca altyapısal modernizasyon olarak değil, kamu otoritesinin yapısal bir yeniden yapılandırması olarak değerlendirmektedir.

Keywords

• Algokrasi
• YZ Mobilitesi
• Dijital Vicdan
• Algoritmik Hesap Verebilirlik
• Katılımcı Yönetişim

ALGORITHMIC PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION AND ALGOCRACY: TRANSFORMING GOVERNANCE IN URBAN TRANSPORT SYSTEMS

Abstract

This article introduces Algorithmic Public Administration (APA) as a conceptual framework, arguing that AI-driven mobility systems represent a structural transformation in governance—a shift termed algocracy. Drawing on case studies from Istanbul, Singapore, Hangzhou, Belgrade, and Shenzhen, the study proposes the Algorithmic Public Administration Model (APAM), a five-layer analytical framework comprising data infrastructure, optimization logic, normative parameters, surveillance mechanisms, and democratic feedback. The article makes three primary contributions. First, it formalizes algorithmic chaos using Shannon entropy to explain how multi-agent AI optimization generates systemic unpredictability and displaces democratic processes. Second, it introduces the digital conscience as a norm-weighted design principle that embeds constitutional values into algorithmic architectures. Third, it reconceptualizes accountability through an Algocratic Error Matrix, integrating public law doctrines with algorithmic accountability theory. The findings reveal a fundamental paradox: efficiency gains from AI-driven systems are accompanied by diminished transparency and participatory legitimacy. To address this, the article proposes a Democratic Algorithmic Governance Framework, supported by institutional mechanisms such as algorithmic oversight councils and participatory parameter-setting processes. Ultimately, the study positions smart mobility not merely as technological modernization, but as a fundamental reconfiguration of public authority requiring new forms of democratic control.

Keywords

• Algocracy
• AI Mobility
• Digital Conscience
• Algorithmic Accountability
• Participatory Governance.

References

1. Akman, İ., Yazıcı, A., Mishra, A., & Arifoglu, A. (2005). E-government: A bundle of public services. International Journal of Information Management, 25(6), 512–526.
2. Bakır, C. (2009). The economic crisis and institutions: The Turkish case. Policy and Society, 28(1), 63–74.
3. Barns, S. (2020). Platform urbanism: Negotiating platform ecosystems in connected cities. Palgrave Macmillan.
4. Bedirhanoğlu, P. (2009). Türkiye’de neoliberal otoriterleşme ve kamu yönetimi. Amme İdaresi Dergisi, 42(3).
5. Boin, A., & ’t Hart, P. (2003). Public leadership in times of crisis: Mission impossible? Public Administration Review, 63(5), 544–553.
6. Bovens, M., & Zouridis, S. (2002). From Street‐Level to System‐Level Bureaucracies: How Information and Communication Technology is Transforming Administrative Discretion and Constitutional Control. Public Administration Review, 62(2), 174–184. https://doi.org/10.1111/0033-3352.00168
7. Busuioc, M. (2021). Accountable artificial intelligence: Holding algorithms to account. Public Administration Review, 81(5), 825–836.
8. Cath, C., Wachter, S., Mittelstadt, B., Taddeo, M., & Floridi, L. (2018). Artificial intelligence and the ‘good society’: The US, EU, and UK approach. Science and Engineering Ethics, 24(2), 505–528.

