Hybridization in Public Administration and the Changing Role of the Government

Öz

This study examines the change in the role of the state as a result of the hybridisation that has occurred as a result of the impact of the Public Value Approach (PVA), the New Public Service (NPS) and the New Public Governance (NPG) approaches in the field of public administration in the post-New Public Management (NPM) period. The main claim of the study is that as a result of the hybridisation in public administration, the role of the state has been transformed to a certain extent both at the theoretical and practical level. In order to provide a comprehensive theoretical analysis of the subject, important studies in foreign literature have been utilised. At the practical level, the experiences of the countries that pioneered the NPM are included. Methodologically, in addition to the critical and historical method, the comparative method has also been used. The study concludes that with the hybridisation in public administration, the role of the state has started to change in the form of increasing participation, serving citizens, providing public benefit, public value and common good, and strengthening cooperation and coordination.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Hybridization in Public Administration
• New Public Management
• Public Value Approach
• New Public Service
• New Public Governance

Kamu Yönetiminde Hibritleşme ve Devletin Değişen Rolü

Öz

Bu çalışmada, Yeni Kamu İşletmeciliği (YKİ) sonrası dönemde Kamu Değeri Yaklaşımı (KDY), Yeni Kamu Hizmeti (YKH) ve Yeni Kamu Yönetişimi (YKY) yaklaşımlarının kamu yönetimi alanında yarattığı etki sonucunda gerçekleşen hibritleşmenin devletin rolünde yarattığı değişim ele alınmıştır. Çalışmanın temel iddiası şudur: kamu yönetiminde yaşanan hibritleşme sonucunda devletin rolü hem teorik hem de uygulama düzeyinde belli ölçüde dönüşüme uğramıştır. Teorik açıdan konunun kapsamlı şekilde incelenmesini sağlamak için ağırlıklı olarak yabancı literatürdeki önemli çalışmalardan yararlanılmıştır. Uygulama düzeyinde ise YKİ’ne öncülük eden ülke deneyimlerine yer verilmiştir. Metodolojik bakımdan eleştirel ve tarihsel yöntemin yanında karşılaştırmalı yöntemden de yararlanılmıştır. Çalışmada kamu yönetiminde yaşanan hibritleşmeyle devletin rolünün katılımı artırma, vatandaşlara hizmet etme, kamu yararı, kamu değeri ve ortak iyiliği sağlama, iş birliği ve koordinasyonu güçlendirme şeklinde değişmeye başladığı sonucuna ulaşılmıştır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Kamu Yönetiminde Hibritleşme
• Yeni Kamu İşletmeciliği
• Kamu Değeri Yaklaşımı
• Yeni Kamu Hizmeti
• Yeni Kamu Yönetişimi

Kaynakça

1. Aagaard, P. (2016). How to make the mix matter: a case study of post-transformational leadership in hybrid public managemen, International Journal of Public Administration, 39, 1-9. doi: 10.1080/01900692.2015.1072211
2. Agostino, D. ve Arnaboldi, M. (2015). The new public management in hybrid settings: New challenges for performance measures, International Review of Public Administration, 20(4), 353–369. doi: 10.1080/12294659.2015.1088686
3. Aksoy, A. Ş. (1998). Yeni sağ, kamu yönetimi ve yerel yönetimler: eleştirel bir yaklaşım, Çağdaş Yerel Yönetimler, 7(1), 3-31. Erişim adresi: https://cyy.hacibayram.edu.tr/documents/article/3/7/1/1_aksoy.pdf
4. Andersson, T. ve Liff, R. (2012). Multiprofessional cooperation and accountability pressures. Public Management Review, 14(6), 835-855. doi: 10.1080/14719037.2011.650053
5. Bao, G., Wang, X., Larsen, G. L. ve Morgan, D. F. (2012). Beyond new public governance: a value-based global framework for performance management, Governance, and Leadership, Administration & Society, Online First Publised, 45(4), 1-24. doi: 10.1177/0095399712464952
6. Bayansar, R. ve Özer, M. A. (2021). Türkiye’de kamu özel ortaklığı modelinin uygulama alanları üzerine değerlendirmeler, Dumlupınar Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 68, 415-436. doi: 10.51290/dpusbe.885967
7. Bevir, M. (2007). Governance. M. Bevir (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Governance içinde (s. 364-381). California: SAGE Publication.
8. Bryer, T. A. ve Alvandipour, N. (2021). Public administration and citizen participation. T. A. Bryer (Ed.), Handbook of Theories of Public Administration and Management içinde (s. 19-29). Massachusetts: Edward Elgar Publishing.

