YENİ 'KAMUSAL' ÖRGÜTLER: KAMU YARARI ŞİRKETLERİ

Abstract

Keywords

• -

YENİ 'KAMUSAL' ÖRGÜTLER: KAMU YARARI ŞİRKETLERİ

Abstract

Keywords

• Kamu yönetimi, kamu-özel ortaklığı, kamu hizmetlerinin ticarileşmesi, üçüncü sektör, kâr amacı gütmeyen örgütler

References

1. AKSOY, inasi (1995), “Yeni Sa ve Kamu Yönetimi,” Kamu Yönetimi Disiplini Sempozyumu Bildirileri II. Cilt (Ankara: TODA E Yay nlar ): 159-173.
2. ALEXANDER, A. Jeffrey/WEINER, J. Bryan (1998), “The Adoption of the Corporate Governance Model by Nonprofit Organizations,” Nonprofit Management & Leadership, 8/3: 223- 242.
3. AVRUPA KOM SYONU (2008), Türkiye 2008 lerleme Raporu, www.abgs.gov.tr, 12 Haziran 2009.
4. AYYILDIZ, Musa (2000), Menkul K ymet Borsalar
5. n Kâr Amaçl irketlere Dönü meleri ve Türkiye
6. çin Öneriler (Ankara: SPK).
7. AZRAK, A. Ülkü (1976), Millile tirme ve dare Hukuku stanbul: stanbul Üniversitesi Yay nlar ).
8. BARNES, Marian/NEWMAN, Janet/KNOPS, Andrew/SULLIVAN, Helen (2003), “Constituting ‘The Public’ in the Public Participation,” Public Administration, 81/2: 379-399.