9. Celeste, E. (2023). Digital constitutionalism: The role of internet bills of rights. Routledge.
10. Citron, D. K. (2008). Technological due process. Washington University Law Review, 85(6), 1249–1313.
11. Cover, T. M., & Thomas, J. A. (2006). Elements of information theory (2nd ed.). Wiley.
12. Cunneen, M., Mullins, M., & Murphy, F. (2019). Autonomous Vehicles and Embedded Artificial Intelligence: The Challenges of Framing Machine Driving Decisions. Applied Artificial Intelligence, 33(8), 706–731. https://doi.org/10.1080/08839514.2019.1600301
13. Danaher, J. (2016). The threat of algocracy: Reality, resistance and accommodation. Philosophy & Technology, 29(3), 245–268.
14. Dunleavy, P., Margetts, H., Bastow, S., & Tinkler, J. (2006). Digital era governance. Oxford University Press. Floridi, L., Cowls, J., Beltrametti, M., Chatila, R., Chazerand, P., Dignum, V., & Vayena, E. (2018). AI4People—An ethical framework for a good AI society. Minds and Machines, 28(4), 689–707.
15. George, A. L., & Bennett, A. (2005). Case studies and theory development in the social sciences. MIT Press.
16. Global AI Initiative. (2023). City Brain and AI governance in Hangzhou. Global Policy Report Series.
17. Güler, B. A. (2011). Yeni sağ ve kamu yönetimi. Yazılama Yayınevi.
18. Keleş, R. (2012). Yerinden yönetim ve siyaset. Cem Yayınevi.
19. Kickert, W. J. (2011). Determinants of managing outcomes in a time of crisis. Public Administration, 89(3), 861–875.
20. Kitchin, R. (2017). Thinking critically about and researching algorithms. Information, Communication & Society, 20(1), 14–29.
21. Kitchin, R. (2023). The data-driven city. Sage.
22. Lefebvre, H. (1996). Writings on cities. Blackwell.
23. Levi-Faur, D. (Ed.). (2011). Handbook on the politics of regulation. Edward Elgar.
24. Lipsky, M. (2010). Street-level bureaucracy. Russell Sage Foundation.
25. LTA (Land Transport Authority Singapore). (2025). Smart mobility and integrated transport systems report.
26. Mazzucato, M. (2013). The entrepreneurial state. Anthem Press.
27. Mittelstadt, B. D. (2023). Principles alone cannot guarantee ethical AI. Nature Machine Intelligence, 5(2), 112–114.
28. Mittelstadt, B. D., Allo, P., Taddeo, M., Wachter, S., & Floridi, L. (2016). The ethics of algorithms. Big Data & Society, 3(2).
29. Osborne, S. P. (Ed.). (2010). The new public governance. Routledge.
30. Öniş, Z. (2012). The political economy of the AKP era. Turkish Studies, 13(2), 135–152.
31. Parlak, N. (2013). Türkiye'de yerel yönetimler reformu. Okutman.
32. Pasquale, F. (2015). The black box society. Harvard University Press.
33. Peters, B. G. (2011). Governance in a crisis. Policy and Society, 30(1), 23–34.
34. Pollitt, C., & Bouckaert, G. (2011). Public management reform. Oxford University Press.
35. Shannon, C. E. (1948). A mathematical theory of communication. Bell System Technical Journal, 27(3), 379–423.
36. Sobacı, M. Z. (2010). E-devletten e-demokrasiye. Nobel.
37. Sönmez, M. (2010). Kriz ve Türkiye ekonomisi. Yordam.
38. Sprick, D. (2026). Smart cities with Chinese characteristics. Columbia University Press.
39. Tekeli, İ. (2011). Akılcı planlamadan demokrasi projesine. Tarih Vakfı.
40. Uzelac, A., Petrovic, M., & Jovanovic, D. (2026). Digital transformation in transitional governance. Government Information Quarterly.
41. Wang, X., Zhang, Y., Li, Q., & Chen, L. (2024). Multi-agent traffic optimization. Transportation Research Part C, 158, 104123.
42. Wei, H., Zheng, G., Gayah, V. V., & Li, Z. (2021). Recent Advances in Reinforce- ment Learning for Traffic Signal Control. ACM SIGKDD Explorations Newsletter, 22(2), 12–18. https://doi.org/10.1145/3447556.3447565
43. Wirtz, B. W., Weyerer, J. C., & Geyer, C. (2019). Artificial intelligence and the public sector. International Journal of Public Administration, 42(7), 596–615.
44. Yeung, K. (2022). Algorithmic regulation. Regulation & Governance, 12(4), 505–523.
45. Zuboff, S. (2019). The age of surveillance capitalism. PublicAffairs.