9. Bryson, J. M., Crosby, B. C. ve Bloomberg, L. (2014). Public value governance: moving beyond traditional public administration and the new public management, Public Administration Review, 74(4), 445-456. Doi: 10.1111/puar.12238
10. Cataldi, L. (2024). New public governance as a hybrid: a critical ınterpretation. New York: Cambridge University Press.
11. Christensen, T. (2012). Post-NPM and changing public governance, Meiji Journal of Political Science and Economics, 1, 1-10. Erişim adresi: https://www.meiji.ac.jp/cip/english/undergraduate/economics/mjpse/ov7thl0000000am5-att/gbubj30000000b2x.pdf
12. Christensen, T. ve Lægreid, P. (2011). Complexity and hybrid public administration—theoretical and empirical challenges, Public Organiz Rev., 11(11), 407–423. Doi:10.1007/s11115-010-0141-4
13. Christensen, T. ve Lægreid, P. (2022). Taking stock: new public management (NPM) and post-NPM reforms – trends and challenges. A. Ladner ve F. Sager (Ed.), Handbook on the Politics of Public Administration içinde (s. 38-49). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
14. Colon, M. ve Guérin-Schneider, L. (2015). The reform of new public management and the creation of public values: compatible processes? An empirical analysis of public water utilities, International Review of Administrative Sciences, 0(0), 1–18. doi: 10.1177/0020852314568837.
15. De Vries, J. (2010). Is new public management really dead?, OECD Journal on Budgeting, 10(1), 1-6. Erişim adresi: https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/docserver/budget-10-5km8xx3mp60n.pdf?expires=1729280144&id=id&accname=guest&checksum=954AF356B78201E5EE5F9F4B2724476C
16. Denhardt, J. V. ve Denhardt, R. B. (2007). New public service: serving, not steering, New York: M. E. Sharpe. Denhardt, J. V. ve Denhardt, R. B. (2015). New public service revisited, Public Administration Review, 75 (5), 664-672. Doi: 10.1111/puar.12347
17. Denhardt, R. B. (1977). The continuing saga of the new public administration. Administration and Society, 9(2), 253-261. Doi: 10.1177/009539977600800202
18. Denhardt, R. B. (1999). The future of public administration, Public Administration & Management: An Interactive Journal, 4(2), 279-292. Erişim adresi: https://spaef.org/article/1101/The-Future-of-Public-Administration
19. Denhardt, R. B. ve Denhardt, J. V. (2000). The new public service: serving rather than steering, Public Administration Review, 60(6), 549-559. Doi: 10.1111/0033-3352.00117
20. Denhardt, R. B. ve Denhardt, J. V. (2003). The new public service: an approach to reform, International Review of Public Administration, 8(1), 3-10. Doi: 10.1080/12294659.2003.10805013
21. Diamond, J. (2021). UK: The rise and fall and rise of contemporary public administration. T. A. Bryer (Ed.), Handbook of Theories of Public Administration and Management içinde (s. 299-307). Massachusetts: Edward Elgar Publishing.
22. Dickinson, H. (2016). From new public management to new public governance: the implications for a ‘new public service’. J. Butcher ve D. Gilchrist (Ed.), The Three Sector Solution: Delivering Public Policy in Collaboration with Not-for-profits and Business içinde (s. 41-60). Canberra: ANU Press.
23. Dunleavy, P. ve Hood, C. (1994). From old public administration to new public management, Public Money & Management, 14(3), 9-16. doi: 10.1080/09540969409387823
24. Dunleavy, P., Margents, H., Bastow, S. ve Tinkler, J. (2005). New public management is dead – long live digital-era governance, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 60(3), 467-494. doi: 10.2307/3840393
25. Eriksson, E. ve Andersson, T. (2023). The ‘service turn’ in a new public management context: a street-level bureaucrat perspective, Public Management Review, 26(7), 2014-2038. doi: 10.1080/14719037.2023.2241051
26. Fossestøl, K., Breit, E., Andreassen, T. A. ve Klemsdal, L. (2015). Managing institutional complexity in public sector reform: hybridization in front-line service organizations, Public Administration, 93(2), 290-306. doi: 10.1111/padm.12144
27. Genç, F. N. (2015). Yeni kamu hizmeti: vatandaş ve kamu yararı temelinde kamu hizmetini yeniden düşünmek. Ö. Köseoğlu ve M. Z. Sobacı (Ed.), Kamu Yönetiminde Paradigma Arayışları: Yeni kamu işletmeciliği ve ötesi içinde (s. 129-149). Bursa: Dora Yayınları.