9. BIRCHALL, Johnston (ed.) (2001), The New Mutualism in Public Policy (London: Routledge).
10. BIRCHALL, Johnston (2002), “Mutual, Non-Profit or Public Interest Company? An Evaluation of Options for the Ownership and Control of Water Utilities,” Annals of Public and Cooperative Economics, 73/2: 181-213.
11. BOZEMAN, Barry (1987), All Organizations Are Public: Bridging Public and Private Organizational Theories (San Francisco: Jossey Bass Publishers).
12. BRANSTON, Robert/COWLING, Keith/SUGDEN, Roger (2006), “Corporate Governance and the Public Interest,” International Review of Applied Economics, 20/2: 189–212.
13. BRECHER, Charles (2002), The Public Interest Company as a Mechanism to Improve Service Delivery (London: Public Management Foundation).
14. CABINET OFFICE (1999), Modernising Government (London).
15. CABINET OFFICE (2002), Private Action, Public Benefit: A Review of Charities and the Wider Not- For-Profit Sector (London: Strategy Unit Report).
16. CARINO, Ledivina V. (2001), “Private Action for Public Good? The Public Role of Voluntary Sector Organizations,” Public Organization Review, 1: 55-74.
17. DTI (2003), Enterprise for Communities: Proposals for a Community Interest Company (London: HM Treasury).
18. ERYILMAZ, Bilal (2002), Bürokrasi ve Siyaset: Bürokratik Devletten Etkin Yönetime ( stanbul: Alfa Bas m).
19. FLINDERS, Matthew (2004), “Distributed Public Governance in Britain,” Public Administration, 82/4: 883-909.
20. FLINDERS, Matthew (2005), “The Politics of Public–Private Partnerships,” The British Journal of Politics and International Relations, 7/2: 215-239.
21. GIBSON-SMITH, C. S. (2002), Public Interest Companies and Risk (London: IPPR).
22. GIDDENS, Anthony (2000), Üçüncü Yol: Sosyal Demokrasinin Yeniden Dirili i stanbul: Birey Yay nc k) (Çev.: M. Özay).
23. GREVE, C./FLINDERS, M./THIEL, V. (1999), “Quangos – What’s in a Name? Defining Quangos from a Comparative Perspective,” Governance, 12/2: 129-146.
24. GÜLER, Birgül A. (2003), “Yöneti im: Tüm ktidar Sermayeye,” Praksis, 9: 93-116.
25. http://www.bbc.co.uk/turkish/europe/story/2007/09/070903_franceenergy.shtml, 10.09.2007.
26. http://www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk.
27. http://www.cicregulator.gov.uk.
28. http://www.cicregulator.gov.uk/coSearch/companyList.shtml, 11.08.2007.
29. http://www.cicregulator.gov.uk/guidance.shtml, 10.06.2007.
30. http://www.cicregulator.gov.uk/guidance/Chap1package01August06.pdf, 11.06.2007.
31. http://www.cicregulator.gov.uk/guidance/Part6package.pdf, 11.06.2007.
32. http://www.dh.gov.uk/NewsHome/Speeches/SpeechesList/SpeechesArticle, 20.09.2004.
33. http://www.hastanedergisi.com/en/haberdetay.asp?id=5, Say 42, 2006, 10.06.2009.
34. http://nao.gov.uk/pn/01-02/networkrail.htm, 13.06.2007.
35. http://www.networkrail.co.uk/documents/2937_MembershipPolicy.pdf, 03.06.2007.
36. http://arsiv.ntvmsnbc.com/news/198324.asp#BODY, 23.02.2009, 10.4.2009.
37. http://www.unison.org.uk/foundation/pages_view.asp?did=433, 25.5.2008.
38. http://www.utvlive.com/newsroom/indepth.asp?pt=n&id=81434, 13.08.2007.
39. KARASU, Koray (2004), Kuram ve Uygulamada Kamu Örgütleri (yay mlanmam Doktora tezi) (Ankara: A.Ü. S.B.E.).
40. KAY, John (2007), “Helping Savers and Attending to Credit Risk,” Financial Times, http://www.johnkay.com/regulation/515, 25.09.2007.
41. KAY, John (2001), “A New Public Sector,” Prospect, http://www.johnkay.com/political/204, 25.09.2007.
42. MALTBY, Paul (2003), In the Public Interest?: Assessing the Potential for Public Interest Companies (London: Institute for Public Policy Research).
43. MARINE, Allix (2003), “The Politics of Quasi-Autonomous Organisations in France and Italy,” PSA Annual Conference: 1-38.
44. MATTHEWS, David (1984), “The Public in Practice and Theory,” Public Administration Review, 44: 120-125.
45. MAYO, Ed/MOORE, Henrietta (2001), The Mutual State: How Local Communities Can Run Public Services (London: New Economics Foundation).
46. OSBORNE, P. Stephen (2000), “Introduction: Understanding Public–Private Partnerships in International Perspective, Globally Convergent or Nationally Divergent Phenomena,” OSBORNE, P. Stephen (ed.), Public-Private Partnetships: Theory and Practice in International Perspective (London: Routledge): 1-8.
47. PALMAS, Karl (2005), The UK Public Interest Company: The Idea, Its Origins, and Its Relevance for Sweden, Göteborg University CBIS Discussion Paper 1, http://www.h gu.gu.se/Files/Handels_mainsite/projects/corpcitizenship/News/CBiS_DP_UK_PIC.pd f, 10.06.2006.
48. PARKER, Kathryn/PASSEY, Andrew (2006), Proposals for a Community Interest Company (PIC) (University of Technology Sydney, Centre for Australian Community Organisations and Management) http://www.business.uts.edu.au/cacom/articles/commentaries/ communityic.html, 20.11.2006.
49. PESCH, Udo (2005), The Predicaments of Publicness: An Inquiry into the Conceptual Ambiguity of Public Administration (The Netherlands: Eburon Delft).
50. PRABHAKAR, Rajiv (2004a), “Do Public Interest Companies Form a Third Way within Public Services,” The British Journal of Politics & International Relations, 6/3: 353-369.
51. PRABHAKAR, Rajiv (2004b), “Commercialisation or Citizenship?,” Politics, 24/3: 215-220.
52. PRABHAKAR, Rajiv (2004c), “Whatever Happened to Stakeholding,” Public Administration, 82/3: 567- 584.
53. SA LIK BAKANLI I (2003), Sa kta Dönü üm (Ankara).
54. SHAW, Eric (2004), “What Matters is What Works: The Third Way and the Case of the Private Finance Initiative,” HALE, Sarah/LEGGETT, Will/MARTELL, Luke (eds.), The Third Way and Beyond; Criticisms, Futures and Alternatives (Manchester: Manchester University Press): 64-82.
55. SHAOUL, Jean (2003), “A Financial Analysis of the National Air Traffic Services PPP,” Public Money and Management, 23/3: 185-194.
56. SIGMA (2008), Peer Assistance in Public Procurement and Consessions/PPPs: Turkey, Final Report (Paris).
57. TAN, Turgut (1992), “Kamu Hizmeti mtiyaz ndan ‘Yap- let-Devret’ Modeline,” AÜSBF Dergisi, 47-3-4: 307-325.
58. TAN, Turgut (1995), “ darede Yeni Ussall k Aray lar ve Hukuk,” Kamu Yönetimi Disiplini Sempozyumu, C.2 (Ankara: TODA E Yay nlar ): 175–183.
59. TÜS AD (1995), 21. Yüzy l çin Yeni Bir Devlet Modeline Do ru: Optimal Devlet ( stanbul).
60. UNISON (2003), Seven Reasons Why UNISON is Opposed to Foundation Trusts (London).
61. WHITEHOUSE, Lisa (2003), “Railtrack is Dead – Long Live Network Rail? Nationalization Under the Third Way,” Journal of Law and Society, 30/2: 217-235.