28. Gooden, S.ve Starke, A. (2021). Social equity and public administration. T. A. Bryer (Ed.), Handbook of Theories of Public Administration and Management içinde (s. 43-53). Massachusetts: Edward Elgar Publishing. Greve, C. (2010). Whatever happened to new public management?, Danish Political Science Association Meeting, 4-5 November. Erişim adresi: https://research-api.cbs.dk/ws/portalfiles/portal/58898866/Carsten_Greve_KonfPap_2010.pdf
29. Greve, C. (2013). Ideas in public management reform for the 2010s: Digitalization, value creation and involvement, Public Organization Review, 15(1), 49-65. doi: 10.1007/s11115-013-0253-8
30. Gruening, G. (2001). Origin and theoretical basis of new public management, International Public Management Journal, 4, 1-25. doi: 10.1016/s1096-7494(01)00041-1
31. Güler, B. A. (2016). Yeni sağ ve devletin değişimi: yapısal uyarlama politikaları 1980-1995, Ankara: İmge Kitabevi.
32. Hergüner, B. (2019). Kamu yönetiminde çağdaş yaklaşımlar: başlangıcından günümüze kamu yönetiminin değişen yüzü (2. bs.). Ankara: Seçkin Yayıncılık.
33. Hood, C. (1991). A public management for all seasons?, Public Administration, 69, 3-19. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9299.1991.tb00779.x
34. Hood, C. ve Dixon, R. (2015). What we have to show for 30 years of new public management: higher costs, more complaints. Governance: An International Journal of Policy, Administration, and Institutions, 28(3), 265-267. doi: 10.1111/gove.12150
35. Hood, C. ve Peters, G. (2004). The middle aging of new public management: into the age of paradox?, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 14(3), 267-282. doi: 10.2307/3525837
36. Jansson, K., Tuunainen, J. ve Mainela, T. (2021). Concealing paradoxes in decision-making during hospital hybridization – a systems theoretical analysis, Journal of Health Organization and Management, 35(2), 195-211. doi:10.1108/JHOM-08-2020-0334
37. Johanson, J. E. (2021). Strategic management: public sector view. T. A. Bryer (Ed.), Handbook of Theories of Public Administration and Management içinde (s. 234-251). Massachusetts: Edward Elgar Publishing.
38. Karkın, N. (2015). Kamu değeri kavramı ve kamu değeri yönetiminin kamu yönetimi kuramı bağlamındaki yeri. Ö. Köseoğlu ve M. Z. Sobacı (Ed.), Kamu Yönetiminde Paradigma Arayışları: Yeni Kamu İşletmeciliği ve Ötesi içinde (s. 249-272). Bursa: Dora Yayınları.
39. Köseoğlu, Ö ve Sobacı, M. Z. (2015). Kamu yönetimi kuramının geleceği: yeni kamu işletmeciliğinden hibritleşmeye doğru. Ö. Köseoğlu ve M. Z. Sobacı (Ed.), Kamu Yönetiminde Paradigma Arayışları: Yeni Kamu İşletmeciliği ve Ötesi içinde (s. 297-314). Bursa: Dora Yayınları.
40. Lakoma, K. (2020). Public governance paradigms: competing and co-exiting, Local Government Studies, 46(6), 1039-1043. Doi: 10.1080/03003930.2020.1847904
41. Lodge, M. ve Gill, D. (2011). Toward a new era of administrative reform? the myth of post-NPM in New Zealand, Governance: An International Journal of Policy, Administration, and Institutions, 24(1), 141–166. Doi: 10.1111/j.1468-0491.2010.01508.x
42. Lynn, L. E. (2001). The myth of the bureaucratic paradigm: what traditional public administration really stood for, Public Administration Review, 61(2), 144-160. Doi: 10.2307/977447
43. Moore, M. H. (1995). Creating public value: strategic management in government. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
44. Osborne, S. P. (2010). Introduction: the (new) public governance: a suitable case for treatment?. S. P. Osborne (Ed.), The New Public Governance içinde (s. 1-16). New York: Taylor & Francis e-Library.
45. Özgür, H. ve Öztepe, M. C. (2015). Amerikan yeni kamu yönetimi hareketi (ykyh): sosyal adalet ve hakkaniyet odaklı bir kamu yönetimi arayışı. Ö. Köseoğlu ve M. Z. Sobacı (Ed.), Kamu yönetiminde paradigma arayışları: yeni kamu işletmeciliği ve ötesi içinde (s. 97-127). Bursa: Dora Yayınları.
46. Patapas, A., Raipa, A. ve Smalskys, V. (2014). New public governance: the tracks of changes, International Journal of Business and Social Research (IJBSR), 4(5), 25-32. Erişim adresi: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/272625263_New_Public_Governance_The_Tracks_of_Changes
47. Pollitt, C. (2015). Towards a new world: some inconvenient truths for anglosphere public administration, International Review of Administrative Sciences, 81(1), 3–17. doi: 10.1177/0020852314544069
48. Pollitt, C. ve Bouckaert, G. (2011). Public management reform. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
49. Sager, F. ve Rosser, C. (2022). The politics of the politics-administration dichotomy. A. Ladner ve F. Sager (Ed.), Handbook on the Politics of Public Administration içinde (s. 24-37). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
50. Sami, A., Jusoh, A. ve Qureshi, M. I. (2016). Does ethical leadership create public value? empirical evidences from banking sector of Pakistan. International Review of Management and Marketing, 6(4), 262-270. Erişim adresi: https://dergipark.org.tr/en/download/article-file/366950
51. Schroeter, E. (2007). New public management. M. Bevir (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Governance içinde (s. 612-616). California: SAGE Publication.
52. Silva, P. A. ve Santos, A. C. B. (2022). Epistemological possibilities of public administration theories: from paradigms to epistemic matrices, Organizações & Sociedade Journal, 29(101), 277-296. Erişim adresi: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/361009676_Epistemological_Possibilities_of_Public_Administration_Theories_from_Paradigms_to_Epistemic_Matrices
53. Smith, A. (2007). Public administration. M. Bevir (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Governance içinde (s. 758-764). California: SAGE Publication.
54. Sorensen, E. (2022). The politics of new public governance. A. Ladner ve F. Sager (Ed.), Handbook on the Politics of Public Administration içinde (s. 50-58). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
55. Stewart, J. (2020). Creating public value in a westminster context: the case of the Australian Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet‘s Indigenous Regional Network, 2013-2018, International Journal of Public Administration, 44 (10), 826-834. Erişim adresi: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/347300058_Creating_Public_Value_in_a_Westminster_Context_The_Case_of_the_Australian_Department_of_Prime_Minister_and_Cabinet's_Indigenous_Regional_Network_2013-2018
56. Strokosch, K. (2018). Literature review on public service reform models. Erişim adresi: https://www.co-val.eu/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/D1.1_0301F01_Literature-review-on-public-service-reform-models.pdf
57. Şaylan, G. (2016). Değişim, küreselleşme ve devletin yeni işlevi, Ankara: İmge Kitabevi Yayınları.
58. Torfing, J. ve Triantafillou, P. (2013). What's in a name? grasping new public governance as a political-administrative system, International Review of Public Administration, 18(2), 9-25. doi: 10.1080/12294659.2013.10805250
59. Trein, P. ve M. Maggetti (2019). Patterns of policy integration and administrative coordination reforms: a comparative empirical analyses, Public Administration Review, 80(2), 198-208. Erişim adresi: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/336362871_Patterns_of_Policy_Integration_and_Administrative_Coordination_Reforms_A_Comparative_Empirical_Analysis
60. Trein, P., Maggetti, M. ve Meyer, I. (2020). Necessary conditions for policy integration and administrative coordination reforms: an exploratory analysis, Journal of European Public Policy, 28, 1410-1431. Doi: 10.1080/13501763.2020.1788121
61. Üstüner, Y. (2000). Kamu işletmeciliği kuramı ve kamu işletmeciliği okulu, Amme İdaresi Dergisi, 33(3), 15-31. Erişim adresi: https://ammeidaresi.hacibayram.edu.tr/documents/article/1/33/3/2_ustuner.pdf
62. Üstüner, Y. ve Keyman, E. F. (1995). Globalleşme, katılımcı demokrasi ve örgüt sorunu, Ekonomik Yaklaşım, 6(18-19), 33-50. doi: 10.5455/ey.10208
63. Waheduzzaman, W. (2019). Challenges in transitioning from new public management to new public governance in a developing country context, International Journal of Public Sector Management, 32(7), 689-705. doi: 10.1108/ijpsm-02-2019-0057
64. Wiesel, F. ve Modell, S. (2014). From new public management to new public governance? hybridization and implications for public sector consumerism, Financial Accountability & Management, 30(2), 175-205. Doi: 10.1111/faam.12033
65. Wise, C. R. (2010). Organizations of the future: greater hybridization coming, Public Administration Review, Special Issue, 164-166. Doi: 10.1111/j.1540-6210.2010.02263.x